-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Empirical evidence hasconsistently linked low intelligence with prejudiceThe op who proved at least 27% of African Americans are racist, likely agrees with this conclusion.
Caint argue with "proved"
Is it okay to be White? A lot of Black Americans don't think so
Posts
Total:
189
-->
@Kaitlyn
I don't believe in races.Lol.Race is only a social construct, it is not a biological attribute or a category of human genetic variation.You're extremely wrong.Human populations separate throughout history, and thus evolve into physically and genetically distinguishable groups (i.e. "races") due to adapting to different environments and interbreeding. When you say race is "only" a social construct, you are denying that this divergent evolution happened in humans. You're arguing that despite being separated, adapting to different environments and also interbreeding within the group, all of those separated groups of humans ended up *precisely* the same. You really expect us to believe that?Skin color is first determined at birth by genetics/hormones (inherited through your parents). Unless you want to argue that skin color doesn't exist or everyone paints it somehow before they're born (wtf), differing skin colors clearly demonstrates genetic variation as a racial phenotype (i.e. human race).I won't go hard into the science, but there's enough genetic variation within humans to have subspecies (Read Table 2 from this source comparing fst values of humans to other species who do have subspecies): Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications (wordpress.com) ) , and genetic clustedness separates humans into distinct racial groups (even at rather low SNP/loci totals (100-160) with K only being set to 3 -- Asian, African and European): Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership - PMC (nih.gov) .So, hopefully you have a better idea of how extremely wrong your sentence was.
Oh look, a white supremacist with alternative facts about race, that's not something you see every day.
Oh wait, yes it is.
Oh look, a white supremacist with alternative facts about race, that's not something you see every day.Oh wait, yes it is.
They mistake it for being clever too while it's clear enough to the rest of us that it's some lack that's driven them to accrue this whole shitheap of studied obnoxiousness via internet hate browsing.
There's something pornographic in the posting of people like this. It's like they're telling you too much of the dirty little things they do on the internet.
-->
@Sidewalker
Oh look, a white supremacist with alternative facts about race, that's not something you see every day.Oh wait, yes it is.
Typical intellectual c0ward retort. Can’t refute anything put forth so you drop the libtard “white supremacist” ad hominem. 🙄
-->
@badger
They mistake it for being clever too while it's clear enough to the rest of us that it's some lack that's driven them to accrue this whole shitheap of studied obnoxiousness via internet hate browsing.
Two of the same peas 🫛 whining about facts they cannot discredit, so out come the ad hominem bombs. Pathetic intellectual cowardice.
You’ve yet to disclose where daddy or your uncle touched you by explaining it using your cabbage patch doll stowed in the closet.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Was just a very pathetic attempt, hence you got ghosted. Better get used to it.
You've actually got to be on spectrum, right, or are you ashamed to admit it?
-->
@badger
Was just a very pathetic attempt, hence you got ghosted. Better get used to it.
Ignoring others with whom you disagree with, too 🐓 💩 to engage in debate/discussion with (cause you know you’d lose), and trolling them is 100% intellectual cowardice.
You've actually got to be on spectrum, right, or are you ashamed to admit it?
What’s “spectrum”? Never heard of it. Truly.
I only learned about Reddit just the other day from the gal who cuts my hair. I’ve only ever been on Twitter, Instagram, FascistBook and now DART. Anything else…news to me.
Edit: just looked. It’s an internet service. Nope. Never heard of it, nor do I use it. But I do use a VPN, so you must be so mad that I live rent free in your head that you’re looking me up in nefarious ways to see where I might reside. Truly cowardly trolling of you.
Edit II: Just switched to a different country. Tell us which and prove what a nasty little troll you are.
-->
@TWS1405_2
UK.
-->
@badger
UK
Purposely choosing the wrong answer. Trying to save face. Clearly.
Worth a shot.
-->
@Sidewalker
I don't believe in races.Lol.Race is only a social construct, it is not a biological attribute or a category of human genetic variation.You're extremely wrong.Human populations separate throughout history, and thus evolve into physically and genetically distinguishable groups (i.e. "races") due to adapting to different environments and interbreeding. When you say race is "only" a social construct, you are denying that this divergent evolution happened in humans. You're arguing that despite being separated, adapting to different environments and also interbreeding within the group, all of those separated groups of humans ended up *precisely* the same. You really expect us to believe that?Skin color is first determined at birth by genetics/hormones (inherited through your parents). Unless you want to argue that skin color doesn't exist or everyone paints it somehow before they're born (wtf), differing skin colors clearly demonstrates genetic variation as a racial phenotype (i.e. human race).I won't go hard into the science, but there's enough genetic variation within humans to have subspecies (Read Table 2 from this source comparing fst values of humans to other species who do have subspecies): Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications (wordpress.com) ) , and genetic clustedness separates humans into distinct racial groups (even at rather low SNP/loci totals (100-160) with K only being set to 3 -- Asian, African and European): Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership - PMC (nih.gov) .So, hopefully you have a better idea of how extremely wrong your sentence was.Oh look, a white supremacist with alternative facts about race, that's not something you see every day.Oh wait, yes it is.
What an embarrassing response from someone intellectually bankrupt. You must have felt powerless seeing four separate scientific arguments eviscerate your braindead claim that race doesn't exist, and hence had to resort to Ad Hominem to deflect from your intellectual shortcomings.
I love seeing responses like this because it's a white flag of desperate surrender to anyone who was looking for a substantial debate, because you've so obviously failed to address any of the scientific claims I made.
So, thanks for making such a dreadful argument that anyone on the fence about human races existing can clearly see your side has absolutely nothing to combat the science proving race exists. You're converting more people than I ever could :D
-->
@TWS1405_2
Oh look, a white supremacist with alternative facts about race, that's not something you see every day.Oh wait, yes it is.Typical intellectual c0ward retort. Can’t refute anything put forth so you drop the libtard “white supremacist” ad hominem. 🙄
100% this.
It's so obviously a massive response failure that when conservatives, moderates or even some lefties see it, they're going to see that I have a significantly superior argument that is all uncontested.
These libtards are useful idiots and I love making use of them <3
They mistake it for being clever too while it's clear enough to the rest of us that it's some lack that's driven them to accrue this whole shitheap of studied obnoxiousness via internet hate browsing.Two of the same peas 🫛 whining about facts they cannot discredit, so out come the ad hominem bombs. Pathetic intellectual cowardice.
True.
I'm not fussy about what type of useful idiot I get. They all provide Ad Hominem slander that makes my arguments look like superstars ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-->
@Platypi
We don't have a reliable way of knowing how people perceived what was presented to them, or why they answered it.
As with any poll, so I guess all polls are useless as pollsters aren't mind readers
-->
@zedvictor4
Is it ethical for black people to not be African.
Yes
-->
@badger
They mistake it for being clever too while it's clear enough to the rest of us that it's some lack that's driven them to accrue this whole shitheap of studied obnoxiousness via internet hate browsing.
The problem is, it's a needle that just twists in your mind that you can't get a hold of.
Nobody wants to think African Americans are inferior in any regard, particularly when you are growing up everyone tells you we are all the exact same except for skin color.
It's just that your typical liberal response to the op's post you can see in this thread. There is a correct rebuttal for the poll that op cited but you get stupid responses like with the person I just responded to.
"The pollster is not a mind reader"
That's not a rebuttal, it's just a stupid response.
The correct response is to point out that the pollsters asked about 100 African Americans the following question.
Do you agree with the phrase "It's okay to be white"
They didn't ask respondents if it was okay to be white, but basically how they feel about a phrase that the media has spun as a dog whistle for white supremacists.
There are actually studies out there that ask less leading questions, having respondents ask how they feel about various races and African Americans in these polls tend to rate whites pretty well.
These liberal responders I feel like and I am not talking about you but your typical American leftist which are far dumber than European liberals these people actually are afraid of looking into the poll and doing even the basic amount of research to disprove it like I have, and that is because your typical American liberal is a closet racist who thinks if they look into the actual data, it will disprove their point of view.
The poll is flawed, every liberal in this thread failed to debunk it and had to rely on me to do so in this very post, it's the problem with American liberals.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
The correct response is to point out that the pollsters asked about 100 African Americans the following question.
The Black respondents represented 13% out of the 1000 respondents (so 130), which actually slightly over-represents the U.S. national average of around 12.1% (2020 U.S. census data Race and ethnicity in the United States - Wikipedia ).
In terms of raw numbers that we can confirm don't think it's okay to be White, it's only 130. In terms of finding a representative sample that almost exactly matches the U.S. population demographics, it's remarkably close.
Do you agree with the phrase "It's okay to be white"They didn't ask respondents if it was okay to be white, but basically how they feel about a phrase that the media has spun as a dog whistle for white supremacists.
I don't think this caveat is valid excuse for the racial hatred exhibited in the poll.
Remember, the poll question was as follows, "1* Do you agree or disagree with this statement: “It’s OK to be white.”" Questions - Okay To Be White - February 13-15, 2023 - Rasmussen Reports® . The poll specifically asks if the respondent agrees with the statement, not the movement that is apparently associated with it.
As a White nationalist, I'm completely capable of agreeing with the statement that 'Black lives matter', despite me see the movement of Black Lives Matter as a Black supremacist movement that shouldn't be supported. I can separate the statement from the movement with ease, as should everyone else.
Re-reading this I'm actually positive TWS took me up wrong on purpose and sent me away on that tangent, which is honestly impressive.
Sorry Wylted, will respond to you tomorrow at some point. Late here. But sounds like you're saying much the same as Savant which I upvoted. That should have been the end of the thread right there.
-->
@TWS1405_2
@Kaitlyn
Wow, what a frenzy, OK, be honest, you both came typing those responses, didn't you?
Get a room you two.
Re-reading this I'm actually positive TWS took me up wrong on purpose and sent me away on that tangent, which is honestly impressive.
I am actually so impressed by this. It's like a lizard cutting off its own tail or something lol.
-->
@Kaitlyn
As a White nationalist, I'm completely capable of agreeing with the statement that 'Black lives matter',
As a white nationalist you should know that niggers have an average IQ of 85 at best. This means they are likely not capable of having your ability to effectively use logic. They instead may have an emotional response that made them give a response that doesn't accurately portray how they feel about honkeys.
Your own arguments about their impulsivity and and low IQ should inform you that they are more likely to have an emotional response to questions about how they feel about the phrase, and remember they were asked how they feel about the phrase, not how they feel about crackers
-->
@Sidewalker
Oh look, a white supremacist with alternative facts about race, that's not something you see every day.Oh wait, yes it is.
Is the nerd rant really that frequent in your culture? Ordinarily, I would never see that as a cover to the book. I perceived it as fringe behavior.
Prez seems to understand the low-class 'shit talking' that real people sling around.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
As a white nationalist you should know that niggers have an average IQ of 85 at best. This means they are likely not capable of having your ability to effectively use logic. They instead may have an emotional response that made them give a response that doesn't accurately portray how they feel about honkeys.
Firstly, I don't think we should be calling them that word. There is no use or need to unnecessarily antagonize African Americans.
Secondly, whilst African American's I.Q. is on average 85, that doesn't mean they cannot comprehend the distinction between a statement and a movement. I haven't seen any evidence to say that they cannot, therefore I won't believe that they cannot.
Your own arguments about their impulsivity and and low IQ should inform you that they are more likely to have an emotional response to questions about how they feel about the phrase, and remember they were asked how they feel about the phrase, not how they feel about crackers
Impulsivity and comprehension are not interchangeable terms, and we can even see this reflected in the polling data. *If* African Americans were incapable of comprehending the distinction between a statement and a movement, how come "It's okay to be white" was agreed with 53% of the African American respondents? Unless you think they're all guessing or randomly voting on the poll, at least some African Americans are capable of understanding the distinction, and there is no reason to think that the others are not.
-->
@Platypi
Is the nerd rant really that frequent in your culture? Ordinarily, I would never see that as a cover to the book. I perceived it as fringe behavior.
Didn't used to be, but it's been growing exponentially lately.
Prez seems to understand the low-class 'shit talking' that real people sling around.
Yep, PREZ definately knows shit talking.
-->
@Sidewalker
@Platypi
Yep, PREZ definately knows shit talking
Prez seems to understand the low-class 'shit talking' that real people sling around.
Thank you gentlemen.
-->
@Kaitlyn
Firstly, I don't think we should be calling them that word. There is no use or need to unnecessarily antagonize African Americans.
I have had sex with black chick in the past as I have explained in other posts, I get a pass.
Impulsivity and comprehension are not interchangeable terms
My use of crude language wasn't accidental. If you hear a pollster ask "How do you feel about the phrase "it is okay to be white" you will probably have a more emotional response than other questions.
Let's be honest they asked how do you feel about that phrase as opposed to asking how do you feel about white people, because they already intuited it would get a more favorable response that they were looking for.
The Crude language was meant to pull at you emotionally. Even most self proclaimed white nationalist cringe when they see. Or hear the word nigger. A statement like "It's okay to be white" where trolls have also left images of. Swastikas and other hateful material around could evoke an emotional response.
People are less likely to be perfectly rational when they are emotional. You are a woman, so you understand this. Men are taught to suppress their emotions, but women generally don't get the same pressure
If I get you emotional and ask you a question, you will answer differently depending on how you feel. If you are mad at your significant other, you may yell that you hate his guts, if I give you an orgasm you might scream that you love me.
Your most logical and honest answer will not be when I make you horny or angry. It will be when you are in an unemotional state.
The statement due to the media attention that surrounds it, evokes an emotional response where answers are more likely out of anger.
Why did 50% answer in a way that seems less racist?
Well I believe this was a phone poll, so most likely an older demographic that isn't terminally online meaning those 50% perhaps have not heard the phrase, perhaps that 50% is more rational and in control of their emotions than the rest.
The 27% are perhaps mostly from a younger demographic or seen posters with swastikas nearby in their neighborhood or something that made them emotional before responding. Maybe only half of that 27% is racist. The unsure ones, given it is a phone poll I could see myself landing on that list
Pollster calling me on my lunch break:
"What do you feel about the phrase It's okay to be white"
Realistic response by me on the phone
"I don't know man, like I don't give a shit about the phrase"
Pollster checks box next to unsure
The poll doesn't mean as much as the polls using more neutral language which are also available.
Now if they asked me
"Scale of 1 to 10, how much do you like black people"
I would probably be like "I don't know 5, unless I just finished watching rocky then it's like 3, "
I can tell you that I was in school in the mid and early 90s with predominantly black students. Those kids were really fucking racist. They legitimately hated me for my skin color, but I had some black friends and we all looked out for each other.
I sent my son to a predominantly black daycare for like a year. He was a very popular kid and well loved. Due to my own history I did get him to a predominantly white school as fast as possible, but the racism in the black community just isn't that bad anymore. The most racist people against whites are liberal white guys with cuckold fantasies.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
>@KaitlynFirstly, I don't think we should be calling them that word. There is no use or need to unnecessarily antagonize African Americans.I have had sex with black chick in the past as I have explained in other posts, I get a pass.
Big deal. So have I. And a Hispanic chick. A fat chick. A skinny 2x4 chick. Gorgeous chicks. One ugly chick. And several beautiful voluptuous chicks. Doesn’t mean I (or anyone else for that matter) gets a pass to refer to them with ANY heinous derogatory terms like N****r, Sp*ck, so on and so forth.
The fact that you have no compunction in doing so merely because you screwed one entitling to you a pass on such derogatory terms speaks volumes, and not positively either.
-->
@TWS1405_2
Big deal. So have I. And a Hispanic chick. A fat chick. A skinny 2x4 chick. Gorgeous chicks. One ugly chick. And several beautiful voluptuous chicks. Doesn’t mean I (or anyone else for that matter) gets a pass to refer to them with ANY heinous derogatory terms like N****r, Sp*ck, so on and so forth.
No, it's cool. I didn't just fuck her. She was quaking afterwards and crying. Through the whole experience it was so good she kept yelling no and saying "God why me" and trying to push me off of her. She felt unworthy of such a beautiful experience and told me that she never wanted to see me again.
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Firstly, I don't think we should be calling them that word. There is no use or need to unnecessarily antagonize African Americans.I have had sex with black chick in the past as I have explained in other posts, I get a pass.My use of crude language wasn't accidental. If you hear a pollster ask "How do you feel about the phrase "it is okay to be white" you will probably have a more emotional response than other questions.Let's be honest they asked how do you feel about that phrase as opposed to asking how do you feel about white people, because they already intuited it would get a more favorable response that they were looking for.The Crude language was meant to pull at you emotionally. Even most self proclaimed white nationalist cringe when they see. Or hear the word nigger. A statement like "It's okay to be white" where trolls have also left images of. Swastikas and other hateful material around could evoke an emotional response.
Okay I can see you're playing 3D chess and kinda joking around, but it's just not a good look, even if freedom of speech allows you to say it. Lots of people are going to see the n word and immediately think 'white supremacist' or 'racist', and that will be the end of critical thought (which was the effect you were trying to convey. It's just we want people thinking critically in this thread). It's just too radical a word for a hill I'm not even sure is worth dying on.
You could have said a whole host of other things to get an emotional reaction out of me, if that was what you were after. You didn't have to n bomb and lose some of the people reading this thread.
People are less likely to be perfectly rational when they are emotional. You are a woman, so you understand this. Men are taught to suppress their emotions, but women generally don't get the same pressureIf I get you emotional and ask you a question, you will answer differently depending on how you feel. If you are mad at your significant other, you may yell that you hate his guts, if I give you an orgasm you might scream that you love me.Your most logical and honest answer will not be when I make you horny or angry. It will be when you are in an unemotional state.The statement due to the media attention that surrounds it, evokes an emotional response where answers are more likely out of anger.
This line of argument made me realize something...
I think it's easier to get the truth out of people when they're more emotional, not less. Perhaps not horny, but certainly angry. It's obviously harder for people to think straight when they're emotional, but the platitudes and filtering of their words usually goes away.
If anything, the pollsters should be trying to agitate the respondents, in order for a better shot at the truth (not that the results are full of lies anyway). Hell, get the respondents drunk as well so they become impulsive and unable to filter their words, as long as they're not too drunk to function.
Anonymous, angry and drunk -- that actually is probably better than the opposite.
Why did 50% answer in a way that seems less racist?Well I believe this was a phone poll, so most likely an older demographic that isn't terminally online meaning those 50% perhaps have not heard the phrase, perhaps that 50% is more rational and in control of their emotions than the rest.The 27% are perhaps mostly from a younger demographic or seen posters with swastikas nearby in their neighborhood or something that made them emotional before responding. Maybe only half of that 27% is racist. The unsure ones, given it is a phone poll I could see myself landing on that listPollster calling me on my lunch break:"What do you feel about the phrase It's okay to be white"Realistic response by me on the phone"I don't know man, like I don't give a shit about the phrase"Pollster checks box next to unsure
The link to the actual study is paywalled, so I can't see specifically how they conducted the poll.
However, if Wikipedia is to be trust, they say about Rasmussen, "Surveys by the company are conducted using a combination of automated public opinion polling involving pre-recorded telephone inquiries and an online survey". Rasmussen Reports - Wikipedia
So, the polling data was taken either through the phone or via an online survey (or both??), I'm just not sure how you know which one.
The poll doesn't mean as much as the polls using more neutral language which are also available.Now if they asked me"Scale of 1 to 10, how much do you like black people"I would probably be like "I don't know 5, unless I just finished watching rocky then it's like 3, "
I think the questions were neutral enough, but we've already been through that.
-->
@Kaitlyn
It's just we want people thinking critically in this thread).
You think criticising black people is "thinking critically" LOL.
You guys are at your funniest when you're tring to come off as edumacated.