• Black man shoots 3 white girls for their white privilege.
    280 replies, posted
Why is this funny to you people? If a white guy shot three black girls because they were black, would you be laughing? Bunch of racists the lot of you.
[QUOTE=yaourt -Syua;39445571]Why is this funny to you people? If a white guy shot three black girls because they were black, would you be laughing? Bunch of racists the lot of you.[/QUOTE] Yes because he's stupid.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39440028]It's easy to say it doesn't matter anymore when it wasn't your family held back for multiple generations. During that entire time while white families were establishing themselves and acquiring wealth, black people weren't allowed to do any of that It's asinine to think this doesn't have effects even today[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39440751]Because whites have more common and superior means to gain the merits needed to get a good position in a school or in a job and because blacks are the unfortunate victims of nurture because of the past actions of whites.[/QUOTE] Here's the thing that just does not, and has not ever I might add, make any dammed sense to me. Why the hell are we going around in circles with these topical solutions instead of trying to fix the root cause of the problems? Minorities are frequently at a severe disadvantage because they are in positions where they are too poor to actually GET moving in the first place, let alone climb the ladder out of the pit they are in. Shouldn't we, you know, be pushing towards actually providing people with their basic right to a free and good education? AA doesn't help some poor fucker living in a ghetto learn math skills he's going to need to survive. If his schooling is absolute shit, he's going to have fuck all for education and is never going to even get to the spot where AA is going to give him a shot. It helps some slightly less fucked individual get into a job, or get into a better school, but it doesn't help someone at the absolute bottom of the pile get out. Shouldn't we be pushing for actual social mobility? Where your wealth is determined by your actual merits? You know, "the American way", as opposed to your wealth being determined by your heritage? Obviously it's more complicated than simply improving schooling, but seriously, what the fuck is AA actually doing to help the core of the problem? AA just reeks of bandaid solution to me. It's quite frankly alarming how many parallels you can draw between it and gun control as well as drug laws. To me it feels like warm fuzzy feel good legislation that lets you pretend that you are actually trying to do something productive and help, when the reality is that you aren't accomplishing much of anything, and can quite conceivably be hurting other people in the interests of some misguided sense of "equality". It's going the wrong way. You are lowering standards for minorities instead of increasing the standards of their lives.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39444273]If I hear the phrase Sainus Squad being used pejoratively one more time you're getting banned. Associating people to some bogey man organization to try to discredit your opponent is lazy, bad posting-style and has no place in debating.[/QUOTE] They get their power from people saying it Why are you working with the enemy [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;39445944]Here's the thing that just does not, and has not ever I might add, make any dammed sense to me. Why the hell are we going around in circles with these topical solutions instead of trying to fix the root cause of the problems? Minorities are frequently at a severe disadvantage because they are in positions where they are too poor to actually GET moving in the first place, let alone climb the ladder out of the pit they are in. Shouldn't we, you know, be pushing towards actually providing people with their basic right to a free and good education? AA doesn't help some poor fucker living in a ghetto learn math skills he's going to need to survive. If his schooling is absolute shit, he's going to have fuck all for education and is never going to even get to the spot where AA is going to give him a shot. It helps some slightly less fucked individual get into a job, or get into a better school, but it doesn't help someone at the absolute bottom of the pile get out. Shouldn't we be pushing for actual social mobility? Where your wealth is determined by your actual merits? You know, "the American way", as opposed to your wealth being determined by your heritage? Obviously it's more complicated than simply improving schooling, but seriously, what the fuck is AA actually doing to help the core of the problem? AA just reeks of bandaid solution to me. It's quite frankly alarming how many parallels you can draw between it and gun control as well as drug laws. To me it feels like warm fuzzy feel good legislation that lets you pretend that you are actually trying to do something productive and help, when the reality is that you aren't accomplishing much of anything, and can quite conceivably be hurting other people in the interests of some misguided sense of "equality". It's going the wrong way. You are lowering standards for minorities instead of increasing the standards of their lives.[/QUOTE] Getting more minorities into well paying careers by providing them with accessible post-secondary education will help address poverty in future generations. But yes I completely agree that post-sec should be a basic right for everyone. We've already managed to somehow devalue it so let's just give it to everyone and patch up that last bit of class divide it's causing.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39439747]correlation is not causation[/QUOTE] is it just me or do you say this in response to like literally every statistic brought up in the history of mankind or something correlation is not causation when you can show that there are other factors influencing an outcome. if literally everything is "correlating" towards a certain result generally it can be safe to assume the two are related. saying "correlation is not causation" and expecting it to instantly invalidate a mound of evidence towards a point being made, in this case that blacks are still oppressed in american society, is fucking ridiculous and yet another reason why i don't take anything you say seriously [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sluggy;39439927]I don't feel guilty for things I haven't done[/QUOTE] "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=Kopimi;39446239]is it just me or do you say this in response to like literally every statistic brought up in the history of mankind or something correlation is not causation when you can show that there are other factors influencing an outcome. if literally everything is "correlating" towards a certain result generally it can be safe to assume the two are related. saying "correlation is not causation" and expecting it to instantly invalidate a mound of evidence towards a point being made, in this case that blacks are still oppressed in american society, is fucking ridiculous and yet another reason why i don't take anything you say seriously [/QUOTE] Let me requote why he said that: "higher incarceration rates, crime rates, illiteracy rates, poverty rates, unemployment rates, but they aren't an oppressed or disadvantaged group of ppl nosiree" He said what he said because those things might not be the way they are because white people don't like black people. It could very well be a chronic problem in black culture, or it could be the areas they live in, or it could be that blacks have a lower average IQ, and IQ works alongside socioeconomic status to give a good idea where people will end up. All sorts of reasons exist as possible explanations of why blacks are disadvantaged, and none of them require racism from whites. You'd be a fool to say racism doesn't happen, but you'd also be a fool to think we're still in the 60's and racism is the one and only reason blacks are in the position they are in now. [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] January 1, 1863: Abraham Lincoln issues a presidential order called the Emancipation Proclamation. December 18, 1865: Thirteenth Amendment signed into law, making slavery illegal. Today is February 2, 2013. That means it has been approximately 147 years since slavery was made illegal. About 6 generations of people have lived and died since then. In contrast, 3 generations have come since the Jews started to get rounded up by the Nazis, and nobody drones on about how Germany/Nazis still owe the Jews recompense for their treatment... so why the fuck are we still talking about slavery?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;39446642]Let me requote why he said that: "higher incarceration rates, crime rates, illiteracy rates, poverty rates, unemployment rates, but they aren't an oppressed or disadvantaged group of ppl nosiree" He said what he said because those things might not be the way they are because white people don't like black people. It could very well be a chronic problem in black culture, or it could be the areas they live in, or it could be that blacks have a lower average IQ, and IQ works alongside socioeconomic status to give a good idea where people will end up. All sorts of reasons exist as possible explanations of why blacks are disadvantaged, and none of them require racism from whites. You'd be a fool to say racism doesn't happen, but you'd also be a fool to think we're still in the 60's and racism is the one and only reason blacks are in the position they are in now.[/QUOTE] uhh the reason blacks are in the position they are in now is because in the 60's, less than 60 years ago, they were 2nd class citizens and were disadvantaged not only socially but economically. as a result of hundreds of years of racism and discrimination in america, generation after generation of black americans were born into poverty and many were doomed to die there as well. black people are disproportionately undereducated and impoverished as a result of far-reaching socioeconomic conditions that resulted from overt racism in our society not long ago. so for yawmwen to say that those statistics about black people existed because of racism against blacks in america was completely valid and true. all of your alternative explanations for this situation were results of racism against blacks, so good job proving my point. [QUOTE=FlakAttack;39446642]January 1, 1863: Abraham Lincoln issues a presidential order called the Emancipation Proclamation. December 18, 1865: Thirteenth Amendment signed into law, making slavery illegal. Today is February 2, 2013. That means it has been approximately 147 years since slavery was made illegal. About 6 generations of people have lived and died since then. In contrast, 3 generations have come since the Jews started to get rounded up by the Nazis, and nobody drones on about how Germany/Nazis still owe the Jews recompense for their treatment... so why the fuck are we still talking about slavery?[/QUOTE] what are you even talking about? its not like racism disappeared as soon as slavery was made illegal, so how does any of this have anything to do with whether or not we should acknowledge that racism is still affecting black americans today? honestly what the fuck are you on about? we're not talking about jews and nazis becuase jews aren't disproportionately impoverished and incarcerated in america today, because jews weren't enslaved and treated as subhuman for a couple hundred years in america, because as terrible an event the holocaust was, it was a comparatively short period of history compared to the hundreds of years of social discrimination being built up against black americans.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;39446887] because jews weren't enslaved and treated as subhuman for a couple hundred years in america, because as terrible an event the holocaust was, it was a comparatively short period of history compared to the hundreds of years of social discrimination being built up against black americans.[/QUOTE] what about native americans
[QUOTE=Kopimi;39446887]all of your alternative explanations for this situation were results of racism against blacks, so good job proving my point.[/QUOTE] no they aren't black people would still have lower IQs regardless of whether or not europeans conquered them
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39447563]no they aren't black people would still have lower IQs regardless of whether or not europeans conquered them[/QUOTE] Oh dear
in fairness the current societal racism isn't helping the problem. in a decent, sufficiently egalitarian society the IQ gap would close substantially but I doubt it would go away completely [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Starpluck;39444273]If I hear the phrase Sainus Squad being used pejoratively one more time you're getting banned. Associating people to some bogey man organization to try to discredit your opponent is lazy, bad posting-style and has no place in debating.[/QUOTE] cannot take a joke
snip
part of the reason why some peoples never developed to the stage of the advanced European and Asian civilizations is down to biology biology as in, they didn't have very many (if any) pack animals or cereals that would have allowed them to sustain complex societies like, nobody in the new world ever bothered inventing the wheel for anything useful, and that was partly down to have no draft animals around
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39447563]no they aren't black people would still have lower IQs regardless of whether or not europeans conquered them[/QUOTE] well it's nice to know that you're simply undeniably racist and are trying to use science to back it up [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=overpain;39447632][IMG]http://puu.sh/1WiCh[/IMG] True.[/QUOTE] FYI this quote is not Charles Darwin, it's some racist governor of SC but good job posting stormfront propaganda :)
first of all english isn't my first language and second i ain't making words up, calling me a stormfronter would be as stupid as me calling you JIDF, so now everyone who doesn't agree with your globalist ideology is a nazi? Nice commie tactics "Cultural Marxism refers to a category within cultural studies, popular mainly in the 1960s. Its purpose is to apply analytical techniques developed by Karl Marx (see dialectic materialism) to discover power structures within cultural artefacts like family composition, gender, race, or cultural identity within Western society." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM[/url] but go ahead and be biased and go watch some more michael moore you sad fucks [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Megafan))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39448172]well it's nice to know that you're simply undeniably racist and are trying to use science to back it up[/QUOTE] so facts can be racist? believing in differences between human subpopulations does not mean that i have to change my moral outlook. my opinions on affirmative action are the same as they would be if i didn't believe in racial differences - ie color-blind selection processes are the best because they don't discriminate. discriminating based on race is just stupid regardless. i mean if you're going to make your moral judgments dependent on actual contingent facts about race then you open yourself up to either hypocrisy or racism.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39448833]so facts can be racist? believing in differences between human subpopulations does not mean that i have to change my moral outlook. my opinions on affirmative action are the same as they would be if i didn't believe in racial differences - ie color-blind selection processes are the best because they don't discriminate. discriminating based on race is just stupid regardless. i mean if you're going to make your moral judgments dependent on actual contingent facts about race then you open yourself up to either hypocrisy or racism.[/QUOTE] Careful there, you're conflating what you think are 'facts' with what is actually racist pseudoscience.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39448903]Careful there, you're conflating what you think are 'facts' with what is actually racist pseudoscience.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence[/url] [quote]While the existence of racial IQ gaps is well-documented and not subject to much dispute, there is no consensus among researchers as to their cause. Research into potential genetic causes for intellectual differences between races is controversial and has generated heated debate.[3] Some researchers fear that the findings could be misused to perpetuate racial stereotypes, while others contend that the politicization of the field threatens to stifle important avenues of research.[4][5] Four contemporary classifications of position regarding study of differences in IQ based on race/ethnicity are seen. The first is that these gaps reflect a real difference in average group intelligence, which is caused by a combination of environmental factors and heritable differences in brain function. A second position is that differences in average cognitive ability between races exist and are caused entirely by social and/or environmental factors. A third position holds that differences in average cognitive ability between races do not exist, and that the differences in average test scores are the result of inappropriate use of the tests themselves. Finally, a fourth position is that either or both of the concepts of race and general intelligence are poorly constructed and therefore any comparisons between races are meaningless.[1][/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. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] the taboo on even discussing this thing is part of why it remains such an academic quagmire
[QUOTE=Starpluck;39448903]Careful there, you're conflating what you think are 'facts' with what is actually racist pseudoscience.[/QUOTE] 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=Craig Willmore;39447358]what about native americans[/QUOTE] what about them? they went through much of the same issues and are currently disadvantaged because of it? am i supposed to run through a list of every disadvantaged minority group in america whenever we have a discussion about blacks in america just to satisfy you guys?? [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39448972][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence[/url] 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. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] the taboo on even discussing this thing is part of why it remains such an academic quagmire[/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 [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] something from your source: [quote]Raw scores on IQ tests have been rising. This score increase, primarily in the lower end of the distribution, is known as the "Flynn effect," named for James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications. In the United States, the increase has been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. [B]For example, in the United States the average scores of blacks on some IQ tests in 1995 were the same as the scores of whites in 1945[/B][/quote]
[quote] For example, in the United States the average scores of blacks on some IQ tests in 1995 were the same as the scores of whites in 1945[/quote] 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=Starpluck;39444273]If I hear the phrase Sainus Squad being used pejoratively one more time you're getting banned. Associating people to some bogey man organization to try to discredit your opponent is lazy, bad posting-style and has no place in debating. [editline]1st February 2013[/editline] Absolutely not. What are you on about?[/QUOTE] you don't seem to mind associating all white people with some black-suppressing slave-owning bogey man organization to discredit anyone that disagrees with you
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39454955]you don't seem to mind associating all white people with some black-suppressing slave-owning bogey man organization to discredit anyone that disagrees with you[/QUOTE] what
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] [QUOTE=Kopimi;39454960]what[/QUOTE] 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=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] I came here to post something similar [quote=Wikiped]A 2006 study by Dickens and Flynn estimated that the black-white gap closed by about 5 or 6 IQ points between 1972 and 2002,[48] which would be a reduction of about one-third. However this was challenged by Rushton & Jensen who claim the gap remains stable.[49] In a 2006 study, Murray agreed with Dickens and Flynn that there has been a narrowing of the gap; "Dickens' and Flynn's estimate of 3–6 IQ points from a base of about 16–18 points is a useful, though provisional, starting point". But he argued that this has stalled and that there has been no further narrowing for people born after the late 1970s.[50] Murray found similar results in a 2007 study.[51][/quote] anyway, I don't see why dain is fixated on the gap between black and white people when the jewish-white gap is just as large, which never seems to get discussed. what are the implications of any of this? [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;39454991]the actual definition[/QUOTE] when you say "the actual definition" of racism, are you talking about dictionary definitions? because they can be lacking. for example, [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electron]dictionary.com[/url] defines an electron as a particle, which is only partly true - and you wouldn't try to refute the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment]double slit experiment[/url] that show the wave nature of electrons with "dictionary.com said it was a particle".
[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] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect[/url]
[QUOTE=Turnips5;39455250] when you say "the actual definition" of racism, are you talking about dictionary definitions? because they can be lacking. for example, [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/electron]dictionary.com[/url] defines an electron as a particle, which is only partly true - and you wouldn't try to refute the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment]double slit experiment[/url] that show the wave nature of electrons with "dictionary.com said it was a particle".[/QUOTE] yes i mean dictionary definition. i agree that whites don't face INSTITUTIONALIZED racism like blacks do (although i'm sure people that have been passed over for jobs due to affirmative action would disagree, but AA is a pretty complex issue i reckon) due to the 'institution' being run by whites. and yeah i wouldn't try to refute the double slit experiment cause i have no clue what it is nor do i really care physics makes my brain bleed
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;39455740]yes i mean dictionary definition. i agree that whites don't face INSTITUTIONALIZED racism like blacks do due to the 'institution' being run by whites.[/QUOTE] 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=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] well i think it'd be a whole lot less confusing for everyone if people would say institutionalized racism rather than just racism. but yeah whatever arguments over semantics are the worst thing
If racism meant institutionalized racism I would agree that the black-on-white thing is not racism (unless it were say in a country run by black people). However, as far as I am aware, if racism meant institutionalized racism, I kinda wonder why it has the word "institutionalized" in it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.