Whites to become minority in Metro Vancouver by 2031 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40120899]So the graph shows IQ of whites and blacks living in the same neighborhoods, going to the same schools and who have having similar income?[/QUOTE] Not that particular graph, but there are others which show the same. Let me dig some up, brb

[QUOTE=Lua Laputa;40120029] anyway I thought norwegian nazi black metal died out in the 90's[/QUOTE] no, black metal with white supremacist themes still exists, it's pretty widespread in eastern and northern europe

[QUOTE=Cl0cK;40120873]This is officially the worst post I ever read. I'm surprised that's not considered racism too.[/QUOTE] I'd like to know who decided who's black and who's white. Must've been one hell of a job.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40120808]I'm sure the Australian natives have done plenty of that.[/QUOTE] They really didn't have the opportunity to but I think they would have eventually. They have an Oral history so we can't really know they have alot of war/genocide. They did treat women pretty badly and have slavery.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40121091]They really didn't have the opportunity to but I think they would have eventually. They have an Oral history so we can't really know they have alot of war/genocide. They did treat women pretty badly and have slavery.[/QUOTE] True. Usually you need to become highly successful and powerful before you can start fucking over other people.

I read the last few sites and I think you guys should read up on how Ethnopluralism is the new Racism.

[QUOTE=Cl0cK;40120873]This is officially the worst post I ever read. I'm surprised that's not considered racism too.[/QUOTE] it is definitely racism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40119813]and why would you be proud of your culture or nationality if you were not proud of your history? i mean what proud german doesn't look back at things like prussia and otto von bismark with a little bit of pride?(that's p. much the only german history i know). what proud italian doesn't feel proud about inheriting the legacy of the roman empire? or the great works of art and science that came from italy? if you asked an englishman why britain is a great place, they would probably talk your ear off about the great british empire that spanned the entire world.[/QUOTE] Every one of those empires has a history of oppression and genocide, therefore by your logic in being proud to be of a nationality who committed grnocide at some point as a major part of their history you are proud of and condone that genocide. To say that "whites" are too diverse to share a racial pride but "blacks" are not is hypocritical. The average black American shares next to nothing in common with the average black African, Hatian, Trinidadian, or any other black of any nationality (except maybe Canadian) other than their skin colour. Yet somehow, any black anywhere can be collectively proud of the achievements of any other black person in the world, but for some reason the same cannot be said about whites. To say, also, that racism and genocide is something exclusive to whites is both false and ignorant. Every race has had members that have committed horrible genocide, if all that links white people together is genocide, then that's all that links any race together, because a black person from America is different than a black person from Somalia is different than a black person from the Dominican, an Asian from Japan is different than an Asian from China is different than an Asian from Vietnam, a brown person from India is different than a brown person from Iran is different than a brown person from Saudi Arabia, and a white person from Australia is different than a white person from Germany is different than a white person from Norway, and if all that links white people internationally is genocide, that's all that links black people, brown people, and Asians too. The only races who do not have a known history of committing genocide and that can be linked together commonly are the natives from America and Australia, who share a common history of oppression and genocide against them.

[QUOTE=Killuah;40121053]I'd like to know who decided who's black and who's white. Must've been one hell of a job.[/QUOTE] IIRC it was self-reported and they excluded mixed race from it. (don't take my word for it though, I haven't looked into the nitty gritty bits of the methodology) Okay here we go: [quote][B]Are the Differences in Overall Black and White Test Scores Attributable to Differences in Socioeconomic Status?[/B] This question has two different answers depending on how the question is understood, and confusion is rampant. We will take up the two answers and their associated rationales separately: [B]First version:[/B] [I]If you extract the effects of socioeconomic class, what happens to the overall magnitude of the B/W difference?[/I] Blacks are disproportionately in the lower socioeconomic classes, and socioeconomic class is known to be associated with IQ. Therefore, many people suggest, part of what appears to be an ethnic difference in IQ scores is actually a socioeconomic difference. The answer to this version of the question is that the size of the gap shrinks when socioeconomic status is statistically extracted. The NLSY gives a result typical of such analyses. The B/W difference in the NLSY is 1.21. In a regression equation in which both race and socioeconomic background are entered, the difference between whites and blacks shrinks to .76 standard deviation.40 Socioeconomic status explains 37 percent of the original B/W difference. This relationship is in line with the results from many other studies.41 The difficulty comes in interpreting what it means to “control” for socioeconomic status. Matching the status of the groups is usually justified on the grounds that the scores people earn are caused to some extent by their socioeconomic status, so if we want to see the “real” or “authentic” difference between them, the contribution of status must be excluded.42 The trouble is that socioeconomic status is also a [I]result[/I] of cognitive ability, as people of high and low cognitive ability move to correspondingly high and low places in the socioeconomic continuum. The reason that parents have high or low socioeconomic status is in part a function of their intelligence, and their intelligence also affects the IQ of the children via both genes and environment. Because of these relationships, “controlling” for socioeconomic status in racial comparisons is guaranteed to reduce IQ differences in the same way that choosing black and white samples from a school for the intellectually gifted is guaranteed to reduce IQ differences (assuming race-blind admissions standards). But the remaining difference is not necessarily more real or authentic than the one we start with. This seems to be a hard point to grasp, judging from the pervasiveness of controlling for socioeconomic status in the sociological literature on ethnic differences. But suppose we were asking whether blacks and whites differed in sprinting speed, and controlled for “varsity status” by examining only athletes on the track teams in Division I colleges. Blacks would probably still sprint faster than whites on the average, but it would be a smaller difference than in the population at large. Is there any sense in which this smaller difference would be a more accurate measure of the racial difference in sprinting ability than the larger difference in the general population? We pose that as an interesting theoretical issue. In terms of numbers, a reasonable rule of thumb is that controlling for socioeconomic status reduces the overall B/W difference by about a third. [B]Second version:[/B] [I]As blacks move up the socioeconomic ladder, do the differences with whites of similar socioeconomic status diminish?[/I] The first version of the SES/IQ question referred to the overall score of a population of blacks and whites. The second version concentrates on the B/W difference within socioeconomic classes. The rationale goes like this: Blacks score lower on average because they are socioeconomically at a disadvantage in our society. This disadvantage should most seriously handicap the children of blacks in the lower socioeconomic classes, who suffer from greater barriers to education and occupational advancement than do the children of blacks in the middle and upper classes. As blacks advance up the socioeconomic ladder, their children, less exposed to these environmental deficits, will do better and, by extension, close the gap with white children of their class. This expectation is not borne out by the data. A good way to illustrate this is by using our parental SES index and matching it against the mean IQ score, as shown in the figure below. IQ scores increase with economic status for both races. But as the figure shows, the magnitude of the B/W difference in standard deviations does not decrease. Indeed, it gets larger as people move up from the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. The pattern shown in the figure is consistent with many other major studies, except that the gap flattens out. In other studies, the gap has continued to increase throughout the range of socioeconomic status.43 [B]Black IQ scores go up with socioeconomic status, but the black-white difference does not shrink[/B] [img]http://i.imgur.com/2mbqemc.png[/img][/quote]

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40121164]IIRC it was self-reported and they excluded mixed race from it. (don't take my word for it though, I haven't looked into the nitty gritty bits of the methodology) Okay here we go:[/QUOTE] "Excluding mixed race" This is pretty hilarious.

[QUOTE=sp00ks;40121141]it is definitely racism.[/QUOTE] Isn't there a rule against racism on Facepunch?

[QUOTE=Killuah;40121213]"Excluding mixed race" This is pretty hilarious.[/QUOTE] ? Mixed race people weren't excluded from the NYLS, just in the making of this particular graph, only the data from "white" and "black" people was included. It would have been a nightmare to sift through it otherwise. [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sp00ks;40121141]it is definitely racism.[/QUOTE] I'm pointing out differences between races as an empirical fact, I'm not making any kind of moral or prescriptive judgment. Why should it be banworthy to post something which may turn out to be empirically true or false?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40121314]? Mixed race people weren't excluded from the NYLS, just in the making of this particular graph, only the data from "white" and "black" people was included. It would have been a nightmare to sift through it otherwise. [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] I'm pointing out differences between races as an empirical fact, I'm not making any kind of moral or prescriptive judgment. Why should it be banworthy to post something which may turn out to be empirically true or false?[/QUOTE] I'm laughing about the idea that people who aren't mixed "race" exist. Ask yourself what is left when you exclude "mixed race". It's pretty hilarious. I'm also laughing about you guys using the word "race".

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40121148]To say, also, that racism and genocide is something exclusive to whites is both false and ignorant. Every race has had members that have committed horrible genocide, if all that links white people together is genocide, then that's all that links any race together, because a black person from America is different than a black person from Somalia is different than a black person from the Dominican...[/QUOTE] Exactly, does no one remember the Rwandan and Cambodian genocides, or that Mugabe beats up white people All kinds of people are capable of the worst shit

[QUOTE=Killuah;40121213]"Excluding mixed race" This is pretty hilarious.[/QUOTE] How would you include mixed race results, though? What's your threshold for white/blackness? It's not as homogenous a group as either race (which aren't really that homogenous, but are more similar than not), so there really shouldn't be a "mixed race" statistic in there either. [QUOTE=Killuah;40121354]I'm laughing about the idea that people who aren't mixed race exist. Ask yourself what is left when you exclude "mixed race". It's pretty hilarious.[/QUOTE] Obviously all humans descend from ancient Africans, so technically everyone's ancestors are going to be black if you go back far enough. That's not really considered when they're talking about someone being "mixed race". I'm not sure exactly who gets to define how many generations of "white" or "black" it takes for you to be white or black.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;40121368]How would you include mixed race results, though? What's your threshold for white/blackness? It's not as homogenous a group as either race (which aren't really that homogenous, but are more similar than not), so there really shouldn't be a "mixed race" statistic in there either.[/QUOTE] That's why it's so hilarious.

[QUOTE=Killuah;40121354]I'm laughing about the idea that people who aren't mixed race exist. Ask yourself what is left when you exclude "mixed race". It's pretty hilarious.[/QUOTE] Yes I am aware that there isn't such a thing as "racial purity" or whatever. I know that essentialism is a fallacy. But when talking about differences between populations that have been genetically isolated for some time and then brought back together again, you have to exclude those which have a relatively large degree of admixture if you want a meaningful result. Also no response on that big wall of text that made a very strong argument about how the B/W gap remains even when you account for SES?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40121387]Yes I am aware that there isn't such a thing as "racial purity" or whatever. I know that essentialism is a fallacy. But when talking about differences between populations that have been genetically isolated for some time and then brought back together again, you have to exclude those which have a relatively large degree of admixture if you want a meaningful result.[/QUOTE] Maybe you'd like to ask the Biology experts about the differences in the human genome thoughout the last... oh.. I don't know... few hundred thousand years. Lol. I'm hinting at your implication that people have been genetically seperated for long enough to take any meaningful effect. The only real seperation ended with the rise of culture and science, the very things people'd love to claim influenced by genetic separation. Hilarious.

[QUOTE=Killuah;40121456]Maybe you'd like to ask the Biology experts about the differences in the human genome thoughout the last... oh.. I don't know... few hundred thousand years. Lol. I'm hinting at your implication that people have been genetically seperated for long enough to take any meaningful effect. The only real seperation ended with the rise of culture and science, the very things people'd love to claim influenced by genetic separation. Hilarious.[/QUOTE] But we clearly have been separated for long enough for changes to build up. That's why there are population differences in height, skin pigmentation, facial structure, disease immunity, and so on. I'm saying that we can also add intelligence to that list. Yes, the differences are small when compared to how different we are from apes, or how different two species of finch are. But saying "small" or "large" is qualitative, not quantitative thinking. It could very well be that such differences that are peanuts when compared to life as a whole can actually be pretty significant in practical matters. Let's flip this on its head - we share ton of DNA with our closest relatives, chimpanzees (I dunno the exact figure, let's say 99%). But look at how different our cognitive faculties are. One species can just about pile up some boxes to grab a banana from the ceiling. The other can send objects to the heliopause. Small differences in genetics may have a gigantic impact.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40121387]Yes I am aware that there isn't such a thing as "racial purity" or whatever. I know that essentialism is a fallacy.[/QUOTE] Which is why the countless racist studies you're posting are fucking stupid. They are based on flawed premises.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;40119658] Crime is a crime because it hurts others. And what illegal narcotics are you talking about? Heroin and shit? Yeah that's fucking helping people. Prescription drugs? Pharmacies are controlled for a reason, you don't want to be selling your customers shit that's gonna kill them.[/QUOTE] People tend to do things that personally benefit themselves.

dain, you didnt answer my question before!! what would charlie brooker say about your opinions???

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40121493]But we clearly have been separated for long enough for changes to build up. That's why there are population differences in height, skin pigmentation, facial structure, disease immunity, and so on. I'm saying that we can also add intelligence to that list. [/QUOTE] Except for the fact that intelligence exists on so many different axes that attempting to quantify it in any meaningful way is doomed to failure and why any attempts to do so (like IQ measurement or standardized tests) have ended up being functionally racist. Fucking let it go. How important is it to your day that you prove that black people are dumber than white people? What lengths are you willing to go to try to prove this? Go for a walk or play a video game before you completely ostracize yourself jesus

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40120857]the proposed purely sociological mechanism by which Jews have risen to such academic prominence must be very strong indeed[/QUOTE] uh yeh hugely strong. well done you hit the giant nail on the head

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40121597]Except for the fact that intelligence exists on so many different axes that attempting to quantify it in any meaningful way is doomed to failure[/QUOTE] Why can't we measure aspects of the human mind?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40121633]Why can't we measure aspects of the human mind?[/QUOTE] Yo, I said [b]we can't measure intelligence[/b] because intelligence is a nebulous term referring to countless different subjective ways that a person interacts with and perceives the world around them.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40121656]Yo, I said [b]we can't measure intelligence[/b] because intelligence is a nebulous term referring to countless different subjective ways that a person interacts with and perceives the world around them.[/QUOTE] Right, and why can't we make objective measurement methods for something such as that?

Assuming the graph of white iq v. black iq is correct, I still don't see why it should affect us in any way. E.g. If you have two candidates for a job, you don't hire the white person because his race is in general more intelligent than the black person's. You consider each of them individually and, based on their skills, you pick whoever is right for the jorb.

who is smarter bill gates or neil degrasse tyson how do you measure that

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;40121597]Except for the fact that intelligence exists on so many different axes that attempting to quantify it in any meaningful way is doomed to failure and why any attempts to do so (like IQ measurement or standardized tests) have ended up being functionally racist.[/quote] But IQ is one of the most useful and accurate predictors of anything and everything remotely linked to intelligence. Please do your research. Also you're begging the question. You're saying that IQ tests showing differences between races demonstrates that IQ tests aren't meaningful, and that since IQ tests aren't meaningful, they can't be used to show differences between races. [quote]Fucking let it go. How important is it to your day that you prove that black people are dumber than white people? What lengths are you willing to go to try to prove this? Go for a walk or play a video game before you completely ostracize yourself jesus[/QUOTE] Because I'm a scientist and I can't just say to myself "welp, better believe in X because I'm socially expected to believe in X" What is socially acceptable to believe doesn't reliably discriminate between truth and falsehood. The scientific method does.