Racism - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is Racism a mark for a lack of education or intelligence?

Lack of Education
1
3%
Lack of Intelligence
2
6%
Both
10
29%
Neither
12
35%
Other
9
26%
User avatar
By Verv
#14999667
Pants-of-dog wrote:I also think it might be good for you to try to do so accurately.

For example, what do you mean that it is a litmus test for progressives (if that is what you mean by “liberals”)?


You subsequently had confirmed that it sort of is a litmus test. You do not want to be friends with or work with people who you think are racists, right? You'd also certainly never dream of voting for such a person. It colors your entire perspective of people, and you want everyone you know to be operating on this wavelength with you.

That's what I mean by it.

But yeah, sure, point out anything that you feel was inaccurate.



Okay, what are the motives for racism?

[...]

My ideological goals are to destroy capitalism, return all land to the colonised, and get rid of all hierarchical power structures.

Getting rid of racism helps unite the working class, is a fundamental part of decolonialism, and gets rid of a hierarchical power structure that was created as a way of maintaining and rationalising imperialism.

I highly doubt Washington and the rest of them care about any of that. They may want to to be seen as fighting racism for their own reasons, but that has nothing to do with the motives of me, or with the motives of people of colour.

More importantly, what should I understand about the motives of racist people that is so important?


(1) Some racism would be skin deep and superficial hatred of others based off of just not fully understanding them or their perspective, or a general fear of them. Some of this would really be what you guys say about it.

But the bulk of racism (and even elements of this) go deeper. For instance, it is completely rational to dislike the people you are competing with for scarce resources that your prosperity and even your life depend on. It is not unhealthy to dislike the man you have to chase off of your hunting grounds; it is not irrational to hate the man who you believe is stealing your cattle, and to thereby also despise the tribe he comes from -- for they are cattle thieves.

Some racism is based off of pattern recognition, some off of science, some off of historical rivalries... I don't know, it goes on.

There's also a massive difference between hating somebody and believing them less of a good choice of neighbors or a less good candidate for immigration.

The latter describes a whole lot of people you would just dismiss as racist, but I wouldn't call them that.

Too big of a question, really.

(2) Yeah, your end goals are patently unrealistic, while that of Hollywood & Washington & London are more about diminishing competing power structures and furthering their own interests in addition to destroying moral objections to what they are selling.

But... what you advocate is basically the same on the social front.
By Rich
#14999696
There are two great crimes in the West today. One is criticising Jews, the other is criticising Muslims. :lol: This of course creates great problems when talking about Palestine / Israel so you get:

1 People just trying to say how wonderful Jews are, getting accused of being Islamophobes and Anti Arab racists.

2 People just trying to say how wonderful Muslims are, getting accused of being anti Semitic.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14999706
:lol: :lol: :lol: Just so much bullshit, I can't stop laughing, @Rich. I can't tell if I am laughing at what you said, or at you for saying it.
By Pants-of-dog
#14999723
Verv wrote:You subsequently had confirmed that it sort of is a litmus test. You do not want to be friends with or work with people who you think are racists, right? You'd also certainly never dream of voting for such a person. It colors your entire perspective of people, and you want everyone you know to be operating on this wavelength with you.

That's what I mean by it.

But yeah, sure, point out anything that you feel was inaccurate.


This is a litmus test for who gets to hang out with me. Since hanging out with me provides no significant social benefits, and the lack thereof is not associated with drawbacks, why do you care? From a social or political point of view, this is completely unimportant.

And if you think I want to end racism just so that everyone can hang out with me, then your musing on motive is incorrect.

(1) Some racism would be skin deep and superficial hatred of others based off of just not fully understanding them or their perspective, or a general fear of them. Some of this would really be what you guys say about it.

But the bulk of racism (and even elements of this) go deeper. For instance, it is completely rational to dislike the people you are competing with for scarce resources that your prosperity and even your life depend on. It is not unhealthy to dislike the man you have to chase off of your hunting grounds; it is not irrational to hate the man who you believe is stealing your cattle, and to thereby also despise the tribe he comes from -- for they are cattle thieves.


And since none of this is applicable to modern western people, we would then be stuck with the racism that is based merely on lack of intelligence or understanding.

At best, this part of your post describes why indigenous people want settlers to stop being racist and deal with them respectfully (i.e. because we are currently living on their hunting grounds without permission) but it does not seem like a rational motive for racism.

Some racism is based off of pattern recognition, some off of science, some off of historical rivalries... I don't know, it goes on.

There's also a massive difference between hating somebody and believing them less of a good choice of neighbors or a less good candidate for immigration.

The latter describes a whole lot of people you would just dismiss as racist, but I wouldn't call them that.

Too big of a question, really.


Science? Can you give an example of how science supports racism?

(2) Yeah, your end goals are patently unrealistic, while that of Hollywood & Washington & London are more about diminishing competing power structures and furthering their own interests in addition to destroying moral objections to what they are selling.

But... what you advocate is basically the same on the social front.


We are discussing motive. The motives of some politicians to appear less racist have nothing to do with my motives.

And my motives have little to do with the motives of people of colour who just want to be treated like human beings.

You have yet to tell me what is so important that I should learn from racist people.
User avatar
By Suntzu
#14999728
Verv wrote:You subsequently had confirmed that it sort of is a litmus test. You do not want to be friends with or work with people who you think are racists, right? You'd also certainly never dream of voting for such a person. It colors your entire perspective of people, and you want everyone you know to be operating on this wavelength with you.

That's what I mean by it.

But yeah, sure, point out anything that you feel was inaccurate.





(1) Some racism would be skin deep and superficial hatred of others based off of just not fully understanding them or their perspective, or a general fear of them. Some of this would really be what you guys say about it.

But the bulk of racism (and even elements of this) go deeper. For instance, it is completely rational to dislike the people you are competing with for scarce resources that your prosperity and even your life depend on. It is not unhealthy to dislike the man you have to chase off of your hunting grounds; it is not irrational to hate the man who you believe is stealing your cattle, and to thereby also despise the tribe he comes from -- for they are cattle thieves.

Some racism is based off of pattern recognition, some off of science, some off of historical rivalries... I don't know, it goes on.

There's also a massive difference between hating somebody and believing them less of a good choice of neighbors or a less good candidate for immigration.

The latter describes a whole lot of people you would just dismiss as racist, but I wouldn't call them that.

Too big of a question, really.

(2) Yeah, your end goals are patently unrealistic, while that of Hollywood & Washington & London are more about diminishing competing power structures and furthering their own interests in addition to destroying moral objections to what they are selling.

But... what you advocate is basically the same on the social front.


Race is not skin deep.
User avatar
By Verv
#14999831
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a litmus test for who gets to hang out with me. Since hanging out with me provides no significant social benefits, and the lack thereof is not associated with drawbacks, why do you care? From a social or political point of view, this is completely unimportant.

And if you think I want to end racism just so that everyone can hang out with me, then your musing on motive is incorrect.


I don't actually care who POD hangs out with.

I care that people are fired regularly for the politics in their private life that they do not bring into the workplace, or for merely being associated with an "extremist" group like the Proud Boys (lol). I also care that the media and "journalists" are constantly at the disposal of the fringe left and that the West is turning into clown world.

And since none of this is applicable to modern western people, we would then be stuck with the racism that is based merely on lack of intelligence or understanding.

At best, this part of your post describes why indigenous people want settlers to stop being racist and deal with them respectfully (i.e. because we are currently living on their hunting grounds without permission) but it does not seem like a rational motive for racism.


I do not really see any substance here.

The studies in genetics and IQ, genes and criminality, etc., are all extremely relevant and pushing a very interesting narrative that no one wants to really touch with a ten foot pole. There's armies of intellectuals trying to spin the narrative and the facts because they are zealots and humanism has been the standard religion of academics for a century now.

I am not surrpsied at all that you would pretend like none of this is happening.

Science? Can you give an example of how science supports racism?


Just for some preliminary reading, I would check out some articles on the heritability of intelligence, IQ differences between groups, the size of birth canals and craniums between different races, and stuff like Kenyan children failing mirror tests.

Of course, you can also read about how this is not even just cognitive.

This is from an article that explains the Kenyan dominance in long distance running:

When it comes to Kenyans, a small tribe in Kenya explain the success of—the Kalenjin, most specifically, the Nandi sub-tribe and a complex interaction of genotype, phenotype, and socioeconomic factors explain their success (Tucker, Onywera, and Santos-Concejero, 2015). The Kalenjin account for a whopping 84% of Kenya’s Olympic and world championship medals, 79 percent of Kenya’ top 25 marathon performances, contributing to 34%. Kenyans have won 152 medals, compared with 145 with other African countries—42-61% being Ethiopian—while the rest of the world combined won 153 medals. The Nandi sub-tribe has won 72 medals, accounting for 47& of the total for Kenya. What accounts for the insane disparity between East African marathoners (specifically Kalenjin, and a more specific sub-tribe at that) and the rest?

In his book The Genius in All of Us, David Shenk (2010: 102) writes:

Take the running Kenyans. Relatively new to the international competitions, Kenyans have in recent years become overwhelmingly dominant in middle- and long-distance races. “It’s pointless for me to run on the pro-circuit,” complained American 10,000 meter champion Mike Mykytok to the New York Times in 1998. “With all of the Kenyans, I could set a personal best time, and still only place 12th and win $200.”

The Kenyan-born journalist John Manners describes a just-so story to explain how and why Kenyans dominate these competitions: The best young men who were the fastest and had more endurance acquired more cattle, and those who acquired more cattle could then get a bride and have more children, Shenk explains. “It is not hard to imagine that such a reproductive advantage might cause a significant shift in a group’s genetic makeup over the course of a few centuries” (John Manners, quoted in Shenk, 2010: 103).


Here

You can basically see how our heritage affects our physical capacities clearly, and this plays out daily in professional athletics around the world.

It also affects our mental life, and this plays out daily in crime reports, academia, and office spaces, but it is less easy to report about and it makes people uncomfortable.

But we are all human and beautiful.
By Pants-of-dog
#14999837
Verv wrote:I don't actually care who POD hangs out with.


Well, that is the level at which this “litmus test” works.

I care that people are fired regularly for the politics in their private life that they do not bring into the workplace, or for merely being associated with an "extremist" group like the Proud Boys (lol).


This is a new argument.

I will assume you concede the fact that thus litmus test that has you so worried is insignificant when ti comes to society.

As for your claim that people should not be fired for being racist, that seems like a bit much. Are you claiming that racist people should be allowed to say racist things and should then be protected from the consequences of such actions? Are you saying employers should be forced to hire (or keep employing) racist people even if it gives the company a bad image?

I also care that the media and "journalists" are constantly at the disposal of the fringe left and that the West is turning into clown world.


This seems like a conspiracy theiry about the media.

I do not really see any substance here.

The studies in genetics and IQ, genes and criminality, etc., are all extremely relevant and pushing a very interesting narrative that no one wants to really touch with a ten foot pole. There's armies of intellectuals trying to spin the narrative and the facts because they are zealots and humanism has been the standard religion of academics for a century now.

I am not surrpsied at all that you would pretend like none of this is happening.


As far as I can tell, you are now changing the subject yet again.

How is any of this a rational motive for racism?

Are you claiming that all the pseudo scientific racist claims about intelligence are actually rational?

Just for some preliminary reading, I would check out some articles on the heritability of intelligence, IQ differences between groups, the size of birth canals and craniums between different races, and stuff like Kenyan children failing mirror tests.

Of course, you can also read about how this is not even just cognitive.


You should probably read them too, especially if you think they are real science, which they are not. Read them critically, please, as I have.

For example, the study you just cited does not claim that Kenyan kids are dumber than western kids, despite your apparent belief that it does say that.

This is from an article that explains the Kenyan dominance in long distance running:



Here

You can basically see how our heritage affects our physical capacities clearly, and this plays out daily in professional athletics around the world.


Let me know when you have actual studies and not just so stories.

It also affects our mental life, and this plays out daily in crime reports, academia, and office spaces, but it is less easy to report about and it makes people uncomfortable.

But we are all human and beautiful.


Please give an example of science supporting racism. These do not.
By Hindsite
#14999857
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please give an example of science supporting racism. These do not.

The theory of evolution was used to support racism. However, real science does not, to my knowledge.
Praise the Lord.
User avatar
By Verv
#14999871
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a new argument.


As new arguments tend to spring up in the course of discussion, I guess...

I will assume you concede the fact that thus litmus test that has you so worried is insignificant when ti comes to society.

As for your claim that people should not be fired for being racist, that seems like a bit much. Are you claiming that racist people should be allowed to say racist things and should then be protected from the consequences of such actions? Are you saying employers should be forced to hire (or keep employing) racist people even if it gives the company a bad image?


Would you say that gay people should be allowed to advocate for homosexuality in their political lifeand should face zero repercussions from conservative bosses? I imagine so.

So I would support the idea that everyone gets to have a private life, and even a fairly public political life, in which they are protected from being discriminated against for unpopular opinions that they may hold.

As far as I can tell, you are now changing the subject yet again.


You'll have to forgive me -- I post lucidly and fluidly, and do not think of some fixed subject when I post.

How is any of this a rational motive for racism?

Are you claiming that all the pseudo scientific racist claims about intelligence are actually rational?


Yes, obviously.

I am not saying that I agree with all of them, but I understand their internal logic and I can see why people believe them.

That is really the measure of what rationality is -- if something has sound enough internal logic and the conclusions generally follow from the premises, we have to accept it as rational, even if we disagree with it.

You should probably read them too, especially if you think they are real science, which they are not. Read them critically, please, as I have.

For example, the study you just cited does not claim that Kenyan kids are dumber than western kids, despite your apparent belief that it does say that.



Let me know when you have actual studies and not just so stories.



Please give an example of science supporting racism. These do not.


I've found the exact moment that you want me to Water Balloon.

By this, of course, I mean that you want the thread to start filling up & up & up with an endless stream of effort posts from myself while you provide only "Oh really? That odesn't prove anything," type responses and do not really provide further acknowledgment of any of the content I post.

For instance, you also obviously know that the only potential explanation for the lack of Kenyan kids doing that isn't just cultural, but is also developmental, and you understand how all of these arguments would snap in & connect to one another.

You've ignored content about athletics and genes as well, for example.

But none of this is relevant to you -- and instead, you have provided a bunch of vague non-responses that just challenge me to post more and to waste my time.

No, this conversation doesn't consist of me water ballooning for 10 days and you ignoring the bulk of what I say because you claim it isn't substantial and nothing more.

I'm only going to interact with you when there is relevant content and not just simple dismissals with zero reading in. It's a waste of my time.
By Pants-of-dog
#14999882
Verv wrote:As new arguments tend to spring up in the course of discussion, I guess...


No, you just abandoned your old ones.

Your point was that we should try and understand the other side.

As far as I can tell, you have made no effort to understand why people want to end racism.

Please try.

Please give me a rational motive that you think others have for ending racism. Thanks.

Would you say that gay people should be allowed to advocate for homosexuality in their political lifeand should face zero repercussions from conservative bosses? I imagine so.

So I would support the idea that everyone gets to have a private life, and even a fairly public political life, in which they are protected from being discriminated against for unpopular opinions that they may hold.


Yes, I believe people should be able to express themselves without repercussions if their expressions do not harm others.

You seem to think that people should be able to express their wish to harm others and take away the rights of others, and force everyone else to shut up and not protest.

And you seem to think the two situations are the same.

Are you claiming that racist people should be allowed to say racist things and should then be protected from the consequences of such actions? Yes or no?

Are you saying employers should be forced to hire (or keep employing) racist people even if it gives the company a bad image? Yes or no?

You'll have to forgive me -- I post lucidly and fluidly, and do not think of some fixed subject when I post.


If you consistently forget your original argument, then you are not posting lucidly.

Here you abandoned your original argument that people of colour will stealing the livelihoods of white people, and that this is a rational motive for racism.

And then you picked the race IQ debate out of thin air and decided to go with that.

I will assume you can no longer support your argument about how people of colour are stealing livelihoods.

I suggest focusing on a fixed subject when you post. You would lose less arguments this way.

Yes, obviously.


The trouble with the whole race IQ argument is that you are unable to provide evidence to support the notion that race is actually a biological construct that can be shown to exist with genetics.

You will never provide this evidence because it does not exist.

I am not saying that I agree with all of them, but I understand their internal logic and I can see why people believe them.

That is really the measure of what rationality is -- if something has sound enough internal logic and the conclusions generally follow from the premises, we have to accept it as rational, even if we disagree with it.


What if the premises are wrong? Do we heed to accept the conclusion then? Is the argument still rational if the premises are incorrect?

I've found the exact moment that you want me to Water Balloon.

By this, of course, I mean that you want the thread to start filling up & up & up with an endless stream of effort posts from myself while you provide only "Oh really? That odesn't prove anything," type responses and do not really provide further acknowledgment of any of the content I post.

For instance, you also obviously know that the only potential explanation for the lack of Kenyan kids doing that isn't just cultural, but is also developmental, and you understand how all of these arguments would snap in & connect to one another.


You did not work and did not provide a solid argument.

You googled for something that you thought would support racism.

You did not read the study, or analyse your own idea in terms of what the study said.

You did not even quote the study.

I read it, and I saw that it was a critique of the mirror test as an objective analysis of self awareness, and it provided evidence that the test was more culturally specific than previously imagined.

If you think the study supports the idea that black kids are stupider, please quote the text that supports your claim.

You've ignored content about athletics and genes as well, for example.


Yes, because the issue we are discussing is racism.

Black is a race.

Kenyan is not a race, nor is “the Nandi subtribe of the Kalenjin” a race.

And just so stories are known to be scientifically inaccurate. And the Kenyan track story is exactly that. Even the author deacribes it as one. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story
User avatar
By Verv
#14999966
I don't actually have a lot of time to go point by point, and I think that I end up wasting a lot of time water-ballooning & waffling with you while you micropost when I do so, POD, but in the interest of fairness, let me try to address some of these things:

I. Free speech & Free association

Our country seems to have stated that we do not have a right to free association, and has created special classes. It would make sense to me that if special classes that can't be discriminated against exist, that anyone who was also otherwise exercising their human rights would be protected from being fired from an employer that operates in the public sphere. So, yes, if we can't allow someone to be fired for discrimination against their race, gender, or orientation or religion, it'd make sense that they wouldn't be allowed to be fired for exercising their human rights in some other way. I think it would be inconsistent for us to not have it that way.

Race does exist in the same way that music exists. By a general consensus.

You stated that:

The trouble with the whole race IQ argument is that you are unable to provide evidence to support the notion that race is actually a biological construct that can be shown to exist with genetics.


But this is just a problem of people not agreeing to the defined parameters and the fact that there's nothing in the natural world that says "black," or "white," or "smart," or "dumb."

We say that a huskie is big. Compared to other dogs, it is big. Compared to whales, it is very small. Compared even to humans, it is smaller. You can cut the cake in a variety of ways as to whether a huskie is big or not...

Likewise, we can define music in a lot of different ways, and we can come up with different ways to classify & divide music. Even fanatical metal enthusiasts would not agree on how certain bands should be classified into subgenres.

So, sure, "race" is, to some degree, a social construct. But to be completely objective, if we had 100 people who had all 4 of their grandparents be of ethnicites originating in sub-saharan Africa, 100 people like such with European grandparents, and 100 people with east Asian grandparents, we would be able to tell exactly who is white, black, and Asian with no issues. Moreover, we would be able to make general observations on their appearance that are very consistent.

What we would conclude from this would not be a "social construct" in a strict sense of the word because it'd be the most natural way to divide people up if we were treating them as physical beings.

III. Trends

Given 100 men who are 20 years old that are European, Asian, and Sub-saharan African, we can imagine that there would be different average performances in athletics.

Indeed, professional sports & the Olympics show trends -- how many Asian people are on the list of fastest 100 m dash times, for instance? Like, 1? How many European descent people? Like, 10? How many sub-saharan African descent people? Pretty much the remainder. The numbers are right out there.

Then I would ask... if there are physiological differences that correlate in professional sports, why wouldn't there also be other differences in temperament or cognitive ability that could be a trend in the different groups?

It'd be a logical belief.

And you can take from that what you would want to take from that. There are plenty of people who believe this and do not make it out as a very rude or horrible thing.

IV. Think outside the box.

What is the least popular thing in the Western world, as far as ideologies go? What's the biggest thought crime? Racism, and then sexism, and then perhaps Islamism or something, right?

So,

You did not work and did not provide a solid argument.

You googled for something that you thought would support racism.

You did not read the study, or analyse your own idea in terms of what the study said.

You did not even quote the study.


I pointed out a study which showed that a disproportionate amount of Kenyan kids cannot recognize themselves in a mirror before a certain age, while others can do so. The reason could be cultural, but it is not unreasonable to believe it has to do with cognitive development.

Of course, no academic would ever take such an angle. People get fired & destroyed for less. It's up to anonymous people or brave people to talk about these things from the angles that society will not allow for it to be talked about.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15000041
Bullshit photoshopped signs, and the Ginger was probably putting those signs up. :lol:
User avatar
By Zionist Nationalist
#15000042
Godstud wrote:Bullshit photoshopped signs, and the Ginger was probably putting those signs up. :lol:


its all real
but whatever keep bury your head in the sand
one day it will all blow up in your face
User avatar
By Godstud
#15000043
Sorry, I am not some delusional Islamophobe, so your fear-mongering and hate speech will not affect me. You are worse than what you fear.
User avatar
By Zionist Nationalist
#15000044
Godstud wrote:Sorry, I am not some delusional Islamophobe, so your fear-mongering and hate speech will not affect me. You are worse than what you fear.


You have no idea who are those people and what they are capable of
unlike you I know them from uplcose
you live in a nice life in Thailand good for you but you have no idea whats going on in Europe and you have no idea about the incoming demographics change that will change the world for the worse (worse for you because you are a white male)
but I understand why you so ignorant and careless because you probably going to be dead when this shit starts being serious
By Pants-of-dog
#15000083
Verv wrote:I. Free speech & Free association

Our country seems to have stated that we do not have a right to free association, and has created special classes. It would make sense to me that if special classes that can't be discriminated against exist, that anyone who was also otherwise exercising their human rights would be protected from being fired from an employer that operates in the public sphere. So, yes, if we can't allow someone to be fired for discrimination against their race, gender, or orientation or religion, it'd make sense that they wouldn't be allowed to be fired for exercising their human rights in some other way. I think it would be inconsistent for us to not have it that way.


Yes, you made this same argument in another thread.

You are deliberately ignoring history so that you can falsely claim that avowed bigots deserve the same protections as people who are actually targeted by bigotry and discrimination.

This not only ignores the historical reality if oppression, but also ignores the basic tenets of liberal democracy. And since YOUR (not our) country is a liberal democracy, then people who openly advocate for ideologies that go against the basic tenets of liberal democracy should not be treated as those who are consistent with these basic tenets.

Race does exist in the same way that music exists. By a general consensus.

You stated that:

But this is just a problem of people not agreeing to the defined parameters and the fact that there's nothing in the natural world that says "black," or "white," or "smart," or "dumb."

We say that a huskie is big. Compared to other dogs, it is big. Compared to whales, it is very small. Compared even to humans, it is smaller. You can cut the cake in a variety of ways as to whether a huskie is big or not...

Likewise, we can define music in a lot of different ways, and we can come up with different ways to classify & divide music. Even fanatical metal enthusiasts would not agree on how certain bands should be classified into subgenres.

So, sure, "race" is, to some degree, a social construct. But to be completely objective, if we had 100 people who had all 4 of their grandparents be of ethnicites originating in sub-saharan Africa, 100 people like such with European grandparents, and 100 people with east Asian grandparents, we would be able to tell exactly who is white, black, and Asian with no issues. Moreover, we would be able to make general observations on their appearance that are very consistent.

What we would conclude from this would not be a "social construct" in a strict sense of the word because it'd be the most natural way to divide people up if we were treating them as physical beings.


Yes, race is a social construct even if we can tell blacks, whites, and Asians apart.

This is because there are a few genes associated with skin colour that make clear differences in phenotypes.

This does not mean that race is a an actual thing when looking at biology.

III. Trends

Given 100 men who are 20 years old that are European, Asian, and Sub-saharan African, we can imagine that there would be different average performances in athletics.

Indeed, professional sports & the Olympics show trends -- how many Asian people are on the list of fastest 100 m dash times, for instance? Like, 1? How many European descent people? Like, 10? How many sub-saharan African descent people? Pretty much the remainder. The numbers are right out there.

Then I would ask... if there are physiological differences that correlate in professional sports, why wouldn't there also be other differences in temperament or cognitive ability that could be a trend in the different groups?

It'd be a logical belief.

And you can take from that what you would want to take from that. There are plenty of people who believe this and do not make it out as a very rude or horrible thing.


Feel free to show that there are important differences in athletics between the races.

Your last try to do so failed because it showed that athletic prowess in a certain field was actually quite diverse among a single racial group and was specific to a certain subtribe only.

IV. Think outside the box.

What is the least popular thing in the Western world, as far as ideologies go? What's the biggest thought crime? Racism, and then sexism, and then perhaps Islamism or something, right?

So,



I pointed out a study which showed that a disproportionate amount of Kenyan kids cannot recognize themselves in a mirror before a certain age, while others can do so. The reason could be cultural, but it is not unreasonable to believe it has to do with cognitive development.

Of course, no academic would ever take such an angle. People get fired & destroyed for less. It's up to anonymous people or brave people to talk about these things from the angles that society will not allow for it to be talked about.


If you want to believe in a conspiracy theory in order to ignore the actual science of the study and instead believe in your racist spin, go ahead.

But it just makes your argument weaker, since now you have to prove a conspiracy theory is true.
User avatar
By noemon
#15000085
Suntzu wrote:Why would anyone in England hate Muslims? :roll:

Image


Are you saying the beating the guy received was justified because of some wacko criminal who may or may not have been Muslim? And if so does that mean you accept getting beat up yourself since you are clearly willing to justify such actions then that means that you consider such actions fair game if say your justification leads to Muslims getting beat up then by your own logic those Muslims, their families, friends and co-religionists would be justified to beat the shit out you for having caused it, yes, no, not sure?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

@The trigger A great many anti-gun people know v[…]

Atheism is Evil

I am reading the text that you write. How am I not[…]

You do see how the two examples of oppression are[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Now the Democrats are calling this declassifying […]