If white racism is a thing of the past.....

[IM2]

Look at any of his post to white people. He constantly berates whites for every ailment or misfortune experienced by blacks. He also agreed with another post that killing whites in africa is ok since blacks in africa were killed by whites IN THE PAST

Don't tell me to "look".

Present one of such posts.

Notice, I only asked for ONE, just ONE.

You post as if he's the definition of racism, yet you can't seem to present just ONE of such posts.

Why is that?

yes I would commit genocide to whites in SA. I would rape there women. I would kill there kids in front if them. I would burn there houses down with them inside. I would do all sorts.

You don't debate with a white supremacist. A white supremacist went into Memphis last night n killed three black people in a waffle house. The usually cowardly shit that white supremacist do.

He did not care whether they were good or bad black people and now the police can't find him ?

The white supremacist can find a sharks tooth at the bottom of the ocean. But he can't find a man who is on foot ? Fk outta here.

If that was a black man his whole family would have been arrested n that's only in the unlikely situation that they could not find him in five mins.

Im2 saw nothing wrong with this post by paul essien

And you have seen nothing wrong with shooter at Waffle house or any other racist white murderer. You are fine with the 100 years of white atrocities on Africans Essen was referring to when he made the original comment, because he was comparing what whites had done which apparently you were fine with, to how Africans feel and how he would feel if he was African. You don't seem to understand that whites raped, murdered and killed tens of thousands pf African men, women and children. If you had the intelligence to go back to the original post when he made the comments in the first line,, you would see that I said I would not condone the violence personally. But you can't do that. You live in a lunatic world where everybody must just take whiteys bullshit ad never complain. Well fuck that. You were asked to show a racist comment by me, you didn't because you can't.

I'm not going to throw Essen under the bus because your white ass doesn't like what he says. He's a black man who has had to endure the bullshit whites like you do. If he's angry about it, he has the right to be. I agree with him as I am a black man and have endured what he has. You don't like what we say? Stop the racism. This fight is going to be for as long as it takes. Until whites end their racism we're fighting. Looking around making up racism in other people only prolongs the fight. We ain't going to be submissive so we can be called the model minority.

 

[IM2]

White Racism exists just like Black, Asian and Hispanic Racism and it will never end because those like you will see racism even when there is none and believe the only racists in the world are whites.

So as you hit report on me please note I fully admitted some whites are still racist and no it will never end but not all whites are racist and if you believe they are then your opinion is clouded by your bigotry!

So you understand the difference between racism and prejudice? Blacks, Asians or Hispanics do not have the power to enforce their prejudice, Whites do. That's the difference and only whites have done it. You don't see racism where there is none. Only whites who've never had to be on the other side pf racism ca make silly comments like this. And when you see me say all whites are racists let me know. Other than that you can end that attempt at deflection.

 

[IM2]

Who says it is a thing of the past, you fucking psychopath?

Apparently you can't read.

 

[IM2]

I keep getting told how white racism is a thing of the past. But I see no poof of it. ...

Me neither. And the racists have only grown more brazen since Trump's election. But they are still a shrinking minority. Don't let it eat you up. The pendulum swings both ways.

You are wrong.

 

[IM2]

None of those responses are related to the OP. Hence you all have been reported. Furthermore you have provided no evidence that white racism has ended. If you could you would not be trolling thinking that your stupid ass posts have any effect.. Thank you for showing me that white racism has not ended.

Racist is a relative term .... if its Racism by someone such as you IM2. it's called ethnic pride - however if its Ethnic Pride by a caucasian it's known as racism.

The line is drawn however when your ethnic pride leads you to believe you have some right to suppress or discriminate against members of another ethnic group.

So as per the question of the day "Has white Racism Ended" - I would say YES although there are still white racists [and black, red and yellow] there is no real institutionalized discrimination against blacks, in fact they are a somewhat privileged class in many respects.

LOL! Another product of the fake white grievance industry running his mouth. German is ethnic, white is not. We don't know our ethnicities thanks to slavery.

 

[Snouter]

Let's be honest there was never White racism, only low IQ non-Whites butthurt simply because they were and are intellectually and ethically unable to compete with Whitey.

 

[IM2]

Let's be honest there was never White racism, only low IQ non-Whites butthurt simply because they were and are intellectually and ethically unable to compete with Whitey.

Lets be honest, whitey made the laws to benefit whitey and did not allow anyone ls to compete until 1965 because whitey was scared.

 

[dblack]

I keep getting told how white racism is a thing of the past. But I see no poof of it. ...

Me neither. And the racists have only grown more brazen since Trump's election. But they are still a shrinking minority. Don't let it eat you up. The pendulum swings both ways.

You are wrong.

OK, fuck you then.

 

[GreenBean]

None of those responses are related to the OP. Hence you all have been reported. Furthermore you have provided no evidence that white racism has ended. If you could you would not be trolling thinking that your stupid ass posts have any effect.. Thank you for showing me that white racism has not ended.

Racist is a relative term .... if its Racism by someone such as you IM2. it's called ethnic pride - however if its Ethnic Pride by a caucasian it's known as racism.

The line is drawn however when your ethnic pride leads you to believe you have some right to suppress or discriminate against members of another ethnic group.

So as per the question of the day "Has white Racism Ended" - I would say YES although there are still white racists [and black, red and yellow] there is no real institutionalized discrimination against blacks, in fact they are a somewhat privileged class in many respects.

LOL! Another product of the fake white grievance industry running his mouth. German is ethnic, white is not. We don't know our ethnicities thanks to slavery.

Re: "We don't know our ethnicities thanks to slavery" Try ancestry dna - it can tell you what regions your ancestors came from. mine came back with some Nigerian ancestors - OMG there goes the neighborhood !!!

So far as your ethnicity, if your ancestors were slaves then you are African American ... all peoples at one time or another were conquered and subjugated to another race / ethnic group / tribe etc and so forth. Yours are no exception now ..... I'd play a sad violin song for you if only I could stop laughing

"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy." ..H.L. Mencken

On a societal basis victim complex or oppression mentality is frequently instilled in minority groups and is studied under the psychology of oppression and social oppression. Groups that have historically been truly oppressed, either by design or by circumstances, and groups whose situation leads them to perceive themselves as being oppressed will commonly find themselves further victimized by social engineers and 'community organizers' who seek to capitalize on this phenomena. Such is the case with many African Americans

Oppression Mentality

 

[GreenBean]

I keep getting told how white racism is a thing of the past. But I see no poof of it. ...

Me neither. And the racists have only grown more brazen since Trump's election. But they are still a shrinking minority. Don't let it eat you up. The pendulum swings both ways.

You are wrong.

OK, fuck you then.

You really don't wanna do that do you - that bitch is UGGGGGLY

 

[GreenBean]

Let's be honest there was never White racism, only low IQ non-Whites butthurt simply because they were and are intellectually and ethically unable to compete with Whitey.

Lets be honest, whitey made the laws to benefit whitey and did not allow anyone ls to compete until 1965 because whitey was scared.

Actually it started in 1950s -

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Eisenhower {Republican} Administration legislation to protect the rights of African American voters.
As a Senate leader, Lyndon Johnson who had consistently voted against any legislation to protect African Americans from lynching, worked vigorously to stifle the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Democratic Strategists, of whom Johnson was one, realized the importance of the Negro vote and in this light Johnson explained the strategy re: the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 to his Democratic co-conspirators:

'These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now, we've got to do something about this; we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. for if we don't move at all, then their allies [The Republicans] will line up against us and there will be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there will be no way of putting the brake on all sorts of wild legislation, it'll be reconstruction all over again' - Lyndon Johnson [ Inside the White House ]

Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.

 

[IM2]

Let's be honest there was never White racism, only low IQ non-Whites butthurt simply because they were and are intellectually and ethically unable to compete with Whitey.

Lets be honest, whitey made the laws to benefit whitey and did not allow anyone ls to compete until 1965 because whitey was scared.

Actually it started in 1950s -

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Eisenhower {Republican} Administration legislation to protect the rights of African American voters.
As a Senate leader, Lyndon Johnson who had consistently voted against any legislation to protect African Americans from lynching, worked vigorously to stifle the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Democratic Strategists, of whom Johnson was one, realized the importance of the Negro vote and in this light Johnson explained the strategy re: the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 to his Democratic co-conspirators:

'These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now, we've got to do something about this; we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. for if we don't move at all, then their allies [The Republicans] will line up against us and there will be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there will be no way of putting the brake on all sorts of wild legislation, it'll be reconstruction all over again' - Lyndon Johnson [ Inside the White House ]

Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.


View attachment 189901

1948 Democratic Party Platform

The Democratic Party is responsible for the great civil rights gains made in recent years in eliminating unfair and illegal discrimination based on race, creed or color,

The Democratic Party commits itself to continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination.

We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Democratic Party Platforms: 1948 Democratic Party Platform

In 2018, the republican party would not vote for civil rights. They would want it to be a state decision.

 

[GreenBean]

Let's be honest there was never White racism, only low IQ non-Whites butthurt simply because they were and are intellectually and ethically unable to compete with Whitey.

Lets be honest, whitey made the laws to benefit whitey and did not allow anyone ls to compete until 1965 because whitey was scared.

Actually it started in 1950s -

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Eisenhower {Republican} Administration legislation to protect the rights of African American voters.
As a Senate leader, Lyndon Johnson who had consistently voted against any legislation to protect African Americans from lynching, worked vigorously to stifle the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Democratic Strategists, of whom Johnson was one, realized the importance of the Negro vote and in this light Johnson explained the strategy re: the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 to his Democratic co-conspirators:

'These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now, we've got to do something about this; we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. for if we don't move at all, then their allies [The Republicans] will line up against us and there will be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there will be no way of putting the brake on all sorts of wild legislation, it'll be reconstruction all over again' - Lyndon Johnson [ Inside the White House ]

Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.


View attachment 189901

1948 Democratic Party Platform

The Democratic Party is responsible for the great civil rights gains made in recent years in eliminating unfair and illegal discrimination based on race, creed or color,

The Democratic Party commits itself to continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination.

We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Democratic Party Platforms: 1948 Democratic Party Platform

In 2018, the republican party would not vote for civil rights. They would want it to be a state decision.

Acions spoke louder than words - The Republicans took actions - the Dems used every trick inthe book fillibuster and what have you to thwart Republican civil rights initiatives - it wasn't untill LBJ and JFK that they realized if you can't beat em join em

 

[IM2]

Let's be honest there was never White racism, only low IQ non-Whites butthurt simply because they were and are intellectually and ethically unable to compete with Whitey.

Lets be honest, whitey made the laws to benefit whitey and did not allow anyone ls to compete until 1965 because whitey was scared.

Actually it started in 1950s -

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Eisenhower {Republican} Administration legislation to protect the rights of African American voters.
As a Senate leader, Lyndon Johnson who had consistently voted against any legislation to protect African Americans from lynching, worked vigorously to stifle the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Democratic Strategists, of whom Johnson was one, realized the importance of the Negro vote and in this light Johnson explained the strategy re: the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 to his Democratic co-conspirators:

'These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now, we've got to do something about this; we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. for if we don't move at all, then their allies [The Republicans] will line up against us and there will be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there will be no way of putting the brake on all sorts of wild legislation, it'll be reconstruction all over again' - Lyndon Johnson [ Inside the White House ]

Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.


View attachment 189901

1948 Democratic Party Platform

The Democratic Party is responsible for the great civil rights gains made in recent years in eliminating unfair and illegal discrimination based on race, creed or color,

The Democratic Party commits itself to continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination.

We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Democratic Party Platforms: 1948 Democratic Party Platform

In 2018, the republican party would not vote for civil rights. They would want it to be a state decision.

Acions spoke louder than words - The Republicans took actions - the Dems used every trick inthe book fillibuster and what have you to thwart Republican civil rights initiatives - it wasn't untill LBJ and JFK that they realized if you can't beat em join em

Mr. Conservative: Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964

 

[80zephyr]

[...]

As an ideology - Racism is the belief that a particular race is (or certain races are) superior or inferior to another race or races.

[...]

Then I must ask if your concept of racism refers only to those who believe their race is totally superior to another race, or does it apply to those who believe that only certain aspects of their race is superior (or inferior) to those of other races?

For example, I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes, Caucasians are intellectually superior to Negroes, and Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

Does that qualify me as a racist in your view?

I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes, Caucasians are intellectually superior to Negroes, and Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

I believe that as well.

Mark

 

[IM2]

[...]

As an ideology - Racism is the belief that a particular race is (or certain races are) superior or inferior to another race or races.

[...]

Then I must ask if your concept of racism refers only to those who believe their race is totally superior to another race, or does it apply to those who believe that only certain aspects of their race is superior (or inferior) to those of other races?

For example, I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes, Caucasians are intellectually superior to Negroes, and Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

Does that qualify me as a racist in your view?

I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes, Caucasians are intellectually superior to Negroes, and Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

I believe that as well.

Mark

And I believe all that is racist bullshit.

 

[Paul Essien]

Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

I believe that as well.

Mark

OK. And I don't like repeating myself but maybe you can answer what I asked earlier

The original story was that black people were inferior, body and brains.

In the 1936 Olympics Hitler was still confident that his Aryan athletes would dominate the Black American sprinters.

Because of Jessie Owens. That did not happen.

So the White Supremacists pretended that they had never believed that White people were physically superior to Black people and that their ideas had not been embarrassingly refuted.

They just figured that brains were more important, so if Black people were to be sold to the world as inferior, it would have to be based on us being genetically stupid.

But you can believe anything you wish and it shows in your responses.

But when you start to make statements about certain scientific things, it would be good to know what one is talking about. Like the simple basics of the evolution theory.

Something as major as an additional pair of muscles to increase black people muscle mass would have required major evolutionary changes. Or a loss of a pair of muscles, since all humans evolved from a common ancestor.

In order for black people to have "extra muscle mass" or as you say "Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians." from other human beings there would have to be fixed genetic differences between races.

Meaning a clear break

This seems like a speciation level difference, such as "Blacks" having a gene for X and no one else. This is absolutely clearly not the case.

I'm sure you'll say "Look at how many black people are in the the NBA" OK if that's true, then why don't blacks dominate volleyball the same way ? You need to be able to jump at that. Right ?

And if black people are so naturally good at basketball then why don't African nations like Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast dominate international dominate basketball comps ? They're pure black with little white admixture in them and according to you blackness and strength go hand in hand then why are African teams so average ?

Why aren't all championship high jumpers black ?

• Every player who has ever won an NHL scoring title is white.
• Why is every Olympic weightlifting record is held by a Caucasian ?
• Why are all strong man comps won by whites ?
• Why are all all championship speed skaters are white.
• Every major league pitcher who has ever won 300 games is white.
• Almost all Olympic champions rowers and kayakers are white,

I don't believe that whites are physically advantaged in shooting, hockey pucks, lifting barbells, skating, or rowing. Do you ?

There are actually very good reasons why track and field and boxing events are dominated the way they are; because that's who trains and competes in them. Boxing is generally for people who have limited opportunities. Racism limits your opportunities.

And yes Africans have been ahead of the rest of the world in long distance training methods for thirty years; it's no surprise they dominate the competitions.

If people from a geographic region of Africa are the world's champion sprinters and a different group of people from a geographic region of Africa are the world's champion marathon runners and both are alleged to be part of some specific "race" you have just argued against sprinting or distance running as being a "racial" characteristic. Since the two groups you tried to put into one "race" have contradictory abilities.

I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes

If and I'm guessing because you was not that clear that is, your making an explicatory argument, that is Asian are intellectually superior because of IQ in general, because Asians are “naturally” more intelligent that's exceptionally radical statement needs exceptionally radical proof to back it up – proof which you simply don’t have.

And if you really believed that Asians are intellectually superior then then why aren’t you and others folks demanding for a massive increase in immigration from Asian nations ? Why not flood the borders, since everyone could all benefit from a little more Asian genius? Why not have white CEOs step down from their positions and let Japanese managers take their place?

If you are trying to say that IQ is a genetic product of race then then very first thing you need to do is define the races themselves.

But I always, sit back, invite guys like you to give such a definition. Mainly because their fumbling attempts to define race point out just how subjective such definitions are. In close to a decade of debating race with racists.

I have yet to see any one of them, no matter what their scientific credentials, offer up an acceptably neutral definition of race.

Which are those “races” then, purely scientifically speaking and in clear text ?
What are the precise genetic criteria for making this classification ?

Those questions can obviously only be answered in arbitrary dimensions which are man-made constructs according to human perception alone.

However you twist it, you will run in circles and eventually spiral back into concepts based on human perception alone.

Do you even know what a scientific fact is ?

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way. Now a scientific fact, peer-reviewed, confirmed and approved, can have political consequences. Using the simple water example, it means that public administration, set into function by politics, orders winter road service to get ready once the temperatures fall below 0°C and the roads are wet.

But yet you throw around concepts "Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes" that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid.

The reality is that there is not only one but a multitude of deviations that those “scientists” choose to ignore.

You are trying to make an absolutist claim by using extremely relative variables – variables, which (as should be obvious by now) they can’t even be bothered to define in relativist fashion.

Your argument works (to the extent that it works) on the force of rhetoric alone simply because so many people naturalize race and can’t conceive that such an important thing could be constructed by anything other than transhuman divine providence (or Mother Nature, take your pick).

 

[80zephyr]

Then I must ask if your concept of racism refers only to those who believe their race is totally superior to another race, or does it apply to those who believe that only certain aspects of their race is superior (or inferior) to those of other races? Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

It must be remembered that the original story was that black people were inferior, body and brains.

In the 1936 Olympics Hitler was still confident that his Aryan athletes would dominate the Black American sprinters.

Because of Jessie Owens. That did not happen.

So the White Supremacists pretended that they had never believed that White people were physically superior to Black people and that their ideas had not been embarrassingly refuted.

They just figured that brains were more important, so if Black people were to be sold to the world as inferior, it would have to be based on us being genetically stupid.

But you can believe anything you wish and it shows in your responses.

But when you start to make statements about certain scientific things, it would be good to know what one is talking about. Like the simple basics of the evolution theory.

Something as major as an additional pair of muscles to increase black people muscle mass would have required major evolutionary changes. Or a loss of a pair of muscles, since all humans evolved from a common ancestor.

In order for black people to have "extra muscle mass" or as you say "Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians." from other human beings there would have to be fixed genetic differences between races.

Meaning a clear break

This seems like a speciation level difference, such as "Blacks" having a gene for X and no one else. This is absolutely clearly not the case.

I'm sure you'll say "Look at how many black people are in the the NBA" OK if that's true, then why don't blacks dominate volleyball the same way ? You need to be able to jump at that. Right ?

And if black people are so naturally good at basketball then why don't African nations like Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast dominate international dominate basketball comps ? They're pure black with little white admixture in them and according to you blackness and strength go hand in hand then why are African teams so average ?

Why aren't all championship high jumpers black ?

• Every player who has ever won an NHL scoring title is white.
• Every Olympic weightlifting record is held by a caucasian.
• All championship speed skaters are white.
• Every major league pitcher who has ever won 300 games is white.
• Almost all Olympic champions rowers and kayakers are white,

I don't believe that whites are physically advantaged in shooting, hockey pucks, lifting barbells, skating, or rowing. Do you ?

There are actually very good reasons why track and field and boxing events are dominated the way they are; because that's who trains and competes in them. Boxing is generally for people who have limited opportunities. Racism limits your opportunities.

And yes Africans have been ahead of the rest of the world in long distance training methods for thirty years; it's no surprise they dominate the competitions.

If people from a geographic region of Africa are the world's champion sprinters and a different group of people from a geographic region of Africa are the world's champion marathon runners and both are alleged to be part of some specific "race" you have just argued against sprinting or distance running as being a "racial" characteristic. Since the two groups you tried to put into one "race" have contradictory abilities.

For example, I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes, Caucasians are intellectually superior to Negroes, and Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians"

What do you mean by intellect superior ?

If and I'm guessing because you was not that clear that is, your making an explicatory argument, that is Asian are intellectually superior because of IQ in general, because Asians are “naturally” more intelligent that's exceptionally radical statement needs exceptionally radical proof to back it up – proof which you simply don’t have.

And if you really believed that Asians are intellectually superior then then why aren’t you and others folks demanding for a massive increase in immigration from Asian nations ? Why not flood the borders, since everyone could all benefit from a little more Asian genius? Why not have white CEOs step down from their positions and let Japanese managers take their place?

If you are trying to say that IQ is a genetic product of race then then very first thing you need to do is define the races themselves.

But I always, sit back, invite guys like you to give such a definition. Mainly because their fumbling attempts to define race point out just how subjective such definitions are. In close to a decade of debating race with racists.

I have yet to see any one of them, no matter what their scientific credentials, offer up an acceptably neutral definition of race.

Which are those “races” then, purely scientifically speaking and in clear text ?
What are the precise genetic criteria for making this classification ?

Those questions can obviously only be answered in arbitrary dimensions which are man-made constructs according to human perception alone.

However you twist it, you will run in circles and eventually spiral back into concepts based on human perception alone.

Do you even know what a scientific fact is ?

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way. Now a scientific fact, peer-reviewed, confirmed and approved, can have political consequences. Using the simple water example, it means that public administration, set into function by politics, orders winter road service to get ready once the temperatures fall below 0°C and the roads are wet.

But yet you throw around concepts "Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes" that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid.

The reality is that there is not only one but a multitude of deviations that those “scientists” choose to ignore.

You are trying to make an absolutist claim by using extremely relative variables – variables, which (as should be obvious by now) they can’t even be bothered to define in relativist fashion.

Your argument works (to the extent that it works) on the force of rhetoric alone simply because so many people naturalize race and can’t conceive that such an important thing could be constructed by anything other than transhuman divine providence (or Mother Nature, take your pick).

Does that qualify me as a racist in your view?

All white people raised in a society where racism has been (and still is) so prevalent will have internalized elements of racist thinking. So in countries where beliefs in European/white superiority and domination have been historically placed, all white people will have internalized that conditioning.

I read a book called "Death's Acre". It featured Bill Bass who is one of the most famous forensic anthropologists on Earth. He was questioned about race in the book. And he stated that, while people can believe what they want, the races are different.

As for your "those who practice more" are the ones that succeed, I'll call bullshit. Blacks have better "fast twitch" muscles and are heavier boned. If you ever really research this issue, it will open your eyes.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

[...]

As an ideology - Racism is the belief that a particular race is (or certain races are) superior or inferior to another race or races.

[...]

Then I must ask if your concept of racism refers only to those who believe their race is totally superior to another race, or does it apply to those who believe that only certain aspects of their race is superior (or inferior) to those of other races?

For example, I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes, Caucasians are intellectually superior to Negroes, and Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

Does that qualify me as a racist in your view?

I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes, Caucasians are intellectually superior to Negroes, and Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

I believe that as well.

Mark

And I believe all that is racist bullshit.

What amazes me is that people believe in evolution, yet disregard evolution when it comes to humans.

Mark

 

[IM2]

Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians.

I believe that as well.

Mark

OK. And I don't like repeating myself but maybe you can answer what I asked earlier

The original story was that black people were inferior, body and brains.

In the 1936 Olympics Hitler was still confident that his Aryan athletes would dominate the Black American sprinters.

Because of Jessie Owens. That did not happen.

So the White Supremacists pretended that they had never believed that White people were physically superior to Black people and that their ideas had not been embarrassingly refuted.

They just figured that brains were more important, so if Black people were to be sold to the world as inferior, it would have to be based on us being genetically stupid.

But you can believe anything you wish and it shows in your responses.

But when you start to make statements about certain scientific things, it would be good to know what one is talking about. Like the simple basics of the evolution theory.

Something as major as an additional pair of muscles to increase black people muscle mass would have required major evolutionary changes. Or a loss of a pair of muscles, since all humans evolved from a common ancestor.

In order for black people to have "extra muscle mass" or as you say "Negroes are physically superior to Asians and Caucasians." from other human beings there would have to be fixed genetic differences between races.

Meaning a clear break

This seems like a speciation level difference, such as "Blacks" having a gene for X and no one else. This is absolutely clearly not the case.

I'm sure you'll say "Look at how many black people are in the the NBA" OK if that's true, then why don't blacks dominate volleyball the same way ? You need to be able to jump at that. Right ?

And if black people are so naturally good at basketball then why don't African nations like Nigeria, Ghana, Ivory Coast dominate international dominate basketball comps ? They're pure black with little white admixture in them and according to you blackness and strength go hand in hand then why are African teams so average ?

Why aren't all championship high jumpers black ?

• Every player who has ever won an NHL scoring title is white.
• Why is every Olympic weightlifting record is held by a Caucasian ?
• Why are all strong man comps won by whites ?
• Why are all all championship speed skaters are white.
• Every major league pitcher who has ever won 300 games is white.
• Almost all Olympic champions rowers and kayakers are white,

I don't believe that whites are physically advantaged in shooting, hockey pucks, lifting barbells, skating, or rowing. Do you ?

There are actually very good reasons why track and field and boxing events are dominated the way they are; because that's who trains and competes in them. Boxing is generally for people who have limited opportunities. Racism limits your opportunities.

And yes Africans have been ahead of the rest of the world in long distance training methods for thirty years; it's no surprise they dominate the competitions.

If people from a geographic region of Africa are the world's champion sprinters and a different group of people from a geographic region of Africa are the world's champion marathon runners and both are alleged to be part of some specific "race" you have just argued against sprinting or distance running as being a "racial" characteristic. Since the two groups you tried to put into one "race" have contradictory abilities.

I believe Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes

If and I'm guessing because you was not that clear that is, your making an explicatory argument, that is Asian are intellectually superior because of IQ in general, because Asians are “naturally” more intelligent that's exceptionally radical statement needs exceptionally radical proof to back it up – proof which you simply don’t have.

And if you really believed that Asians are intellectually superior then then why aren’t you and others folks demanding for a massive increase in immigration from Asian nations ? Why not flood the borders, since everyone could all benefit from a little more Asian genius? Why not have white CEOs step down from their positions and let Japanese managers take their place?

If you are trying to say that IQ is a genetic product of race then then very first thing you need to do is define the races themselves.

But I always, sit back, invite guys like you to give such a definition. Mainly because their fumbling attempts to define race point out just how subjective such definitions are. In close to a decade of debating race with racists.

I have yet to see any one of them, no matter what their scientific credentials, offer up an acceptably neutral definition of race.

Which are those “races” then, purely scientifically speaking and in clear text ?
What are the precise genetic criteria for making this classification ?

Those questions can obviously only be answered in arbitrary dimensions which are man-made constructs according to human perception alone.

However you twist it, you will run in circles and eventually spiral back into concepts based on human perception alone.

Do you even know what a scientific fact is ?

A scientific fact is that rain water freezes at 0°C at a pressure of 1 bar.

There’s no human choice involved. It’s observable and reproducible anywhere by anybody in the exact same way. Now a scientific fact, peer-reviewed, confirmed and approved, can have political consequences. Using the simple water example, it means that public administration, set into function by politics, orders winter road service to get ready once the temperatures fall below 0°C and the roads are wet.

But yet you throw around concepts "Asians are intellectually superior to Caucasians and Negroes" that have no constant repeatability everywhere you try to reproduce the experiment or apply the theoretical claim.

In natural science, only one single significant deviation is enough to render the claim at least disputable, at worst invalid.

The reality is that there is not only one but a multitude of deviations that those “scientists” choose to ignore.

You are trying to make an absolutist claim by using extremely relative variables – variables, which (as should be obvious by now) they can’t even be bothered to define in relativist fashion.

Your argument works (to the extent that it works) on the force of rhetoric alone simply because so many people naturalize race and can’t conceive that such an important thing could be constructed by anything other than transhuman divine providence (or Mother Nature, take your pick).

They can't argue against this. They can rant all they want but they have no rebuttal.