How to Torture a White Man

[William Joyce]

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Donovan-WhitesAsSlaves.html

Ellison, the black Muslim, exacted unique torture by demanding that Tanner describe in his own terms his sins against blacks (from Milbank's article):

"Exactly what are you apologizing for?" Ellison demanded.

"I hurt people," Tanner confessed.

"How did you hurt them?"

"The reaction of people to my statement —"

Ellison pounced. "So you are apologizing because of the reaction?"

Tanner retreated. "I caused that reaction, certainly not intentionally. I made a clumsy statement."

"So the problem is the tone?" Ellison pressed.

"I certainly had a bad tone and clumsiness."

This also failed to satisfy Ellison. "Are you just trying to curry favor?" he demanded.

"I feel that if I make remarks that people misinterpret —"

Uh-oh. "So people misinterpreted what you said?" a triumphant Ellison asked.

Tanner retreated. "I apologize for that," he said.

Ellison's technique is designed for maximum psychological dominance. One level of control is to simply inflict pain for actions or words that are disfavored — for instance, if Mr. Tanner were simply yelled at for his remarks. Another, much higher, level involves requiring the subject to self-torture, or self-submit, to the dominant power, by mouthing in his or her own words. One is reminded of dissenters kidnapped by totalitarian governments who are forced to appear on television and recite for the camera that they have been disloyal to the regime.

 

[mattskramer]

I would not call it torture, but I think that I see your point. I should be able to say that white women, on average, live longer than do white men. Is that being sexist? No necessarily. I’m simply stating a statistical fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I would not call it torture, but I think that I see your point. I should be able to say that white women, on average, live longer than do white men. Is that being sexist? No necessarily. I’m simply stating a statistical fact.

However the drivel that Joyce posts about intelligence are NOT statistical facts. They are opinion.

 

[mattskramer]

However the drivel that Joyce posts about intelligence are NOT statistical facts. They are opinion.

Yeah. There have been books claiming to prove that certain races are genetically mentally inferior and less intelligent than other races. There have been books that claim to contradict or disprove such books. The argument goes on and on. I don’t care about such debates. I don’t think that any claim that genetics account for IQ differences between races has been satisfactorily proven. Even if it has been proven, the differences between races today are so minute that any harping on this notion only serves to divide people.

 

[William Joyce]

Yeah. There have been books claiming to prove that certain races are genetically mentally inferior and less intelligent than other races. There have been books that claim to contradict or disprove such books. The argument goes on and on. I don’t care about such debates. I don’t think that any claim that genetics account for IQ differences between races has been satisfactorily proven. Even if it has been proven, the differences between races today are so minute that any harping on this notion only serves to divide people.

I'm not sure I'd call an approximately 25-point deficit between white Europeans and black Africans "minute." It's meant the difference between an advanced civilization and subsistence. Or is there another explanation? Say, "culture"? Or "racism"? Well, let's hear about it. What accounts for the difference between Africa and Europe? Dumb luck?

Before he decided to apologize for telling the truth, the king of genetics, Dr. James Watson, talked about this very issue. Was he wrong (then)? You're going to dispute the co-discoverer of DNA? How about William Shockley? I think the issue isn't what data is out there on IQ and genetics. There's plenty. I think people just don't want to believe it, like they don't want to believe the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa because it makes them feel less important.

 

[mattskramer]

I'm not sure I'd call an approximately 25-point deficit between white Europeans and black Africans "minute." It's meant the difference between an advanced civilization and subsistence. Or is there another explanation? Say, "culture"? Or "racism"? Well, let's hear about it. What accounts for the difference between Africa and Europe? Dumb luck?

Before he decided to apologize for telling the truth, the king of genetics, Dr. James Watson, talked about this very issue. Was he wrong (then)? You're going to dispute the co-discoverer of DNA? How about William Shockley? I think the issue isn't what data is out there on IQ and genetics. There's plenty. I think people just don't want to believe it, like they don't want to believe the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa because it makes them feel less important.

From what do you base that difference? What sentence from what book did you get that statistic - The Bell Curve?

If so, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms

When you are finished, compare and contrast all of these other books:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Measured-Lies-Bell-Curve-Examined/sim/0312172281/2/ref=pd_cp_b_sexpl/105-7750899-9935603[/ame]

It would take several lifetimes to reach a conclusive definitive judgment after careful evaluation of everything. With what limited information I have gathered so far, I think that any alleged IQ difference comes form generations of disparity. Starting from the days of slavery, through the progression to the “haves and have-nots.” Toss in some decades of perpetual discrimination and racism. Follow it up with some cyclical learned helplessness. Then you will probably see some differences in questionable IQ tests.

 

[007]

Well I thought I was going to read some story about beds of nails and C-clamps when it said torture.

 

[82Marine89]

Well I thought I was going to read some story about beds of nails and C-clamps when it said torture.

My first thought was lock him in a room and have Jesse Jackson tell ebonic nursery rhymes to him.

 

[William Joyce]

From what do you base that difference? What sentence from what book did you get that statistic - The Bell Curve?

If so, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Criticisms

When you are finished, compare and contrast all of these other books:

http://www.amazon.com/Measured-Lies..._cp_b_sexpl/105-7750899-9935603&tag=ff0d01-20

It would take several lifetimes to reach a conclusive definitive judgment after careful evaluation of everything. With what limited information I have gathered so far, I think that any alleged IQ difference comes form generations of disparity. Starting from the days of slavery, through the progression to the “haves and have-nots.” Toss in some decades of perpetual discrimination and racism. Follow it up with some cyclical learned helplessness. Then you will probably see some differences in questionable IQ tests.

IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Lynn and Vanhannan

Race Differences in Intelligence, Lynn

Race, The Reality of Human Differences, Sarich and Miele

Race, Evolution and Behavior, Rushton

Race, Genetics and Society, Whitney

Bell Curve is actually a pretty cursory treatment of the issue. You trumpet the line that IQ differences are caused by "racism." This is not borne out by the plain observation that IQ in Africa, parts of which were never touched by whites, and Haiti, which is and has been all-black and black-run for decades, have even LOWER IQ's that American blacks. You say "disparity" explains intelligence differences, but it's the other way around. HOW DID THE DISPARITY COME TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE???

I think you aren't basing your stance here on the facts or the evidence or any kind of defensible logic. You're basing your stance on the fact that you don't want to believe blacks are inherently less intelligent. That's fine, but don't pretend you're interested in rational truth. You're interested in seeing your own beliefs and hopes confirmed. There is a big difference.

It's like the evolution v. creation debate. There's plenty to criticize on both sides, but ultimately, I don't think the creationists are going to be persuaded by any amount of evidence because ultimately, their belief that God created the world in a Biblically specific way is just too important for them to let go of. Likewise, I think there are probably some evolutionists who are just too angry at "Bible thumpers" to believe in any kind of supernatural "first cause," period.

 

[mattskramer]

HOW DID THE DISPARITY COME TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE???

It originated with slavery. I do not know how slavery came to be. I guess that white people conquered black people and enslaved them. Blacks made white people wealthy while blacks were merely allowed to live. Once they were free, the blacks still faced generational poverty. Part of the disparity them came from socialization. I think that parents taught children, in general, to give up on trying to improve themselves. They conditioned children to rely on government or others. This is where Bill Cosby and I see eye-to-eye. You speak of Africa. Does it have the same quality environment, diet, and education available to Americans? If not, were those IQ tests adjusted for this environmental difference. I have read that diet and exercise influences IQ. Also, what is the social and societal upbringing in Africa too? Do Black African parents teach their children to give up? When you compare the IQ’s of different groups within one nation, it is one thing. When you try to compare IQ’s among different groups in different nations, you have those many more variables. There are just so many variables when comparing different nations’ people too

 

[midcan5]

Should this not be under racist comments etc?

 

[mattskramer]

Should this not be under racist comments etc?

It might not be nice to have racist opinions but is it illegal to say racist comments? I sure hope not.

 

[82Marine89]

It might not be nice to have racist opinions but is it illegal to say racist comments? I sure hope not.

Nowadays it's called hate speech.

 

[mattskramer]

Nowadays it's called hate speech.

Freedom of speech has its gray areas. If people learn of our military immediate plans, should they be free to speak about it? Am I free to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire? Am I free to shout racial threats in Harlem at midnight? Am I free to incite a riot with my visceral language? Am I free to disrupt public gatherings with my speech? Can I shout blasphemies and obscenities at the front of a church or words of damnation on a public sidewalk just a few feet from a funeral?

I think that people should be free to calmly give their opinion about things but there is a time, place, and manner for practically everything.

 

[82Marine89]

Freedom of speech has its gray areas. If people learn of our military immediate plans, should they be free to speak about it? Am I free to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire? Am I free to shout racial threats in Harlem at midnight? Am I free to incite a riot with my visceral language? Am I free to disrupt public gatherings with my speech? Can I shout blasphemies and obscenities at the front of a church or words of damnation on a public sidewalk just a few feet from a funeral?

I think that people should be free to calmly give their opinion about things but there is a time, place, and manner for practically everything.

That's nice, but what does your response have to do with my comment that racist comments are now considered to be hate speech?

 

[mattskramer]

That's nice, but what does your response have to do with my comment that racist comments are now considered to be hate speech?

It depends on how you define hate speech. Specifically, first of all, what comments fall under the category of hate speech? Next, what is to be done to the person who commits hate speech? Under what circumstances was the hate speech given – did he shout racial slurs in Harlem at midnight or was he merely giving his opinion to a mixed audience?

Again, speech, even hate speech, depends on definitions and on the circumstances. It is not all black-and-white.

 

[82Marine89]

It depends on how you define hate speech. Specifically, first of all, what comments fall under the category of hate speech? Next, what is to be done to the person who commits hate speech? Under what circumstances was the hate speech given – did he shout racial slurs in Harlem at midnight or was he merely giving his opinion to a mixed audience?

Again, speech, even hate speech, depends on definitions and on the circumstances. It is not all black-and-white.

I don't define anything as hate speech. All I said is nowadays racist comments are construed as hate speech. It is about black and white.

 

[Nevadamedic]

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Donovan-WhitesAsSlaves.html

Ellison, the black Muslim, exacted unique torture by demanding that Tanner describe in his own terms his sins against blacks (from Milbank's article):

"Exactly what are you apologizing for?" Ellison demanded.

"I hurt people," Tanner confessed.

"How did you hurt them?"

"The reaction of people to my statement —"

Ellison pounced. "So you are apologizing because of the reaction?"

Tanner retreated. "I caused that reaction, certainly not intentionally. I made a clumsy statement."

"So the problem is the tone?" Ellison pressed.

"I certainly had a bad tone and clumsiness."

This also failed to satisfy Ellison. "Are you just trying to curry favor?" he demanded.

"I feel that if I make remarks that people misinterpret —"

Uh-oh. "So people misinterpreted what you said?" a triumphant Ellison asked.

Tanner retreated. "I apologize for that," he said.

Ellison's technique is designed for maximum psychological dominance. One level of control is to simply inflict pain for actions or words that are disfavored — for instance, if Mr. Tanner were simply yelled at for his remarks. Another, much higher, level involves requiring the subject to self-torture, or self-submit, to the dominant power, by mouthing in his or her own words. One is reminded of dissenters kidnapped by totalitarian governments who are forced to appear on television and recite for the camera that they have been disloyal to the regime.

Actually the perfect way to torture any man is lock them in a room with Edward for about 30 seconds and that will do it.