Black man shoots 3 white girls for their white privilege.
280 replies, posted
yeah I guess
again, semantics. nobody actually seems to disagree on the facts in this situation
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
shouldn't we be discussing how we might best be ruled by our ashkenazi jew overlords
[QUOTE=Kopimi;39446239]
"white guilt" is a phrase racists use to try and invalidate white people putting forth coherent explanations as to why minorities are disadvantaged in society. nobody is asking you to be guilty for slavery and racism, we're asking you to acknowledge it[/QUOTE]
To be honest I've seen the term used on both sides of the barricade. The problem that a lot of what's being vocalised on both sides is not in terms of what's wrong now, but more in the terms of it's wrong now because of slavery.
And people generally respond really badly to digging up old skeletons, skeletons that might have nothing to do with them, but which are still being paraded in front of them.
Then there's also a second problem which happens at times, in that whenever a member of a majority group has personal problems with a member of the minority group he is labeled as a racist|sexist|etc.
Whereas the if the member of the minority group has far bigger issues with members of the larger group he will often get outside of a similar label.
It can be disconcerning and it's probably also one of the things that drives people to be more racially aware than they would be otherwise.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;39456003]yeah, that's the idea. generally, the sociological definition - the one which was taught to me in school, for instance - has the vital "institutionalised" part implicit in the word, whose casual usage often doesn't. so when people say things like "white people aren't the victims of racism in the western world", they're using the "institutionalised" definition. you get that institutional racism is a thing though, so I'm not bothered
often people use the word to mean racial prejudice, and people certainly can be prejudiced against whites, but it doesn't become [I]racism[/I] racism until you add the societal power part.[/QUOTE]
If you ask me, that is tantamount to whitewashing the term racism and essentially lifting it off minorities in a sense. You would very rarely get someone to say that a white was racially prejudiced against a minority group. It would almost always be that the white person is racist. Or that the asian is racist (in the case of the japanese).
But saying that the minority member is racist seems like a big no no for some reason.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39454991]but yeah it's pretty stupid to think there's not still institutionalized racism that fucks over blacks all the time and to try and claim any of the societal problems faced by blacks today AREN'T caused by hundreds of years of that institution and are in fact just because blacks are less smart & do more crime is retarded as hell.
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
starpluck likes to act like all whites are descendents of slave owners and that anyone that has a problem with black on white racism (which doesn't exist apparently because his made up definition of racism is different to the actual definition of it) pines for those days. and yeah i know he doesn't actually think that but that's what it seems like to me sometimes[/QUOTE]
The issue with institutionalised racism is essentially in the way that it evolves and is a lot more deeply entrenched even among people who are strongly convinced that they are not racist. And they aren't, but they still have clouded judgement.
It makes eradicating it a lot more difficult and it's even harder to eradicate if members of said prejudiced against social groups reinforce it.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39456489]To be honest I've seen the term used on both sides of the barricade. The problem that a lot of what's being vocalised on both sides is not in terms of what's wrong now, but more in the terms of it's wrong now because of slavery.[/QUOTE]
And people generally respond really badly to digging up old skeletons, skeletons that might have nothing to do with them, but which are still being paraded in front of them.[/QUOTE]
they respond badly to people acknowledging american history and the causes for the status of many black americans today? nobody is saying "hey you, you're white right? well fuck you because slavery was YOUR fault", we're just saying shit happened and racism is still affecting people today. i'm white and i certainly don't mind these skeletons being brought up because i realize nobody is accusing me personally of putting those skeletons there
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39456489]Then there's also a second problem which happens at times, in that whenever a member of a majority group has personal problems with a member of the minority group he is labeled as a racist|sexist|etc.[/QUOTE]
yeah that doesn't happen.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39456489]Whereas the if the member of the minority group has far bigger issues with members of the larger group he will often get outside of a similar label.[/QUOTE]
nope.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;39456556]And people generally respond really badly to digging up old skeletons, skeletons that might have nothing to do with them, but which are still being paraded in front of them
they respond badly to people acknowledging american history and the causes for the status of many black americans today? nobody is saying "hey you, you're white right? well fuck you because slavery was YOUR fault", we're just saying shit happened and racism is still affecting people today. i'm white and i certainly don't mind these skeletons being brought up because i realize nobody is accusing me personally of putting those skeletons there
yeah that doesn't happen.
nope.[/QUOTE]
Oddly enough I've seen both situations happen in person. Admittedly in a different setting and toward a different social group than blacks. (European so the group in question was gypsies) and I've worked enough in law to have seen it have fairly adverse effects.
As to your first part. Again I'm not american, so most of your discussion about racism that I see stem from the media and the internet. But the line of reasoning that whites were almost universally at fault for slavery is not that uncommon from what I can see.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39456608]Oddly enough I've seen both situations happen in person. Admittedly in a different setting and toward a different social group than blacks. (European so the group in question was gypsies) and I've worked enough in law to have seen it have fairly adverse effects.
As to your first part. Again I'm not american, so most of your discussion about racism that I see stem from the media and the internet. But the line of reasoning that whites were almost universally at fault for slavery is not that uncommon from what I can see.[/QUOTE]
well yeah i mean they HAPPEN but i thought you meant they were taking place in this forum conversation
i don't see how it's relevant if we're not talking about this discussion
[QUOTE=Kopimi;39456657]well yeah i mean they HAPPEN but i thought you meant they were taking place in this forum conversation
i don't see how it's relevant if we're not talking about this discussion[/QUOTE]
Ah my mistake then. I was under the impression we were talking about the general state of the issue. Not essentially the more somewhat unique position the forum offers us - in part because there's a very large section of non US members who have a completely different cultural understanding of the entire problem as well as racism in general.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39456489]Then there's also a second problem which happens at times, in that whenever a member of a majority group has personal problems with a member of the minority group he is labeled as a racist|sexist|etc.[/QUOTE]
I think people take issue with isn't that, it's "a member of a majority group having personal problems with a member of the minority group, then extrapolating it to most or every other member of the minority group".
If you just say that you had a problem with Steve, then no sensible person is going you call you a racist just because he's Black, but if you go "I had an argument with Steve, these blacks (and you can insert any racial/ethnic group here) are always starting fights", then you're going to get called a racist.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39456840]I think people take issue with isn't that, it's "a member of a majority group having personal problems with a member of the minority group, then extrapolating it to most or every other member of the minority group". If you just say that you had a problem with Steve, then no sensible person is going you call you a racist just because he's Black, but if you go "I had an argument with Steve, these blacks (and you can insert any racial/ethnic group here) are always starting fights", then you're going to get called a racist.[/QUOTE] i hate it when people say stuff like "oh this guy makes black people look bad" or something. it's ridiculous because you assume that every member of a racial group has to fit some standard otherwise they taint the rest. the whole point of getting rid of racism is that we eventually stop looking at "blacks" as a group of people, and begin judging individuals based on individual merits.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39455590][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect[/url][/QUOTE]
So the vast majority of explanations are environmental
[quote]did you read the quote you posted? because what i got from it was that there are four positions on the cause of the race IQ gap issue:
1. environmental factors and inherited brain function
2. social and environmental factors
3. misuse of testing materials to misrepresent an IQ gap that doesn't exist
4. the concepts of race/intelligence are poorly constructed and thus a comparison of intelligence between races is meaningless
literally none of those even slightly imply your racist bullshit theory in which blacks are somehow genetically less intelligent[/quote]
no I very deliberately gave that quote. my point was that
[quote]i'm not saying that "lol niggers r dumb", but I am saying that you can't wave this all away as a pseudoscience or the domain of /pol/tards.[/quote]
regardless of the reasons, the gap exists. regarding the actual argument we're having, which is about the utility of affirmative action, it matters very little why the gap exists, only that it does. regarding public policy at large, it is a concern, but that isn't something I'm talking about right now.
regarding genetics, it is a reasonable hypothesis to make seeing as IQ is undeniably heritable.
[quote]something from your source:[/QUOTE]
the scores of whites have risen as well. regarding the flynn effect in general no one knows exactly what has caused it, but it seems to be associated with general increases in quality of life such as childhood nutrition and reduced exposure to harmful chemicals. indeed the effect has begun to slow down noticeably in very developed countries like Norway.
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39450267]That's an interesting point I'd like to see Dain address
If IQ is genetic and not environmental why are IQs continually climbing higher despite inter-racial and inter-class children becoming more and more common
Shouldn't we be seeing a trend toward the middle[/QUOTE]
[quote]genetic and not environmental[/quote]
I never claimed this at all, it's obvious that intelligence has a large environmental component.
The reasons IQ have been rising are (probably) due to the rapid and sustained improvements in environment that the First World has seen, that have so far masked whatever effect genetics are having.
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39457897]So the vast majority of explanations are environmental[/QUOTE]
what
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
you're confusing explanations for the flynn effect for explanations for IQ differences [I]in general[/I]
it's patently obvious that the former would be dominated by environmental explanations and the latter less so
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jeep-Eep;39449808]Sir, with all due respect, this is an idiot who thinks the Bell Curve is anything but old racial realism/social darwinism bullshite warmed over. You can't expect anything better.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Fifty-two professors, most of them researchers in intelligence and related fields, signed an opinion statement titled "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"[5] endorsing a number of the views presented in The Bell Curve. The statement was written by psychologist Linda Gottfredson and published in The Wall Street Journal in 1994 and subsequently reprinted in Intelligence, an academic journal. Of the 131 who were invited by mail to sign the document, 100 responded, with 52 agreeing to sign and 48 declining. Eleven of the 48 dissenters claimed that the statement or some part thereof did not represent the mainstream view of intelligence.[6][/quote]
[quote]In response to the growing controversy surrounding The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association's Board of Scientific Affairs established a special task force to publish an investigative report on the research presented in the book.[7] The final report, titled Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, is available at an academic website.[8] Some of the task force's findings supported or were consistent with statements from The Bell Curve. They agreed that:
- IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement.
- IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled.
- There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition.
Regarding Murray and Herrnstein's claims about racial differences and genetics, the APA task force stated:
[quote]There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation... . It is sometimes suggested that the Black/ White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.[/quote]
Regarding statements about other explanations for racial differences, the APA task force stated:
[quote]The differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.[/quote]
Regarding statements about any explanations for racial differences, the APA task force stated: "At present, no one knows what causes this differential." The APA journal that published the statement, American Psychologist, subsequently published eleven critical responses in January 1997.[/quote]
[editline]3rd February 2013[/editline]
hm, I think I'll retract what I said about the racial gap being probably genetic, I was wrong there (though intelligence is still obviously heritable)
still, regarding affirmative action it's pretty much irrelevant
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.