Black Lives Matter
m2tvc6yymw251.jpg
Black Lives Matter
m2tvc6yymw251.jpg
prej·u·dice
/ˈprejədəs/
noun
1.preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
"English prejudice against foreigners"
(and in this context, the prejudice would have to be negative)
dis·crim·i·na·tion
/dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
(and in this context, the discrimination would have to be negative)
an·tag·o·nism
/anˈtaɡəˌnizəm/
noun
active hostility or opposition.
Based on these definitions and what he has posted in the thread, one cannot say that Ganelon is racist. Note that he did not equate intellect, or general intelligence g, with value, which means he does not believe that White people are better than Black people. Furthermore, calling someone racist is a quick way to get them to disagree with you.
I know Zizek. He's pretty cool. Also I don't think I'm as different as you think from other leftists honestly. Typing behind a monitor allows you to give a much more level-headed and thoughtful response to people's points. If I type rage I know I'm just being self-indulgent. That doesn't apply in real life, where I can be just as edgy as any other leftist. Elements of my ideology necessarily imply that there is continual, gross injustice perpetuated at all times due to political and economic power being concentrated in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals who possess goals irreconcilable with the rest of society, and whose power is inherently exploitative. Noone who acknowledges that can keep a level head about it at all times, unless they're super chill like Zizek.
However, I don't hate anyone. And, in my experience, the vast majority of radical leftists don't hate anyone. Hateful people are everywhere, and partisan news outlets like Fox News and MSNBC are going to cherry pick examples of hateful people from the other side and show them 24/7. However, my ideology also necessarily implies that there is nothing inherently evil in people who continually exploit others through their economic power, because the capitalist system we live in necessitates that we all continually exploit one another to preserve our current state. Radical leftists may get angry at times or say stupid things at times - trying to find people to blame is human nature, ultimately. But the issue is the system, not billionaires.
tl;dr we don't hate rich people so pls stop misrepping us because Fox News made that up :P
Obama managing to get elected president really doesn't say a whole lot about how much racism there is in America. That's like trying to suggest anti-semitism wasn't rampant in late 19th century Britain because Benjamin Disraeli managed to get elected Prime Minister. Individuals in an unfair system can overcome the specificities of their situation through a shittonne of luck and talent.
Also, I assume by "0.3 correlation" you mean 0.3 using the regression correlation coefficient. 0.3 is an extremely weak correlation. That corresponds to an extremely chaotic placement of dots on a graph that your formula tells you happens to look vaguely like a positively sloped line if you squint hard enough. Furthermore, the correlation between intelligence, a subjective and ambiguous concept in the first place, and income is already a very tenuous relationship. Trying to go IQ -> income -> intelligence is very bad science.
People can have honest conversations about whether there is reason to believe people of different "races" can have a statistical tendency towards different mental features. (Though "race" is not a well-defined clade like "german shepherds" and is more of a human construct so some care needs to be taken). It is obviously well established that some "races" tend to have slightly different physical attributes at the margins, as illustrated by black people crushing it at the 100m during every Olympics.
The issue comes from "scientific racism", however. Academia has a long and painful legacy of using bogus biology to try and justify racism by measuring skull sizes and shit to try and "prove" certain races have "inherently inferior intellect" and whatnot. As a result, trying to research into such things has become, with good reason, highly contentious. However, it is at least understood that any differences would be very subtle and only noticable at the margins, like with the 100m race.
Sorry I'm a hypocrite and I'm spewing pages but i really wanna add one more thing. I don't think these sorts of points about race make someone a racist. You see the 100m on TV, you think "hmm I wonder if that generalizes to anything else" and then you make some hypotheses about Asians being better at academics and whatnot. There's problematic undertones that should be addressed but I hear a lot of older people say that sort of thing with no ill intent. I think it's very uncharitable to label them as "racist or wilfully ignorant". Everyone is ignorant about some very important subject. Making out like they're choosing that is unfair.
ganelon, you’re arguing that the average black person is poor because he’s stupid. I’d argue that he’s stupid because he’s poor. If you’re born into a ghetto your chances of having a good education are obviously going to be much lower than somebody born in a nice suburban town. Obviously, starting from the end of slavery where almost all black people were naturally going to be dirt poor, you can perhaps fathom why black people are on average poorer. I’d argue all the other stuff - education level, “IQ”, crime rate, wages... are naturally going to follow from being born poor. It’s not like it’s that easy to move up in economic class from your parents. People do it, but you can’t expect it to magically happen in just a few generations for millions of black people at once. Plus, Jim Crow laws were still in effect for a long time after slavery, making it pretty much impossible for a black person to have any significant upwards mobility.
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
You guys are crazy uwu
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
Too controversial?? Stop destroying shit.
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
Have I experienced racism? Sure. I've experienced "white privilege" too lol. And maybe I'm not invested enough. I just want people to be awesome to eahother. And why shouldn't we?
(๑˃̵ᴗ˂̵)ﻭ 레드벨벳 ! ! ٩(♡ε♡ )۶
I’m also from a group with lower IQ than average, just so you know. I really am not arguing from a position of racial superiority here or whatever.
https://human-stupidity.com/stupid-d...hanged-my-mind
My tone was too harsh in that last post, sorry.
Possibly, but interracial adoption studies seem to prove there is also a significant genetic component to IQ too. What you’re saying will be most influential during childhood (IQ has a .5 correlation with genetics then), but probably less so in adulthood (.8 correlation there).
And honestly the idea of IQ only being 80% heritable is scary. Just imagine being Albert Einstein and marrying Marie Curie and gfathering someone way dumber than you are lol. Every parent/child’s nightmare lol
your source is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_...,_and_Behavior
Feel free to read about its flaws if you care
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
"Valencia identified the main areas of criticism as focusing on Rushton's use of "race" as a biological concept, a failure to appreciate the extent of variation within populations compared with that between populations, a false separation of genetics and environment, poor statistical methodology, a failure to consider alternative hypotheses, and the use of unreliable and inappropriate data to draw conclusions about the relationship between brain size and intelligence. According to Valencia, "experts in life history conclude that Rushton's (1995) work is pseudoscientific and racist.""
Seems like a scientific consensus to me!
Originally Posted by BananaCucho
Assuming his view reflects the truth of reality, it still doesn't show he is racist. Having a lower or higher IQ is more of just a trait rather than a basis to judge a person's worth in society.
Moral = good
Immoral = bad
Black = eh
Yellow = eh
Smart = eh
Not smart = eh
Rich = eh
Last edited by secondpassing; June 7th, 2020 at 11:18 PM. Reason: added a rather for clarity
It isn’t antagonistic... it is definitely not 100% the case that what I’m saying is wrong, either. We can debate the merits and flaws of that study, but doing so and acknowledging that racial differences in IQ could be genetic is not racism. Personally, that study, and lectures I’ve watched sounded pretty convincing to me. It’s also hard to dispense with the interracial adoption studies.
Im not being racist here. I’m Eastern Euro and that’s a group that tends to have lower IQs; I’m not trying t assert the superiority of any race over the other; I’m about as neutral an observer as one can be, lol.
isit wacist to say asians r shorter
Anyways I did see something that might be construed as wrong or even bad science on that website I linked. They seem to be linking intellect with sociability and a number of other traits, and AFAIK there is no relationship between sociability and intelligence.
Last edited by ; June 7th, 2020 at 11:22 PM. Reason: autocorrect changed ‘on that’ to ‘in gay’
my bern just uuwu'ed owo
thisreputation comment is gonna stay on my profile ffs @secondpassing . i dont want a reminderof this thread
altho i just didsome thinking and REALLY liked urpoint. so u should've just posted it here uwu
Yeah I was thinking about the same thing, but that is a separate personality trait known as agreeableness coupled with neuroticism. AFAIK those are separate from IQ.
One other thing that worried me is the way the table ranked certain traits from low to high, without explaining how it was measured or what metric they used. That smells bad to me. It’s possible they described that somewhere in the paper, I suppose.
Last edited by ; June 7th, 2020 at 11:49 PM.
lmao this conversation really went from "i'm not racist" to "it's not racist to say black people are dumber than white people"
Tbh if that’s your reaction then it’s pretty clear you’re just intent on causing trouble
I don't think I'm alone in my assumptions my dude. I challenge you to go up to random people on the street and ask them if it's racist to think that black people are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than white people. Then come back and tell us the results.
One thing I will say about police brutality however is that it undoubtedly does exist. That video Voss linked doesn’t look good for the two cops. It remains to be seen whether they’ll be found guilty, but even if they are, incidents do happen. The issue as I see it is that when you’re hiring cops, you’re recruiting people who have a higher incidence of psychopathy than the rest of the population. I would assume that some pretty serious screening processes are in place for determining who gets to become part of the emergency response unit, but the issue as I see it is that people who are compassionate, loving and agreeable would suck as policemen. I am not agreeable but I am fairly compassionate; I doubt whether I could kill someone even if I was in the ‘right’ to do it. My point is, you’re recruiting from a tainted sample, and I don’t see any quick solutions to that problem. I don’t think defunding the police force is a good idea, however. I’m not sure what needs to be done... I would say it probably should start with better police training, and maybe stricter guidelines. What is a very good ides however is to put cams on pretty much every cop if possible. I really don’t know what needs doing, it’s a very complicated problem that we can’t just fix by axing the police force.