Zone1 What is race realism?

[Lisa558]

You haven't heard of blacks getting special treatment either. Coyote doesn't have to prove anything to you.

Affirmative action in the United States is the active effort to improve employment, educational, and other opportunities for members of groups that have been subjected to discrimination. Criteria for affirmative action include race, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, and age.

Yes, the intent of Affirmative Action is to prevent discrimination - NOT to devise ways to favor one particular race and discriminate against the other two.

 

[IM2]

Yes, the intent of Affirmative Action is to prevent discrimination - NOT to devise ways to favor one particular race and discriminate against the other two.

It doesn't favor one race. You've been shown that countless times. So stop repeating that lie.

 

[Friends]

Wrong. And that's just a stupid comment.

Look at the data.

 

[Friends]

Wrong. And that's just a stupid comment.

More and more is learned about the genetic reasons for intelligence and criminal behavior. Sanctions and taboos remain because anti racists fear what the genetic research will discover.

 

[IM2]

Look at the data.

I did. Years ago and you're wrong. How about you go look at a longitudinal assessment of white crime and violence so you can face the truth.

 

[Friends]

It doesn't favor one race. You've been shown that countless times. So stop repeating that lie.

Those petitioning the Supreme Court about affirmative action have demonstrated that blacks are admitted to Harvard whose qualifications are inferior to Orientals who are rejected.

 

[Friends]

I did. Years ago and you're wrong. How about you go look at a longitudinal assessment of white crime and violence so you can face the truth.

You posted a word salad. I posted a few sentences posted on a Department of Justice website.

 

[IM2]

More and more is learned about the genetic reasons for intelligence and criminal behavior. Sanctions and taboos remain because anti racists fear what the genetic research will discover.

No, more and more it's not. What you believe is a bunch of garbage that has been debunked. You cling to that lie because it's all you have.

 

[IM2]

Those petitioning the Supreme Court about affirmative action have demonstrated that blacks are admitted to Harvard whose qualifications are inferior to Orientals who are rejected.

No, that was not proven. The circuit court rejected that claim and Edward Blum appealed.

 

[IM2]

You posted a word salad. I posted a few sentences posted on a Department of Justice website.

I posted homicide numbers that do not show blacks committing homicide at 8 times the rate of whites and showed categories of homicide whites led in. Your opinion is a bunch of anti black hate malarkey. Just face this reality and grow.

 

[Friends]

No, more and more it's not. What you believe is a bunch of garbage that has been debunked. You cling to that lie because it's all you have.

Scientific findings about the genetic reasons for intelligence and crime have been denounced, but never debunked.

The following passage comes from A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History, by Nicholas Wade:

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

Such a link has been asserted by a research team led by Michael Vaughn of Saint Louis University. He and his colleagues looked at the MAO-A promoters in African Americans. The subjects were the same 2,524 American youths in the study by Shih mentioned above. Of the African American men in the sample, 5% carried MAO-A promoters, the condition that Shih had found to be associated with higher levels of delinquency. Members of the two-promoter group were significantly more likely to have been arrested and imprisoned than African Americans who carried three or fur promoters. The same comparison could not be made in white, or Caucasian males, the researchers report, because only 0.1% carry the two-promoter allele. (page 56)

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

What he is saying is that two alleles of the MAO-A gene contribute to criminal behavior, and that they are much more likely to be found in blacks than in whites. I am confident that more gene alleles promoting crime will be discovered, and that blacks will be much more likely to have them than whites. The discoveries will be made despite sanctions and taboos against looking for them by those who fear the truth.

 

[Friends]

No, that was not proven. The circuit court rejected that claim and Edward Blum appealed.

The Supreme Court is still going to take up the case.

 

[Friends]

I posted homicide numbers that do not show blacks committing homicide at 8 times the rate of whites and showed categories of homicide whites led in. Your opinion is a bunch of anti black hate malarkey. Just face this reality and grow.

Here is the posted I posted:

"Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)"

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

The meaning is very clear.

 

[Lisa558]

It doesn't favor one race. You've been shown that countless times. So stop repeating that lie.

And you have been shown, via statistics, that blacks are being favored.

And stop calling me a liar simply because I push back against your claims. These personal attacks in Zone 1 are not allowed.

 

[Lisa558]

No, that was not proven. The circuit court rejected that claim and Edward Blum appealed.

You have something against Edward Blum? (Never heard of him.) But obviously he sounds like a decent man who recognizes that rejecting Asians with top grades and scores with the bogus excuse that they’re unlikeable is racist, pure and simple.

 

[Friends]

You have something against Edward Blum? (Never heard of him.) But obviously he sounds like a decent man who recognizes that rejecting Asians with top grades and scores with the bogus excuse that they’re unlikeable is racist, pure and simple.

I have never known an Oriental I did not like. They are intelligent and courteous.

 

[Lisa558]

I have never known an Oriental I did not like. They are intelligent and courteous.

Same here. But they do seem to be more on the quiet and serious side, which Harvard apparently doesn’t like. In fact, that was one of the traits they saw as a negative on the personality test: that Asians were too serious.

Can you BELIEVE this nonsense? I wish I could get a seat when they argue the SCOTUS case.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Same here. But they do seem to be more on the quiet and serious side, which Harvard apparently doesn’t like. In fact, that was one of the traits they saw as a negative on the personality test: that Asians were too serious.

Can you BELIEVE this nonsense? I wish I could get a seat when they argue the SCOTUS case.

Yep.

The personality tests are simply a way of subverting the objectivity of admission standards by introducing entirely subjective and capricious standards as determined by people with a pre-determined agenda, instead.

 

[Lisa558]

Yep.

The personality tests are simply a way of subverting the objectivity of admission standards by introducing entirely subjective and capricious standards as determined by people with a pre-determined agenda, instead.

Yup. REMEMBER - I worked in admissions. I know what went on behind the scenes.

They needed a way to explain the ever-increasing gap between the GPAs/test scores of accepted blacks and rejected whites, so they intentionally devised a subjective test in which the “unwanted” race could be scored low on and the “desired” race could be scored high on.

This is what is at the crux of the SCOTUS hearing: is it constitutional to devise exams to meet the pre-determined objective to limit Asian admittance?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Yup. REMEMBER - I worked in admissions. I know what went on behind the scenes.

They needed a way to explain the ever-increasing gap between the GPAs/test scores of accepted blacks and rejected whites, so they intentionally devised a subjective test in which the “unwanted” race could be scored low on and the “desired” race could be scored high on.

This is what is at the crux of the SCOTUS hearing: is it constitutional to devise exams to meet the pre-determined objective to limit Asian admittance?

I find it ironic that our schools adhere to a meritocracy when it comes to their sports programs, but not their academic. Considering that academics provide the very basis for their existence and sports do not, this seems especially arch.