http://tigron-x.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
tigron-x.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2017-02-09 11:52 am
tigron-x.livejournal.com) wrote in politicartoons2017-02-09 11:52 am
Entry tags:
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Look deeper into Milo's "discourse" and you probably won't like what you find. He uses untrue stereotypes of minorities and LGBT folk (yes he's all gay and shit but that obviously doesn't excuse it) to make mean-spirited jokes about "tolerance" gone amok, and sell his message, which is summarized in two points:
1. The leftist whites ("cucks"), and their multi-ethnic friends, are out to exterminate whites in "race war".
2. The leftists are policing language in an attempt to silence the white people who are opposed to this "race war".
These things are not only grossly untrue, they are inflammatory. They are a deliberate twisting of American ideals into a victimization, to foment a race war. The people protesting him know what he's up to and are appalled by it.
Ask yourself why the protests of him always happen in the most ethnically diverse regions of the country. Do you think the people living there know less about race relations than people living in more homogenous areas? They are up his ass for a reason. It might be worth figuring out what that reason is.
And about violence - I've tried to make the distinction between the people holding the signs, who were peaceably gathered at UC Berkeley for hours, and the smaller group that showed up later intent on violence. If you are unwilling to make that distinction, that's a shame. Those people are all one big pile of "leftists" to you, is that it?
Well if you want to lump them together, then I think it's fair to lump the "right" in with the guy who shot up a mosque in Canada a couple weeks ago. The left ain't got nothin' on the violence perpetrated by the right. We could also walk that right back through the civil war if you like.
I think it's better to make the distinction.
1. The leftist whites ("cucks"), and their multi-ethnic friends, are out to exterminate whites in "race war".
2. The leftists are policing language in an attempt to silence the white people who are opposed to this "race war".
These things are not only grossly untrue, they are inflammatory. They are a deliberate twisting of American ideals into a victimization, to foment a race war. The people protesting him know what he's up to and are appalled by it.
Ask yourself why the protests of him always happen in the most ethnically diverse regions of the country. Do you think the people living there know less about race relations than people living in more homogenous areas? They are up his ass for a reason. It might be worth figuring out what that reason is.
And about violence - I've tried to make the distinction between the people holding the signs, who were peaceably gathered at UC Berkeley for hours, and the smaller group that showed up later intent on violence. If you are unwilling to make that distinction, that's a shame. Those people are all one big pile of "leftists" to you, is that it?
Well if you want to lump them together, then I think it's fair to lump the "right" in with the guy who shot up a mosque in Canada a couple weeks ago. The left ain't got nothin' on the violence perpetrated by the right. We could also walk that right back through the civil war if you like.
I think it's better to make the distinction.
It's impressive, how deep this rabbit hole is.
I was expecting most of the backlash to be "look, it's wrong to call all Republicans or Trump supporters racists".
Instead the backlash is, "yeah we're racists, but we have to be, to WIN THE WAR!!!!!!!"
I mean ... what the fuck??!
I was expecting most of the backlash to be "look, it's wrong to call all Republicans or Trump supporters racists".
Instead the backlash is, "yeah we're racists, but we have to be, to WIN THE WAR!!!!!!!"
I mean ... what the fuck??!
The scientific community does not "suppress" results. That's not how the scientific community functions. But it does tend to ignore things that scientists, as a group, consider to be stupid.
"No one is implying that those traits cause differences in intelligence, capability, etc." ...
BULLSHIT.
That linkfest you presented as evidence above is rampant with that "implication".
Take one example:
One entry is titled, "Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households." The IMPLICATION is that black children are just plain dumber, independent of environment. If you follow the link to the study on that very item, you'll observe that the study DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT. And that's clear just from the abstract!!
You want to argue correlation versus causation, with race and behavior? There isn't even correlation. Especially when the definition of the races is fluid among different groups.
Come on. That tar-pit of links is beneath you.
"No one is implying that those traits cause differences in intelligence, capability, etc." ...
BULLSHIT.
That linkfest you presented as evidence above is rampant with that "implication".
Take one example:
One entry is titled, "Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households." The IMPLICATION is that black children are just plain dumber, independent of environment. If you follow the link to the study on that very item, you'll observe that the study DOES NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT. And that's clear just from the abstract!!
You want to argue correlation versus causation, with race and behavior? There isn't even correlation. Especially when the definition of the races is fluid among different groups.
Come on. That tar-pit of links is beneath you.
P.S. This is my ex-wife.
Does she look like a Jew to you? Because she's a jew. And not in some I-picked-it-up-in-college way either. She's from a big ol' Jew family spreading from New York to Florida. Both her parents were Jewish, and all her grandparents were Jewish.
Go ahead and tell me what "features are being referenced" to identify her as Jewish, and not, say, a Roman Catholic from Scotland. :D
Does she look like a Jew to you? Because she's a jew. And not in some I-picked-it-up-in-college way either. She's from a big ol' Jew family spreading from New York to Florida. Both her parents were Jewish, and all her grandparents were Jewish.
Go ahead and tell me what "features are being referenced" to identify her as Jewish, and not, say, a Roman Catholic from Scotland. :D
Here's some background on the term "sundown town". I was not familiar with it either.
Peristaltor's basically saying that if we judge that law based on its effect, then the law is probably a racist one, because there is a power imbalance. The power imbalance is like that in a "sundown town": The majority-race locals form an agreement that they will deny services to whatever races they dislike - including jobs, goods, property, access to education - whether by passing laws or just by intimidation and violence, so that people of those races cannot put down any roots and stay in the area, thus preserving the integrity or purity of their race.
Needless to say it doesn't square with this nation's history of welcoming immigrants of whatever ethnicity, putting them to work, and doing business with them, to enhance the dignity and fortunes of everyone involved...
Peristaltor's basically saying that if we judge that law based on its effect, then the law is probably a racist one, because there is a power imbalance. The power imbalance is like that in a "sundown town": The majority-race locals form an agreement that they will deny services to whatever races they dislike - including jobs, goods, property, access to education - whether by passing laws or just by intimidation and violence, so that people of those races cannot put down any roots and stay in the area, thus preserving the integrity or purity of their race.
Needless to say it doesn't square with this nation's history of welcoming immigrants of whatever ethnicity, putting them to work, and doing business with them, to enhance the dignity and fortunes of everyone involved...
No, the suppression by and large is in that people are shunned for presenting unfavorable suppositions. In turn, those suppositions cannot be explored because people fear they'll be made out to be, in this particular case, racists.
You clearly don't understand what "casual" means then. How much melanin your body produces doesn't affect your intelligence and no one has claimed otherwise. If you think people are claiming that or that list claims that, then you're putting words in people's mouth.
"That tar pit of links is beneath you." This is the exact mentality I'm talking about. Suppositions about the various races are shunned.
You don't like the science you're reading because you have an ideological bias that dictates what you're allowed to say.
There are IQ differences among the races. If you have trouble accepting that, then it's because you've put ideology before science.
You clearly don't understand what "casual" means then. How much melanin your body produces doesn't affect your intelligence and no one has claimed otherwise. If you think people are claiming that or that list claims that, then you're putting words in people's mouth.
"That tar pit of links is beneath you." This is the exact mentality I'm talking about. Suppositions about the various races are shunned.
You don't like the science you're reading because you have an ideological bias that dictates what you're allowed to say.
There are IQ differences among the races. If you have trouble accepting that, then it's because you've put ideology before science.
The problem is with your question is you're demanding an absolute in order to accept races -- which is a trick because you're imposing an impossibility. To put it analogously: What is the exact point you go from green to blue? What we identify as blue is actually a spectrum. When you get to the edges of that spectrum, color identification becomes more difficult.
That difficulty doesn't make people turn around and hold colors don't exist.
So, yes, where people have mixed, the typical aesthetic identifiers we use become fuzzy. So what? That doesn't negate races.
Obama for example is half white and half black. But, because of his features, he's considered black. By and large he identifies as a black person as well. And, this isn't coincidence. He can't go around claiming he's a white guy because of those features. No one would buy it.
Hell, look at Talcom X. No one really buys that he's a black guy. But, he does a damn good job of mimicking certain aesthetics.
So, the overall point is that when people say, "Race is just social construct," they're implying that race is a figment of people's imagination. And, that's just not true.
You can't accept tribalism without acknowledging that there are systems in place that serve to identify friend from foe. We developed adaptations to do this sort of identification because we are social creatures, and it is an imperative to be able to distinguish our kin from other entities. We have all kinds of adaptations like this, for example the whites around your eyes are there so that your pack can see where you're looking. Just because this system that allows us to make these identifications can be tricked that doesn't mean that ones tribe is merely a concept.
One's race is empirically verifiable. That doesn't mean you're not going to have cases where it's fuzzy to do so.
That difficulty doesn't make people turn around and hold colors don't exist.
So, yes, where people have mixed, the typical aesthetic identifiers we use become fuzzy. So what? That doesn't negate races.
Obama for example is half white and half black. But, because of his features, he's considered black. By and large he identifies as a black person as well. And, this isn't coincidence. He can't go around claiming he's a white guy because of those features. No one would buy it.
Hell, look at Talcom X. No one really buys that he's a black guy. But, he does a damn good job of mimicking certain aesthetics.
So, the overall point is that when people say, "Race is just social construct," they're implying that race is a figment of people's imagination. And, that's just not true.
You can't accept tribalism without acknowledging that there are systems in place that serve to identify friend from foe. We developed adaptations to do this sort of identification because we are social creatures, and it is an imperative to be able to distinguish our kin from other entities. We have all kinds of adaptations like this, for example the whites around your eyes are there so that your pack can see where you're looking. Just because this system that allows us to make these identifications can be tricked that doesn't mean that ones tribe is merely a concept.
One's race is empirically verifiable. That doesn't mean you're not going to have cases where it's fuzzy to do so.
There is nothing wrong with people wanting to be ethnocentric.
There was never a national policy that we should be mixing. That never happened. The US isn't a melting pot even though there are so many distinct groups in proximity of one another. People behaved ethnocentrically even then. The only difference now is that this sort of tribalism is being vilified.
There was never a national policy that we should be mixing. That never happened. The US isn't a melting pot even though there are so many distinct groups in proximity of one another. People behaved ethnocentrically even then. The only difference now is that this sort of tribalism is being vilified.
Various people on the left are white. And, they're traitors to their own people. Albeit, in their defense, they're a bit oblivious to it because we (i.e. white people) have been conditioned to ignore race. Everyone else, however, is actively promoting their racial group and are cheered on for doing so.
The non-whites trying to establish themselves as the majority is completely understandable.
When every group is striving to not be the minority in the lands, why the hell is it wrong for white people to do the same? And, that's why the whole "power dynamic" stuff is complete horseshit.
This isn't just happening in the US. This is happening in every white country. Any white person that argues in favor of becoming a minority in their own lands is at worse an idiot and at best naive. Same goes for anyone that tries to argue that we (white people) are racist for not accepting this outcome.
And this is all being done in the name of equality. Fuck that snake oil.
Many people on the left have drank this koolaid and are oblivious to the consequences of their actions. So, asking me what their intent is, is meaningless given the outcome. In other words, the consequences of one's actions aren't always inline with one's intent. Hence the adage, "The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions."
At face value, the sentiment of the lefties appears to be good, and that's why they assume they're righteous in their action, and they think they're fighting the good fight. But, good for whom?
Certainly not white people.
The non-whites trying to establish themselves as the majority is completely understandable.
When every group is striving to not be the minority in the lands, why the hell is it wrong for white people to do the same? And, that's why the whole "power dynamic" stuff is complete horseshit.
This isn't just happening in the US. This is happening in every white country. Any white person that argues in favor of becoming a minority in their own lands is at worse an idiot and at best naive. Same goes for anyone that tries to argue that we (white people) are racist for not accepting this outcome.
And this is all being done in the name of equality. Fuck that snake oil.
Many people on the left have drank this koolaid and are oblivious to the consequences of their actions. So, asking me what their intent is, is meaningless given the outcome. In other words, the consequences of one's actions aren't always inline with one's intent. Hence the adage, "The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions."
At face value, the sentiment of the lefties appears to be good, and that's why they assume they're righteous in their action, and they think they're fighting the good fight. But, good for whom?
Certainly not white people.
Needless to say it doesn't square with this nation's history of welcoming immigrants of whatever ethnicity, putting them to work, and doing business with them, to enhance the dignity and fortunes of everyone involved...
Your ellipsis shows the sarcasm! Well done!
Just saying, the ownership codicils in our own neighborhood noted that we could not sell to various ethnic groups or have them in the house after dark unless they were live-in domestic help. And The Wife™ and I live in Seattle, about as lefty as cities come. And our neighborhood was hardly unique. People wouldn't buy in neighborhoods that didn't have such restrictions (well, white people, and the right kind of white at that).
Your ellipsis shows the sarcasm! Well done!
Just saying, the ownership codicils in our own neighborhood noted that we could not sell to various ethnic groups or have them in the house after dark unless they were live-in domestic help. And The Wife™ and I live in Seattle, about as lefty as cities come. And our neighborhood was hardly unique. People wouldn't buy in neighborhoods that didn't have such restrictions (well, white people, and the right kind of white at that).
I haven't called that homogenization. What I called homogenization is forced integration.
What that has to do with the quality of one's character, I don't know. But, those are 2 different points, and I'm not going to mix them. And, for what it's worth: Yes, individuals should be judged by the choices/behavior of the individual. That doesn't invalidate group generalizations.
What that has to do with the quality of one's character, I don't know. But, those are 2 different points, and I'm not going to mix them. And, for what it's worth: Yes, individuals should be judged by the choices/behavior of the individual. That doesn't invalidate group generalizations.
Edited 2017-02-11 23:27 (UTC)
I don't know why no one points this shit out, but here goes. Look at the source of your cartoon, the Americans for Limited Government (https://getliberty.org/) organization. This is so obviously a propaganda outlet it just screams for further research.
Sure enough, it's web work is handled by The Mace Group, an outfit started by Nancy Mace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Mace), author and failed US House candidate. A list (http://macegroupllc.com/) of other web sites handled by the Mace Group lists lots of GOP congress critters and, like the Americans for Limited Gov, other propaganda sites. Which is weird, since the Mace web site says The Mace Group does PR work for "clients in a variety of industries." "Variety" means hard-right congressional candidates and propaganda outfits? Interesting.
This shows me that a shit-ton of money is flowing to these people from one of the very rich sponsors, perhaps even one listed in Jane Mayer's "Dark Money." These billionaires and the multi-millionaires who support them flood the media with cash in order to change laws into laws (or the absence of law) that will make them more money. Well-known names such as Betsy DeVos are part of this funding apparatus. Oh, and you should be hearing a bunch about Rebeka Mercer soon! Her dad's father might have been instrumental (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win) in getting Trump elected!
Bottom line, these groups and about a gazillion others have been pushing the buttons of folks like white nationalists, the hyper-religious, gun groupies, and several others for one simple reason: they are values voters, people who will use their personal values ahead of their economic well-being as a voting litmus test. Take evangelical voters: According to Gallup, "an evangelical voter with $50,000 in annual income is as likely to be a Republican as a nonevangelical voter with $100,000 in annual income." (Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, Simon & Schuster, 2010, p. 149.)
That is amazingly important, since, according to researcher Larry Bartels, US lawmakers currently vote the issues important to people earning in the top third of the income distribution (Ibid, p. 110). Worse, this means they vote against issues of the bottom two thirds. Meaning values voters are actively voting against their own financial and legal interests by pursuing the rhetorical candy of white nationalists, anti-abortion absolutists, 2nd Amendment fanatics, etc.
These people (like our Tigger-on X) are getting played, and its evidently working. Against them.
Sure enough, it's web work is handled by The Mace Group, an outfit started by Nancy Mace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Mace), author and failed US House candidate. A list (http://macegroupllc.com/) of other web sites handled by the Mace Group lists lots of GOP congress critters and, like the Americans for Limited Gov, other propaganda sites. Which is weird, since the Mace web site says The Mace Group does PR work for "clients in a variety of industries." "Variety" means hard-right congressional candidates and propaganda outfits? Interesting.
This shows me that a shit-ton of money is flowing to these people from one of the very rich sponsors, perhaps even one listed in Jane Mayer's "Dark Money." These billionaires and the multi-millionaires who support them flood the media with cash in order to change laws into laws (or the absence of law) that will make them more money. Well-known names such as Betsy DeVos are part of this funding apparatus. Oh, and you should be hearing a bunch about Rebeka Mercer soon! Her dad's father might have been instrumental (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win) in getting Trump elected!
Bottom line, these groups and about a gazillion others have been pushing the buttons of folks like white nationalists, the hyper-religious, gun groupies, and several others for one simple reason: they are values voters, people who will use their personal values ahead of their economic well-being as a voting litmus test. Take evangelical voters: According to Gallup, "an evangelical voter with $50,000 in annual income is as likely to be a Republican as a nonevangelical voter with $100,000 in annual income." (Jacob S. Hacker & Paul Pierson, Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, Simon & Schuster, 2010, p. 149.)
That is amazingly important, since, according to researcher Larry Bartels, US lawmakers currently vote the issues important to people earning in the top third of the income distribution (Ibid, p. 110). Worse, this means they vote against issues of the bottom two thirds. Meaning values voters are actively voting against their own financial and legal interests by pursuing the rhetorical candy of white nationalists, anti-abortion absolutists, 2nd Amendment fanatics, etc.
These people (like our Tigger-on X) are getting played, and its evidently working. Against them.
"Well, without slavery "we wouldn't be here today". Without death camps, massive pollution, and really terrible pop music, "we wouldn't be here today". That's not a justification for anything."
The onus is on you to justify your moral argument. You presented an ought. I presented an is. And, now you're straw manning that is. So let me clarify: We have adaptations that affect our behavior. Without those adaptations we wouldn't be where we are today. They're operating automatically within us. So, will power can only take you so far. So, my point was that we have these drivers within us and overriding them is easier said than actually done. Or better said, you're assuming it can even be done. More so, these drivers (not just tribalism) aren't distributed equally to everyone or group. In other words, my genetic pool is going to have different sensitivity in genetic expression than another genetic pool. For example, Ashkenazi Jews have higher verbal IQs than every other genetic pool. That is an advantage they have.
But back to tribalism. My point was that tribalism is an innate quality that isn't taught. It's part of our genetic programming. And, your point is that we ought to suppress this drive. And, you present this because you have a preference for a moral argument called multiculturalism -- which does not coincide with our innate drive. Tribalism in and of itself is not a moral argument.
So the question is why ought I adopt your preference? And here is the kicker in today's discourse: Those that do not share/adopt this preference are in turn ostracized by calling them racists. But, none of that condemnation actually establishes the merits of this moral theory. It simply asserted axiomatically.
But again, I have no reason to accept your morality. Instead, I have every reason to denounce it. As I pointed out in another post, it's not pragmatic for my people.
Also, your classic example isn't historically accurate. The Jews weren't scapegoats. They had sects that were waging war in the region. But, every story needs its devil. And in today's dogma, that devil is Hitler. It's an over simplified good vs evil story. We love our archetypal stories, right? But things are a lot more complicated than they've been depicted.
So, what is it that you think you're actually opposing?
If you're pushing multiculturalism, you're not opposing war. Instead, you're fueling war against white people given that this is only magically happening in white countries. And, anti-white sentiment is on the rise. This is not a coincidence. This is tribalism expressing itself. In the US the demographics shifted from 90% white to 60% white. So, it's no surprise that as the minority groups got larger, they're becoming bolder. (Again, completely understandable that non-whites would push for this outcome.)
But, if you want to believe races don't exist; that it's just a social construct... well... you and the few that believe this stuff are the only ones. Everyone else has no qualms about behaving ethnocentrically.
The onus is on you to justify your moral argument. You presented an ought. I presented an is. And, now you're straw manning that is. So let me clarify: We have adaptations that affect our behavior. Without those adaptations we wouldn't be where we are today. They're operating automatically within us. So, will power can only take you so far. So, my point was that we have these drivers within us and overriding them is easier said than actually done. Or better said, you're assuming it can even be done. More so, these drivers (not just tribalism) aren't distributed equally to everyone or group. In other words, my genetic pool is going to have different sensitivity in genetic expression than another genetic pool. For example, Ashkenazi Jews have higher verbal IQs than every other genetic pool. That is an advantage they have.
But back to tribalism. My point was that tribalism is an innate quality that isn't taught. It's part of our genetic programming. And, your point is that we ought to suppress this drive. And, you present this because you have a preference for a moral argument called multiculturalism -- which does not coincide with our innate drive. Tribalism in and of itself is not a moral argument.
So the question is why ought I adopt your preference? And here is the kicker in today's discourse: Those that do not share/adopt this preference are in turn ostracized by calling them racists. But, none of that condemnation actually establishes the merits of this moral theory. It simply asserted axiomatically.
But again, I have no reason to accept your morality. Instead, I have every reason to denounce it. As I pointed out in another post, it's not pragmatic for my people.
Also, your classic example isn't historically accurate. The Jews weren't scapegoats. They had sects that were waging war in the region. But, every story needs its devil. And in today's dogma, that devil is Hitler. It's an over simplified good vs evil story. We love our archetypal stories, right? But things are a lot more complicated than they've been depicted.
So, what is it that you think you're actually opposing?
If you're pushing multiculturalism, you're not opposing war. Instead, you're fueling war against white people given that this is only magically happening in white countries. And, anti-white sentiment is on the rise. This is not a coincidence. This is tribalism expressing itself. In the US the demographics shifted from 90% white to 60% white. So, it's no surprise that as the minority groups got larger, they're becoming bolder. (Again, completely understandable that non-whites would push for this outcome.)
But, if you want to believe races don't exist; that it's just a social construct... well... you and the few that believe this stuff are the only ones. Everyone else has no qualms about behaving ethnocentrically.
Meaning values voters are actively voting against their own financial and legal interests by pursuing the rhetorical candy of white nationalists, anti-abortion absolutists, 2nd Amendment fanatics, etc.
I agree, and I can't help but wonder if Clinton had been elected if we'd be saying the same thing. Trump is worse in every way, but Clinton was no Sanders or Warren.
I agree, and I can't help but wonder if Clinton had been elected if we'd be saying the same thing. Trump is worse in every way, but Clinton was no Sanders or Warren.
"Oh noes! The cartoonist has a political agenda! What will we ever do?"
This is a nice conspiracy theory. What does it all mean though? What's their end game?
This is a nice conspiracy theory. What does it all mean though? What's their end game?
I do make the distinction. I just don't think it's as important as you think.
Every side has misguided people that will act out in unfavorable ways. And it didn't begin with the violence. The ostracism tactics to silence opposition is/was part of it. Basically discourse is dead right now. Tensions are escalating, and that escalation will be followed by an increase in frequency of violence.
And, ironically, you just doubled down by turning it into a contest as to whose violence is worse. "The right is still worse."
What you're saying with that is: "We're still the paragons of virtue."
No you're not. Both sides are polarized. How we got here doesn't matter anymore. This is where we are. And tensions are escalating. So, I think things are going to get worse before they get better.
And, yes, Milo is a provocateur. There is no doubt about that. He flat out tells you that he's trolling you. And yet people are still getting triggered.
Every side has misguided people that will act out in unfavorable ways. And it didn't begin with the violence. The ostracism tactics to silence opposition is/was part of it. Basically discourse is dead right now. Tensions are escalating, and that escalation will be followed by an increase in frequency of violence.
And, ironically, you just doubled down by turning it into a contest as to whose violence is worse. "The right is still worse."
What you're saying with that is: "We're still the paragons of virtue."
No you're not. Both sides are polarized. How we got here doesn't matter anymore. This is where we are. And tensions are escalating. So, I think things are going to get worse before they get better.
And, yes, Milo is a provocateur. There is no doubt about that. He flat out tells you that he's trolling you. And yet people are still getting triggered.
Everything depicted in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is happening today. Although Atlas Shrugged went way deeper into it.
It doesn't take a fortune to post an inflammatory cartoon. So I have my doubts that there is a conspiracy.
But if there is one, the intent would be to get citizens so riled up at each other and distracted that they become totally ineffective at opposing the interests of the rich.
But if there is one, the intent would be to get citizens so riled up at each other and distracted that they become totally ineffective at opposing the interests of the rich.
Back that truck up. You can't claim "suppression" of science that doesn't exist. I just pointed out how the study referenced by the item does not actually make the claim the item does. There is nothing there to be "suppressed"!
We could go through all the rest on that list together if you like. (I'm assuming of course that you haven't.)
There are IQ differences among individual families that dwarf those between any races you could care to define. (And yes, the number and definition of races is very open to interpretation, because there are nearly infinite qualities to choose as grouping terms.)
Do you understand what that means, though? About differences within a group totally swamping the differences between groups, on the high and low ends? It means that you cannot use an average of the group to make a claim about the individuals within it, with any sort of confidence. That's important.
Let's take an example. Give me a link to your scientific paper(s) that claim there are "IQ differences among the races".
We could go through all the rest on that list together if you like. (I'm assuming of course that you haven't.)
There are IQ differences among individual families that dwarf those between any races you could care to define. (And yes, the number and definition of races is very open to interpretation, because there are nearly infinite qualities to choose as grouping terms.)
Do you understand what that means, though? About differences within a group totally swamping the differences between groups, on the high and low ends? It means that you cannot use an average of the group to make a claim about the individuals within it, with any sort of confidence. That's important.
Let's take an example. Give me a link to your scientific paper(s) that claim there are "IQ differences among the races".
I'm not asking you to find the exact point we go from "green" to "blue". I'm not asking you to find the edge cases. I'm not asking you to define the exact borders. Just give me the ideal single example. The point right in the middle of all these spectrums, where it is absolutely beyond all doubt that you are looking at a member of your race. Hell, post a picture of yourself, if you like, or your grandfather or something.
We've already established that you consider your race light-skinned. I want to know what other criteria you've got.
We've already established that you consider your race light-skinned. I want to know what other criteria you've got.
When people say "race is a social construct", they have a point. As I said above - to you, people from China are all one "race", and look no different from people in Tibet, but if you were Chinese, you would be able to recognize Chinese from different regions of the country (as well as Tibetans, who live in "contested lands" according to the Chinese government) and have various opinions about them.
So, you tell me: Are there multiple Chinese races? Or just one?
So, you tell me: Are there multiple Chinese races? Or just one?
Ok...
Jewish Americans are the most powerful and influential ethnic group in America. Jewish Americans make up 2 percent of the U.S. population yet comprise 48 percent of U.S. billionaires.
Let's go after 'em!
/tongue_in_cheek
Jewish Americans are the most powerful and influential ethnic group in America. Jewish Americans make up 2 percent of the U.S. population yet comprise 48 percent of U.S. billionaires.
Let's go after 'em!
/tongue_in_cheek
Edited 2017-02-11 23:16 (UTC)
Page 5 of 9