Racism

[Ernie S.]

Don't know you pennywise or anything about you. I'm not saying you are a racist.

But I have found that a lot of racists try to imagine that there is this huge gray area about what is and what is not real racism.

I know a cottage industry has sprung up that supports people who scream "racism" when no real racism exists.

I also know that it is very rare for racists to admit that they are racists.

It doesn't matter. It's not rocket science. I - and the overwhelming majority of people - are capable of spotting real (and fake) racism when we see it.

Here's a question:
Let's say I am walking up the street about midnight and see 4 black kids walking towards me.
I decide that it is prudent to cross over to the other side. Am I a racist, or a realist?

Here's a question:
Let's say I am walking up the street about midnight and see 4 white kids walking towards me.
I decide that it is prudent to cross over to the other side. Am I a racist, or a realist?

Neither. You're an asshole, but we knew that already.

 

[Nutz]

Non answer. Try again.

You should read your posts. Like I said, you define yourself. You are conditioned to believe you are being labeled...but think about it, you are being labeled by the vast majority of the world.

You should stick you head out of that bubble and get some fresh air.

You think I write without reading? I find it interesting how you in particular worry about things like racism and other blanket beliefs, and you label everyone with whom you disagree.

Here's what I think, as I wrote in my post on page one- you need to define what words mean, otherwise the most innocuous comment about anything will be labeled by a person who takes offense to it, for their own reason.

If I acknowledge the facts of crime statistics, many people will call me a racist. So the terms need to be defined.

The problem is that you want racism to be defined by your terms. It doesn't work like that. You can post all of the stats you want. What defines you is how you pervert those stats to justify suspect beliefs.

You define yourself, sorry. Those standards are defined by the people in which you choose to engage. That is what defines your character...no me, not pre-defined rules. You are solely responsible, no one else.

 

[Pennywise]

You should read your posts. Like I said, you define yourself. You are conditioned to believe you are being labeled...but think about it, you are being labeled by the vast majority of the world.

You should stick you head out of that bubble and get some fresh air.

You think I write without reading? I find it interesting how you in particular worry about things like racism and other blanket beliefs, and you label everyone with whom you disagree.

Here's what I think, as I wrote in my post on page one- you need to define what words mean, otherwise the most innocuous comment about anything will be labeled by a person who takes offense to it, for their own reason.

If I acknowledge the facts of crime statistics, many people will call me a racist. So the terms need to be defined.

The problem is that you want racism to be defined by your terms. It doesn't work like that. You can post all of the stats you want. What defines you is how you pervert those stats to justify suspect beliefs.

You define yourself, sorry. Those standards are defined by the people in which you choose to engage. That is what defines your character...no me, not pre-defined rules. You are solely responsible, no one else.

No, sorry, back to the end of the line.

Here is a simple statement -

"Young black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to their population density"

Is this a fact, or is it my perception of young black men?

 

[Nutz]

You think I write without reading? I find it interesting how you in particular worry about things like racism and other blanket beliefs, and you label everyone with whom you disagree.

Here's what I think, as I wrote in my post on page one- you need to define what words mean, otherwise the most innocuous comment about anything will be labeled by a person who takes offense to it, for their own reason.

If I acknowledge the facts of crime statistics, many people will call me a racist. So the terms need to be defined.

The problem is that you want racism to be defined by your terms. It doesn't work like that. You can post all of the stats you want. What defines you is how you pervert those stats to justify suspect beliefs.

You define yourself, sorry. Those standards are defined by the people in which you choose to engage. That is what defines your character...no me, not pre-defined rules. You are solely responsible, no one else.

No, sorry, back to the end of the line.

Here is a simple statement -

"Young black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to their population density"

Is this a fact, or is it my perception of young black men?

But your ilk never just says that. Or you say that to support an all black men are evil statement that someone spewed from the USMB racist teaper crowd.

 

[Pennywise]

The problem is that you want racism to be defined by your terms. It doesn't work like that. You can post all of the stats you want. What defines you is how you pervert those stats to justify suspect beliefs.

You define yourself, sorry. Those standards are defined by the people in which you choose to engage. That is what defines your character...no me, not pre-defined rules. You are solely responsible, no one else.

No, sorry, back to the end of the line.

Here is a simple statement -

"Young black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to their population density"

Is this a fact, or is it my perception of young black men?

But your ilk never just says that. Or you say that to support an all black men are evil statement that someone spewed from the USMB racist teaper crowd.

My "ilk". Your problem. Nutz (among legions of them) is you are too ***** to speak your mind plainly. Maybe it's some ***** gene you inherited.

 

[Ernie S.]

Here's a question:
Let's say I am walking up the street about midnight and see 4 black kids walking towards me.
I decide that it is prudent to cross over to the other side. Am I a racist, or a realist?

Unless they are wearing ministers' garb with white collars, cross the street. And of course they are going to call you a racist.

That's not racism. That's fear. Is the fear justified? You have no way of knowing if the only information you have is skin color.

I play a lot of poker. I may win with a pair of threes, but I'll usually not call a bet.

It's all about odds. The odds of reaching my destination are much better if I avoid potential danger.

 

[Nutz]

No, sorry, back to the end of the line.

Here is a simple statement -

"Young black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to their population density"

Is this a fact, or is it my perception of young black men?

But your ilk never just says that. Or you say that to support an all black men are evil statement that someone spewed from the USMB racist teaper crowd.

My "ilk". Your problem. Nutz (among legions of them) is you are too ***** to speak your mind plainly. Maybe it's some ***** gene you inherited.

When have I not spoken my mind plainly. You Suspect-Racist and Holocaust Denying Teapers are hilarious!

 

[Ernie S.]

Jesus, post #2 goes full on ignorant bigot right out of the starting gate.

No build up, no mincing words, just vomits out the white pride psuedo-intellect bullshit.


Tell us about the real genetic intellectual differences in the human race.

Race and intelligence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that American test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites. It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.

The first test showing differences in IQ test results between different population groups in the US was the tests of United States Army recruits in World War I. In the 1920s groups of eugenics lobbyists argued that this demonstrated that these groups were of inferior intellect to Anglo-Saxon whites due to innate biological differences, using this as an argument for policies of racial segregation. Soon, other studies appeared, contesting these conclusions and arguing instead that the Army tests had not adequately controlled for the environmental factors such as socio-economic and educational inequality between African-Americans and Whites. The debate reemerged again in 1969, when Arthur Jensen championed the view that for genetic reasons Africans were less intelligent than whites and that compensatory education for African-American children was therefore doomed to be ineffective. In 1994, the book The Bell Curve, argued that social inequality in America could largely be explained as a result of IQ differences between races and individuals rather than being their cause, and rekindled the public and scholarly debate with renewed force. During the debates following the book's publication the American Anthropological Association and the American Psychological Association (APA) published official statements regarding the issue, both highly skeptical of some of the book's claims, although the APA report called for more empirical research on the issue.

In subsequent decades much research has been published about the relationships between hereditary influences on IQ, group differences in intelligence, race, environmental influences on IQ. Particularly contentious in the ongoing debate has been the definition of both the concept "race" and the concept "intelligence", and especially whether they can in fact be objectively defined and operationalized. While several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence, it has not been demonstrated that they can explain the entire disparity. But on the other hand, no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores. Recent summaries of the debate call for more research into the topic to determine the relative contributions of environmental and genetic factors in explaining the apparent IQ disparity among racial groups.

Perhaps some quality reading would shed some light on this controversial issue.

Before anyone can argue that IQ tests demonstrate a difference in intelligence between individuls or groups, one must understand that few, if any, IQ tests actually measure intelligence. Mostly, they measure knowledge and intelectual training. Intelligence is an inate trait, that can be improved by education and training, but it has to be there in the first place. Some humans are born more intelligent than others, but that fact has nothing to do with race, nor ethnic background.

To a point, you're right, but tests are based on age and one would assume that white and black students in any given age group have been exposed to the same curriculum.

 

[Pheonixops]

The problem is how one defines "racism", because for many, the mere acknowledgement that there are real genetic differences in the human race that can be classified by group, is "racism". I always laugh when people will refuse to admit that there are intellectual differences along with the physical.

Now fire away if you like.

Don't know you pennywise or anything about you. I'm not saying you are a racist.

But I have found that a lot of racists try to imagine that there is this huge gray area about what is and what is not real racism.

I know a cottage industry has sprung up that supports people who scream "racism" when no real racism exists.

I also know that it is very rare for racists to admit that they are racists.

It doesn't matter. It's not rocket science. I - and the overwhelming majority of people - are capable of spotting real (and fake) racism when we see it.

Here's a question:
Let's say I am walking up the street about midnight and see 4 black kids walking towards me.
I decide that it is prudent to cross over to the other side. Am I a racist, or a realist?

I would call it smart no matter what the race of the 4 males were. I will add that I would keep walking on the same side of the street because I feel that crossing the street makes you look like "prey" to predators. If you stay on the same side of the street and don't act afraid, they may think twice because you didn't cross the street and acted unafraid.

 

[Ernie S.]

I said what I wanted to say. Why do you want me to call you a racist? I just said you weren't. Do you have reading comprehension issues? Wait, you are a holocaust denier, so obviously you do have some reading issues.

Again, why do you want to call you a racist?

Holocaust denier, by whose standard? Again, what are the terms of engagement? A person cannot question things like statistics and numbers without being labeled?

It depends on whether or not you are talking to a teaper who is capable of an honest conversation.

What I don't get is why anyone would even attempt an honest conversation with you.

 

[Ernie S.]

Typical liberal, stupid as the day is long. Just so you know, you're on a message board. If you want to have a private conversation, you can PM or go to a chat room.

Great, I guess that means another teaper idiot is going to stalk me.

Stay close, you might learn something.

I'm a libertarian, not a tea partier, but I suppose you're not going to grasp the difference so teeper works.

I do have a question. So you go on a message board and you think anyone who responds to you is "stalk"ing you? Are you getting help?

Obviously not.

 

[Pennywise]

Holocaust denier, by whose standard? Again, what are the terms of engagement? A person cannot question things like statistics and numbers without being labeled?

It depends on whether or not you are talking to a teaper who is capable of an honest conversation.

What I don't get is why anyone would even attempt an honest conversation with you.

Can't argue there. I think I've about had my fill.

 

[Unkotare]

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.

That's why leftists tend to be so racist.

 

[Nutz]

Typical liberal, stupid as the day is long. Just so you know, you're on a message board. If you want to have a private conversation, you can PM or go to a chat room.

Great, I guess that means another teaper idiot is going to stalk me.

Stay close, you might learn something.

I'm a libertarian, not a tea partier, but I suppose you're not going to grasp the difference so teeper works.

Let me explain to you folks how this works...Teapers and libertarians are close cousins. At first, libertarians where all about the TPM...until the racist faction took over the tea party. Now libertarians are very sympathetic to the Teapers...but they distant themselves so they can claim no association when teaper racism is present.

I like libertarians, but you can't win with them because the are stuck to far up Teaper ass.

I do have a question. So you go on a message board and you think anyone who responds to you is "stalk"ing you? Are you getting help?

I put nothing past the crazy teapers on this forum.

 

[Nutz]

Holocaust denier, by whose standard? Again, what are the terms of engagement? A person cannot question things like statistics and numbers without being labeled?

It depends on whether or not you are talking to a teaper who is capable of an honest conversation.

What I don't get is why anyone would even attempt an honest conversation with you.

Most are incapable. They get mad and resort to personal attacks as soon as you ask a question and challenge their thought process. Typical teapers are low information and stupid, so conversations don't go too far.

 

[Ernie S.]

The problem is that you want racism to be defined by your terms. It doesn't work like that. You can post all of the stats you want. What defines you is how you pervert those stats to justify suspect beliefs.

You define yourself, sorry. Those standards are defined by the people in which you choose to engage. That is what defines your character...no me, not pre-defined rules. You are solely responsible, no one else.

No, sorry, back to the end of the line.

Here is a simple statement -

"Young black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to their population density"

Is this a fact, or is it my perception of young black men?

But your ilk never just says that. Or you say that to support an all black men are evil statement that someone spewed from the USMB racist teaper crowd.

He just said that, you idiot! Those of us that quote statistics generally do so when some idiot claims that the justice system is racist because so many blacks are in prison, or that there are more whites on welfare. Statistics are facts, while they can be used to support a position, they are not racist nor is someone using facts to counter lies and rhetoric.

 

[Ravi]

What race are you? I can tell you are lacking in the kindness and compassion area and an curious to know which race we should blame.

Ah nevermind. I'm not going to blame a race because of your heartless behavior. Then I'd be heartless and stupid.

I'm pretty sure you already are.

Though I didn't realize that you believe that races have intellectual differences. Is that a religious belief?

No. It's an intellectual belief. Then I can read. Can you?

LINK
Rushton & Jensen (2005) write that, in the United States, self-identified blacks and whites have been the subjects of the greatest number of studies. They state that the black-white IQ difference is about 15 to 18 points or 1 to 1.1 standard deviations (SDs), which implies that between 11 and 16 percent of the black population have an IQ above 100 (the general population median). According to Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton the black-white IQ difference is largest on those components of IQ tests that are claimed best to represent the general intelligence factor g.[43] The 1996 APA report "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" and the 1994 editorial statement "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" gave more or less similar estimates.[44][45] Roth et al. (2001), in a review of the results of a total of 6,246,729 participants on other tests of cognitive ability or aptitude, found a difference in mean IQ scores between blacks and whites of 1.1 SD. Consistent results were found for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (N = 2.4 million) and Graduate Record Examination (N = 2.3 million), as well as for tests of job applicants in corporate sections (N = 0.5 million) and in the military (N = 0.4 million).[46]

North East Asians have tended to score relatively higher on visuospatial subtests with lower scores in verbal subtests while Ashkenazi Jews score higher in verbal and reasoning subtests with lower scores in visuospatial subtests. The few Amerindian populations who have been systematically tested, including Arctic Natives, tend to score worse on average than white populations but better on average than black populations.[46]

The racial groups studied in the United States and Europe are not necessarily representative samples for populations in other parts of the world. Cultural differences may also factor in IQ test performance and outcomes. Therefore, results in the United States and Europe do not necessarily correlate to results in other populations.[47]

Dear lord not you too.

 

[Ernie S.]

Don't know you pennywise or anything about you. I'm not saying you are a racist.

But I have found that a lot of racists try to imagine that there is this huge gray area about what is and what is not real racism.

I know a cottage industry has sprung up that supports people who scream "racism" when no real racism exists.

I also know that it is very rare for racists to admit that they are racists.

It doesn't matter. It's not rocket science. I - and the overwhelming majority of people - are capable of spotting real (and fake) racism when we see it.

Here's a question:
Let's say I am walking up the street about midnight and see 4 black kids walking towards me.
I decide that it is prudent to cross over to the other side. Am I a racist, or a realist?

I would call it smart no matter what the race of the 4 males were. I will add that I would keep walking on the same side of the street because I feel that crossing the street makes you look like "prey" to predators. If you stay on the same side of the street and don't act afraid, they may think twice because you didn't cross the street and acted unafraid.

I see your point, but if I'm armed, I will cross and if they do as well, at least I know to be ready. I have been there...

 

[Nutz]

No, sorry, back to the end of the line.

Here is a simple statement -

"Young black males commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime compared to their population density"

Is this a fact, or is it my perception of young black men?

But your ilk never just says that. Or you say that to support an all black men are evil statement that someone spewed from the USMB racist teaper crowd.

He just said that, you idiot! Those of us that quote statistics generally do so when some idiot claims that the justice system is racist because so many blacks are in prison, or that there are more whites on welfare. Statistics are facts, while they can be used to support a position, they are not racist nor is someone using facts to counter lies and rhetoric.

Statistics are facts that can be perverted and twisted to serve any purpose and support any idea. These stats you and your ilk always use, you use it to advance your race. You use them to attack other races and you use it to blame other races for your failures.

Facts aren't racist, you are right. It is in the presentation where you and your teaper ilk fail.

 

[Ravi]

Jesus, post #2 goes full on ignorant bigot right out of the starting gate.

No build up, no mincing words, just vomits out the white pride psuedo-intellect bullshit.


Tell us about the real genetic intellectual differences in the human race.

Race and intelligence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The connection between race and intelligence has been a subject of debate in both popular science and academic research since the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century. The debate concerns the interpretation of research findings that American test takers identifying as "White" tend on average to score higher than test takers of African ancestry on IQ tests, and subsequent findings that test takers of East Asian background tend to score higher than whites. It is still not resolved what relation, if any, there is between group differences in IQ and race.

The first test showing differences in IQ test results between different population groups in the US was the tests of United States Army recruits in World War I. In the 1920s groups of eugenics lobbyists argued that this demonstrated that these groups were of inferior intellect to Anglo-Saxon whites due to innate biological differences, using this as an argument for policies of racial segregation. Soon, other studies appeared, contesting these conclusions and arguing instead that the Army tests had not adequately controlled for the environmental factors such as socio-economic and educational inequality between African-Americans and Whites. The debate reemerged again in 1969, when Arthur Jensen championed the view that for genetic reasons Africans were less intelligent than whites and that compensatory education for African-American children was therefore doomed to be ineffective. In 1994, the book The Bell Curve, argued that social inequality in America could largely be explained as a result of IQ differences between races and individuals rather than being their cause, and rekindled the public and scholarly debate with renewed force. During the debates following the book's publication the American Anthropological Association and the American Psychological Association (APA) published official statements regarding the issue, both highly skeptical of some of the book's claims, although the APA report called for more empirical research on the issue.

In subsequent decades much research has been published about the relationships between hereditary influences on IQ, group differences in intelligence, race, environmental influences on IQ. Particularly contentious in the ongoing debate has been the definition of both the concept "race" and the concept "intelligence", and especially whether they can in fact be objectively defined and operationalized. While several environmental factors have been shown to affect group differences in intelligence, it has not been demonstrated that they can explain the entire disparity. But on the other hand, no genetic factor has been conclusively shown to have a causal relation with group difference in intelligence test scores. Recent summaries of the debate call for more research into the topic to determine the relative contributions of environmental and genetic factors in explaining the apparent IQ disparity among racial groups.

Perhaps some quality reading would shed some light on this controversial issue.

Before anyone can argue that IQ tests demonstrate a difference in intelligence between individuls or groups, one must understand that few, if any, IQ tests actually measure intelligence. Mostly, they measure knowledge and intelectual training. Intelligence is an inate trait, that can be improved by education and training, but it has to be there in the first place. Some humans are born more intelligent than others, but that fact has nothing to do with race, nor ethnic background.

bingo