Zone1 Is Black Fatherlessness caused by Racism? By the Welfare System? By Something Else?

[Hector12]

Again, if they were hiring an author, I would be concerned. I have said, the problem with Gay is she was not a wartime Consiglare. Academia needs to realize they are at war with ignorance from the right. The right doesn't like science, they don't like culture and they don't like history.

There are those on the right are opposed to Darwin's theory of evolution. They complain about it, but they do not punish those who assert Darwinian evolution. They have not really done that since the Scopes Monkey Trial of July 1925.

The implications of Darwinian evolution are thoroughly consistent with hereditarianism and race realism. Charles Darwin asserted that what matters in evolution are innate characteristics, rather than acquired characteristics. He would not be surprised by the failure of expensive efforts to close the race gap on test scores and academic performance.

When Professor Arthur Jensen of Berkeley accurately predicted in his 1969 article in February in The Harvard Educational Review that little could be done to improve academic performance and test scores, and to close the race gap, new left thugs interrupted his classes. He received death threats, and often required police protection. That is the way the left tries to silence scientific assertions leftists dislike. Nothing like this exists on the right.

 

[Hector12]

JOeB131, you think it is perfectly acceptable to use force to suppress the assertions of race realism. Lovers of science and intellectual freedom do not think it is acceptable.

We agree with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in a letter to Henry Lee, May 15, 1826, "There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world."

 

[Markle]

Most of the plagarism was uncited quotes, which is an inside baseball academic thing.

Jews scream about Genocide if they are even MILDLY criticized.

Again, if they were hiring an author, I would be concerned. I have said, the problem with Gay is she was not a wartime Consiglare. Academia needs to realize they are at war with ignorance from the right. The right doesn't like science, they don't like culture and they don't like history.

Wouldn't your goals be better served by being more selective about who and what you relentlessly defend? As you know, Claudia Gay wasn't remotely qualified to be the president of Harvard, whose motto is TRUST.

And, no, Jews do not whine about the Holocaust as an excuse. You are feebly trying the same phony excuse our good friend IM2 uses with slavery.

 

[JoeB131]

Blacks and their white apologists scream about racism when anyone points out that by every objective, measurable criterion whites and Orientals tend to be considerably more intelligent than Negroes.

It is not possible to accurately condemn the Jewish people for anything.

Actually, nobody except racists say stupid shit like that..

 

[JoeB131]

JOeB131, you think it is perfectly acceptable to use force to suppress the assertions of race realism. Lovers of science and intellectual freedom do not think it is acceptable.

We agree with Thomas Jefferson who wrote in a letter to Henry Lee, May 15, 1826, "There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world."

Race Realism is a malignant lie, and anyone who spouts it should be subjected to a life-ruin.

Like Scot Adams.

 

[JoeB131]

Wouldn't your goals be better served by being more selective about who and what you relentlessly defend? As you know, Claudia Gay wasn't remotely qualified to be the president of Harvard, whose motto is TRUST.

And, no, Jews do not whine about the Holocaust as an excuse. You are feebly trying the same phony excuse our good friend IM2 uses with slavery.

Have you read Lisa's posts? She whines like the Holocaust happened to her, personally.

Gay was perfectly qualified, just not the person for this point in history, where Academia should realize the barbarians are at the gates.

 

[Hector12]

Race Realism is a malignant lie, and anyone who spouts it should be subjected to a life-ruin.

Like Scot Adams.

View attachment 910384

Let me say this about that, as John Kennedy would have said:

Because I am confident in the truth of my opinions, and my ability to defend them I welcome challenges to my opinions. I appreciate intelligent civil rebuttals. When I am flamed with insults, name calling, and obscene words I am irritated, but reinforced in my confidence in the truth of my opinions, and my ability to defend them

I try to compose my arguments at the top of this pyramid, rather than at the bottom:

How to Disagree, by Paul Graham

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.

How to Disagree

paulgraham.com

 

[JoeB131]

Why do you think your racist garbage deserves a High School sissy Debate club treatment.

This is why Jamal shoved you into that locker. Man you showed him.

 

[Hector12]

Why do you think your racist garbage deserves a High School sissy Debate club treatment.

This is why Jamal shoved you into that locker. Man you showed him.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, reading your posts, you are not a well man, really.

Clearly, I get you were scared for life by whatever happened to you, but you need to get over it, man.

 

[Hector12]

Black illegitimatcy was rising prior to welfare, but took off after.

What is the reason for this seeming epidemic of black or mixed children growing up without a father?

- Seymour Flops

------------

By expanding the welfare system The War on Poverty, declared in 1964, encouraged bad decisions among poor black females. A young poor black female with a romantic choice between a responsible black man with a low wage job and a flashy, high stepping drug dealer with a lot of money is likely to choose the later if she knows that the government will help her raise the children she has by the drug dealer when he leaves her.

Poor white and poor East Asian females are not immune to these temptations, but they are less likely to surrender to them. The ultimate reason for this is that cold climates selected their ancestors for monogamy.

 

[JoeB131]

By expanding the welfare system The War on Poverty, declared in 1964, encouraged bad decisions among black females. A young poor black female with a romantic choice between a responsible black man with a low wage job and a flashy, high stepping drug dealer with a lot of money is likely to choose the later if she knows that the government will help her raise the children she has by the drug dealer.

The war on poverty did just fine, as black poverty declined from 55% in 1960 to 17% today.

And women choosing men who are bad news is hardly restricted to black women.

 

[Markle]

Have you read Lisa's posts? She whines like the Holocaust happened to her, personally.

Gay was perfectly qualified, just not the person for this point in history, where Academia should realize the barbarians are at the gates.

Here is what YOU said. "Jews scream about Genocide if they are even MILDLY criticized."

Saying that Claudine Gay was qualified is just goofy.

 

[Hector12]

The war on poverty did just fine, as black poverty declined from 55% in 1960 to 17% today.

And women choosing men who are bad news is hardly restricted to black women.

The Heritage Foundation

The War on Poverty After 50 Years​

September 15, 2014

SUMMARY

In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.

The War on Poverty After 50 Years

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This...

www.heritage.org

Making welfare assistance more generous and easier to qualify for reduced poverty, but it did not do so in a way that was politically sustainable.

-------------

The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) was an American activist organization that fought for the welfare rights of people, especially women and children. The organization had four goals: adequate income, dignity, justice, and democratic participation. The group was active from 1966 to 1975. At its peak in 1969, NWRO membership was estimated at 25,000 members (mostly African American women). Thousands more joined in NWRO protests.[1]

National Welfare Rights Organization - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

-------------

The War on Poverty and the National Welfare Rights Organization encouraged hundreds of thousands to several million low wage blacks to quit their jobs and go on welfare. These became an unemployable underclass, the members of whom frequently supplement their welfare checks with the gains from criminal activities.

Whites and East Asians are less likely to behave this way.


'

 

[JoeB131]

The Heritage Foundation

The War on Poverty After 50 Years​

After 50 years, the Black Poverty rate went down from 55% to 17%.

The overall poverty rate declined from 22% to 12%.

 

[JoeB131]

Whites and East Asians are less likely to behave this way.

Whites and East Asians haven't encountered 400 years of institutionalized racism.

 

[Hector12]

Whites and East Asians haven't encountered 400 years of institutionalized racism.

How did 400 years of institutional racism cause most blacks to become sexually irresponsible and many of them criminal?

The underlying "thinking" between your "reasoning" if it can be called that is because "we" treated blacks badly in the past we should forgive their bad behavior now.

I do not think that way at all.

Jews were persecuted for nearly two thousand years. This culminated in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, today the Jews are the most accomplished 0.2% of the human population.

 

[Hector12]

After 50 years, the Black Poverty rate went down from 55% to 17%.

View attachment 910500

The overall poverty rate declined from 22% to 12%.

View attachment 910503

Making welfare checks more generous and easier to qualify for reduced poverty, but it did not so so in a way that was politically sustainable.

 

[Hector12]

Actually, nobody except racists say stupid shit like that..

What did I say about durable racial differences that is not true?

 

[JoeB131]

How did 400 years of institutional racism cause most blacks to become sexually irresponsible and many of them criminal?

The underlying "thinking" between your "reasoning" if it can be called that is because "we" treated blacks badly in the past we should forgive their bad behavior now.

I do not think that way at all.

You don't think at all. You spend most of your time feeding your mental illness with garbage science.

Your weird obsession with black people getting laid while you can't would be amusing under normal circumstances, but let's look at the damage that racism has done to the black family. Can't really form a family tradition if your family could be sold off to pay debts at any time.

As for crime... poverty and crime are linked. Every immigrant group has had crime before they were considered "White enough" to mainstream. Yes, even the Jews!

Jews were persecuted for nearly two thousand years. This culminated in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, today the Jews are the most accomplished 0.2% of the human population.

Um, most of the poor Jews were killed. the Affluent Jews were able to get away. I don't think genocide as a group improvement strategy is good.

Wearing out your welcome everywhere you go isn't an accomplishment.

Making welfare checks more generous and easier to qualify for reduced poverty, but it did not so so in a way that was politically sustainable.

Sure it is. Because most people who are on welfare are only on it for a short time, and there are more white folks on welfare than black. The war on poverty, as half-heartedly as it was carried out, has been a resounding success in reducing poverty in this country, despite the Republicans making war on the middle class for 50 years. Like most stupid white people, your rage is misdirected.

What did I say about durable racial differences that is not true?

Everything. Where are the peer-reviewed studies?