Avery

--> @Shila

No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist

Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.

Blacks cannot discriminate against people of  colour, they are black themselves.

Blacks cannot discriminate against white skin people because white people discriminate against blacks. Even if that was true it wouldn’t be racism. It would be called reciprocity.

When a white police officer shoots a black man. It’s racism.

When Bill Cosby raped 60 white women. The whites did not call it racism. He was not shot of convicted by the courts. It was neither a crime or racism.

Again, Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.

You are anti-White.

You hate White people.

I am white.

I hate slavery so I am anti-white. Slave owners were white, so I must hate white people.

No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist

Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.

Blacks cannot discriminate against people of  colour, they are black themselves.

Blacks cannot discriminate against white skin people because white people discriminate against blacks. Even if that was true it wouldn’t be racism. It would be called reciprocity.

When a white police officer shoots a black man. It’s racism.

When Bill Cosby raped 60 white women. The whites did not call it racism. He was not shot of convicted by the courts. It was neither a crime or racism.

Again, Blacks are not racist, blacks are victims of racism.

I'm not going to spend an hour deconstructing your deconstructions involving petty grievances, nitpicks and random logical fallacy accusations:

How convenient, given the last post (and most of my posts) list the exact reasons all of the following points - which you have been making throughout - are wrong. 

Ignoring everything that shows that you’re wrong - only to restate the same conclusions that have already been disproven, is not a particularly reasonable strategy (and also covered by F5 above)

(1) It's just a poll. It's not a perfect capturing of "racism". It's just evidence as to who is most racist

No - this is simply untrue. If you refer to my last post (which you ignored) - this poll is merely perception, that perception can only be used as an indicator of reality if that perception is not altered by any number of possible biases, or skews that can alter peoples perceptions. 

Without being able to show those biases are minimal or don’t exist - which you can’t possibly do - it’s not evidence of anything more than peoples perception

(2) The limitations of the poll are built-in. All races and political parties have the same limitation issues you described, not just "White Republicans", so the poll is constructed on a level playing field.

Again - utter horsesh*t; in the post above (which you ignored) I listed many potential areas of skew that could absolutely change responses of different groups in very different ways. For example - how willing one group is to report their own race is racist - how good different groups are at recognizing different instances of racism.

What you’re doing here, is simply asserting that this poll is a level playing field, and simply assuming all the ways it clearly could not be don’t apply: this is assuming your own conclusion.

(3) Your statistical point doesn't have any impact and remains arbitrary. Watch me do it: the Democrat response was "extreme" because it was negative. The Asian response was "extreme" because it didn't fit cleanly into either the Democrat or Republican response. I can make arbitrary, numerical conclusions, too, and they generate as much impact as yours: zero

I am glad that you have now dropped the nonsense word haggling, and are now agreeing that I’m making a statistical point. Despite your repeated objections:

Neither the liberal nor Asian response can be considered extreme, as the difference between +/- weighting of racism was not significant compared to other groups. Their size and influence on the resulting polls is not significant compared to other groups.

The Republican responses had a +\- skew of +37, liberals had a skew of -6. This mean each republicans in the polls response had an impact on the top line numbers equivalent to 6 liberals.

I used an example (which you ignored), or colour preference that show why such an extreme response biases the overall results, because (as you also ignored)

(4) The poll didn't involve 25% of Whites being from the KKK and 51% Blacks being slightly annoyed with Whites, so this is not an issue (even if it hypothetically could be, that doesn't affect this poll).

You completely and utterly miss the point again - I literally spelled it twice for you in the previous two posts - I even pointed out and bolded.

If the poll was applied to a known population, using the same question, and your criteria - and gives an answer that doesn’t make sense (which it doesn’t) - it calls into question whether the inference is valid.

My point being is that how many racists is not a good measure without some inclusion of how severe the racism is - as the example you dismissed show

If your logic was applied to the population I describe to generate a poll result  - the results would be utterly absurd - showing the measure is meaningless.

(5) Most importantly: we don't need the precise levels of racism for any individual or group. People are judging based on their experiences, as flawed as they are (not completely as you've conceded), on an equally flawed playing field, and Blacks are voted as mostly racist most frequently, hence they are the most racist. 

No, we don't know whether Blacks are mostly racist (despite people thinking they know), but we do know they are the most racist

I have bolded your continued unsupported assertion - I have pointed this out multiple times, you just keep asserting it as if truth.

As listed in the last post; people are using their perception, the number of social and psychological factors plating into that perception are so complex, that it is impossible for you to make any claims about their overall accuracy; and there is every reason to believe that perception is skewed in various groups and not an accurate reflection of reality.

Like I said - if this unsupported assertion is false, you’re conclusions falls apart; and I have presented multiple reasons (all of which you keep ignoring), to presume this assertion is false.

The OP's poll remains valid.

As a measure of perception - yes. Of anything more than that - no.

And frankly; given that you are unable to defend it; and have to resort to literally ignore everything I said in order to present this case, I think even you realize how shaky this point is.

In the developed world, people's perceptions have changed.  Most people are 30-40 lbs overweight.  So if you put someone who is 30-40 lbs overweight that crowd, people wouldn't consider them overweight.  They'd consider that average.

The goalpost has moved.  A person with a 23-24 BMI, for example, would've been considered average a few decades ago, but now many people consider that "skinny".  And someone who is 21 BMI, while still in a healthy weight range, would be called anorexic.  People are generally not seen as overweight unless they're morbidly obese.

The % of Americans who consider themselves overweight is the same now as 20 years ago.  Yet the % of Americans who are overweight or obese has gone up significantly.   This means people consider their weight relative to the population rather than in absolute.  Only 25% of Americans have a normal BMI.  3 in 4 Americans are overweight.

Some will argue that BMI overestimates how fat people are because it doesn't take muscle into account.  This is true for a small portion of the population that actively bodybuild.  But for most people, it may overestimate it.  If you're a 180 lb athlete at age 25, but you become sedentary.  When you're 35 or 45, you may still be the same 180 lbs, but with a higher bodyfat percentage. 

Obesity causes diabetes and many other illnesses.  It will raise the cost of health care, both privately and publicly.  Not to mention quality of life.

Correlation =/= causation.

There are few illnesses that obesity causes. The rest are not necessarily caused by obesity, but tend to be with obese people due to there being similarities in diet, living conditions, etc.

Quality of life is subjective. Some people are completely content watching TV all day. You can be 600 pounds and your quality of life not affected at all if all you do is watch TV.

Also, one other thing to consider is the BMI is being grossly misapplied by the medical complex. It was invented to gauge population obesity, not individual health. But, it particularly is for white people. Nobody realizes this. [1]

Africans, for instance, have a higher bone density than most white ethnicities. [2] Moreover, Asians tend to have a higher body fat percentage than white people of the same BMI measurement. [3] The BMI was based on European ethnicity, so it gets these other ethnic groups completely wrong.

The only way to properly gauge a person's proper weight is based on body fat percentage as derived from objective measures, such as DEXA scans and CT or MRI scans. [4] 

Or, for those who don't have the money for these things, looking in the mirror and seeing if they have two chins or a sizeable pot belly or cottage cheese where skin used to be.

SOURCES:

[1] https://elemental.medium.com/the-bizarre-and-racist-history-of-the-bmi-7d8dc2aa33bb

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9024231/

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8017333/

[4] https://www.goodrx.com/health-topic/weight/measure-body-fat

Well, in the brief times I’ve been there, you can see older folks trying to sell things on the street. Evidently, when taken in the context of the high cost of living there, Singapore’s version of Social Security isn’t enough to get by, and most citizens don’t financially plan for retirement properly.

Here’s one of several articles:

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/singapores-retirement-system-worth-studying/

"Morality is just your feelings. These feelings come from your evolutionary ancestry. They're nothing more." - Avery #56

And this bothers me 'greatly, though that's another discussion.

"You should see which tribes produce the more desirable environments -- that's how you know whose morality is better." - Avery #56

Not everyone's desires are the same, but that's a different discussion.

"It's just has to be done by changing the human brain. Thinking tribalism away has failed and will always fail with humans." - Avery #56

Well, there's 'less tribalism than in the past, I would think?

 Of the murder murder stab stab, bit I mean.

Not that conflict is 'all gone,

Or that people don't still form groups and work against other groups,

When you say tribalistic fighting, do you mean,

Groups fighting other groups over values?

Or groups fighting other groups because another group exists?

I wouldn't 'think groups fight 'just because another exists,

Just an additional thought,

Would you say you want to remove aggression towards other people,

Modifying the brain so one cannot act against other people?

Wouldn't it be good if there was no war, kind of thought?

Reading through everything so far we seem to have reached some agreement

If you've never existed, you cannot suffer or experience pleasure.

 

If you exist, your suffering is guaranteed but pleasure is not.

 

That's how we can say one is better than the other.

My position is that if we have not existed then suffering and pleasure do not exist and you can’t say that suffering or pleasure is worse or better than something that doesn’t exist.

 

However, I think we may be looking at existence from a different perspectives, what you say reminds me of an Anti-Natalist viewpoint and for me there are some logical arguments that do substantiate that viewpoint.

 

If you are not familiar Anti-Natalism, rather than doing a cut and past, here is link to an article on it. I would suggest you check out Benatar’s Asymmetry Argument, it is quite brief and I think it may corroborate what you are saying.

When someone mentions the concept of a “benevolent dictator,” LKY and Singapore come to mind. Leadership matters… a lot. Singapore is an amazing success story but has its issues— mainly with its retired population, I’ve been told. Many nations have an issue there, though. And LKY has his flaws and detractors, too.

Just shows you that even successful nations will have their issues, and good leaders will have their flaws and detractors…

As you say it is theoretical but to try and envisage an environment that includes only pleasure.

There would be no need for external factors that give pleasure like social interaction, acquiring knowledge, any sort of entertainment, physical activities, reading and watching films etc.

Unless they could be eliminated basic physical needs would have to be catered for. I’m imagining something akin to that scene in the Matrix where everyone is kept in these pods that supply their physical needs. To take it further just eliminate the body and keep a brain that is permanently stimulated to receive pleasure.

I am making no value judgments regarding this; I am simply trying to look at it objectively.

If you truly think that, that we can't say one is better than the other, perhaps it's better to have never been if there is no guarantee that your life will be a positive experience? Especially since that if we were guaranteed a positive life, that still wouldn't be better than no life? Maybe it's not worth having life at all? 

In other words, it is better we orchestrate a graceful exit for life on Earth.

Wouldn't you agree?

The reason that we can't say one is better than the other, is that non-existence by its very nature doesn’t exist and as such you can’t improve on something that doesn’t exist, therefore you can’t say existence is better, and there is nothing to agree to.

I've been having a hard time with the concept of morality, for about the last 10 years,

Not that conventionally I've 'done anything particularly bad,

But it leaves 'me a bit groundless, in saying one tribes values are better or worse than another's,

Though practically speaking, I still have preferences, strong feelings of oughts.

I 'do think it a human/person positive idea, to want to reduce tribalism, and knee jerk fight instinct against the other.

I don't currently find myself able to agree it's objectively 'better though,

If a person values their tribe over other tribes, well, that's their value, above humanity.

It is not hard to see whites as racist.

They picked skin colour to identify race and made it an subject of discrimination based on us and them.

Blacks took notice of whites using melanin as a standard to measure superiority of races where less was seen as more and albino whites at the top.

Asians saw themselves as neutral having focused on education, family and accumulation of wealth.

With the introduction of skin whiteners the whites have less to be racist about and the blacks have turned to other white attributes to criticize.

This has created the perception that blacks are more racist because they are highly critical of white superficiality and the whites are less albino white than desired despite using skin whiteners to reduce melanins. 

Have you ever discovered the magical set of circumstances that makes a person objectively non-racist?

I have yet to get an answer from a progressive wokester.

--> @sadolite

RationalMadman: you are not blocked anymore, if you didnt notice you are able to @ me for some time now, some time being since last December I'm pretty sure.

Why don’t you end your antisocial behaviour? Maybe get a nicer picture of your face.

Give 'em hell :)

Welcome to the site 😊

You're not addressing **his** arguments; I didn't accuse you of not addressing "an argument".

You said “the argument”; kinda ambiguous!

I didn't accuse you of calling anyone a c*nt. I said stop looking for an excuse to call someone one.

I was wasn’t doing that either!

So, again but worded differently to help you: why are you not addressing his statistically driven arguments and their conclusions, instead of tone-policing him? Here is one:

"Today, 99 times out of 100 in politics, the word “racist” is used purely for political reasons without any regard to whether something bigoted was actually said"

I addressed it already:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7947/post-links/343382

What I love about these posts, there are  least three or four atheists that are talking about how horrible black people are especially in the United States and one of the mods actually called me the racist because I practice a  European based religion. This is the stupid shit that makes this site so awesome!

• Factory farming should be illegal. Animal suffering is the world’s most pressing immediate problem. 
  

• Fracking should be legal in the US. It creates jobs and generates economic efficiency. Banning it would make energy sources more unclean and empower Russia and Saudi Arabia. 
  

• Feminism does more good than harm. 
  

• Abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible, as should contraception. 
  

• Developed countries should admit a lot more immigrants, including low-skill immigrants. 
  

• Biden’s response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has been, on balance, pretty good. The same goes for Zelenskyy’s response. 
  

• Developed countries are underpopulated. The US doubling its population would mostly have positive consequences. Population growth should be driven both by systems that make it easier for people to have kids (e.g., child allowances, efforts to lower the cost of living) and large increases in immigration. 
  

• Free international trade is broadly a good thing. 
  

Your standard of evidence isn't required to draw the conclusions required to defend the OP.

It actually is; for you to make claims about how the poll reflects reality - you must have confidence that the poll reflects reality - you assert that confidence, despite no reasonable confidence existing.

People aren't going to think "most" people of a race are racist, due to absolutely no reason. Implying that people just decide whole groups are racist for no reason is unreasonable and conspiratorial. 

Since when did I say “absolutely no reason”, what an absurd straw-man! Lol.

There are many reasons that aren’t dependent on the answer being based on reality. 

Nazi Germany - as a particularly extreme example - were German perceptions of Jews accurate and based on experience - or based propaganda and manipulation?

Is the average republicans opinion on the validity of the election based upon a clear exposure to the facts and arguments on both sides; or as a result of peer and media opinion leading them to draw their preferred conclusion?

Our perceptions are wrong all the time, in multiple ways for multiple reasons - we even have a long list of established ways in which human perceptions are generally wrong (they’re called cognitive biases) - you have no rational basis to conclude the perceptions are valid here. 

What actually happens is that people have bad experiences with different races. Maybe these people get called a slur. Maybe these people see the race talking badly about other races on Twitter. Maybe these people see the race attend a BLM, KKK or La Raza rally. If these people have enough bad experiences, they'll start to think the race is all racist. The poll captures how frequently this has happened for each race, and hence determines which race is the most racist through an indirect method (i.e. the highest percentage of racists). 

It's a completely reasonable to assume people have some reason for claiming most of a race is racist.

Again - the bold portion is a completely unsupported assertion you make that you can’t possibly know, and have no ability to support.

This assertion  is what makes your argument beginning the question.

...but the poll didn't have that result and didn't involve those people.

You need to find problems with the poll that exists, because as it stands, none of the problems you outlined here affect the poll's data (or at least you haven't proven it).

Try dealing with the poll's data, rather than forging a problem for a poll that doesn't exist.

If you read my argument, my critique is against the poll, the poll question and the validity of your inferences.

Specifically - Your using answers to the poll questions to draw inferences about the population the poll is asking about.  If the poll was applied to a known population, using the same question, and your criteria - and gives an answer that doesn’t make sense (which it doesn’t) - it calls into question whether the inference is valid.

My point being is that how many racists is not a good measure without some inclusion of how severe the racism is - as the example you dismissed shows.

Try to read my posts - there were like 3/4 pretty outlandishly absurd misrepresentations of what I said in your reply here.

I addressed it and you ended up ignoring that LOL. I argued that your standard is arbitrary and holds no impact. Why does it matter that it's 3x? Why is that considered an "extreme response" objectively? Why is the negative gap of Democrats not considered "an extreme response" when it's the only negative response? Here's your chance to try again with those questions

I explained all of this in the last two posts. I even gave an example explaining it. You appear fixated on your straw man about extreme response.

You're just equivocating to slander. 

You are fully capable of understanding that "extreme response" sounds like extremist ideology or something totally wild. You didn't just mean "a very large different in +\- compared to other groups".   You want to make only the Republican response invalid based on arbitrary standards, but you're smokescreening that with loaded language.

(1) slander is verbal, libel is written. (2) at no point have I suggested the Republican response is invalid - that’s something you made up (3) the first time I mentioned “extreme” response was in post 40 - which was clearly and was unambiguously a statistical argument. Before this I referred to the result being “heavily biased by republican responses” - which is clearly suggesting the result, rather than the republicans was the thing that was biased - a statistical argument.

I’ve been extremely clear throughout - and frankly you should know by now I don’t bother hiding behind wordplay when I think something. You just didn’t read, or understand what I said; paid no attention to my clarification.

You’ve now been called on this ridiculous straw man, and now have to resort to “nuh-uh!”

You immediately conceded ground by now saying: "Perceptions are perceptions they are sometimes true; often not", instead of your original: "Peoples perceptions about almost everything are wrong all the time." It's good to see that I'm making you more reasonable.

Huh, Those two things mean exactly the same thing. Perceptions are often wrong vs Perceptions are wrong all the time - are expressing identical sentiment. I think you have misread it by thinking I’m saying all perceptions are wrong all of the time. I’m not - only that it’s very common for perceptions to be wrong. I await the flurry of semantic nit picking; consider this, however:

You often say stupid things - you say stupid things all the time: mean the same thingz

Often =/= always.

Yes - and because I never said, nor implied “always”, your suggestion that I did is a straw man.

However, what the poll does capture is which race is doing enough for that whole race to be considered "mostly racist" by individual people. Again, people are voting based on their experiences with the races. And that's how the poll is determining that Black people are the most racist: by seeing how often view their race as "mostly racist" (not through measurements of racism levels). That satisfies the OP's claim of Black Americans being more racist than Whites or any other race.

The bolded portion of this post, is an unsupported assertion you make that you cannot possibly support from any of the data, and have no reason to conclude is true or accurate, and every reason (see my last post) to believe could be completely untrue.

What this unsupported assertion does, is assume that the responses reflect actual reality relatively accurately (if they don’t reflect reality accurately - then your and the OP conclusion does not follow.)

Or in other words, in order for you to conclude that this poll represents how racist people actually are reality (meaning  C1), you bake in the  assumption that the poll represents how racist people actually are in reality into your premise.

This is assuming your own conclusion: begging the question.

I’m back now. Let the counter offensive begin 

I think emotion could be dealt with in various ways so that it doesn't have to enter complete extinction:

 

(1) I think you could decouple it from life's interactivity, and so have people in a constant state of bliss regardless of what is happening to them (outlined in one of my previous responses). Deactivating parts of the brain (or individual synapses) could achieve this.

 

(2) More theoretically, I think it could be morphed into something else that produces far more positive affect more frequently yet retains interactivity. Perhaps tinkering with connectome exchanges, or even at the basal neuronal level, could help achieve this.

 

(3) An artificial emotion replacement, one that is superior (i.e. with less/no negative affect; with more positive affect), replaces emotions but not in spirit. I'm not sure what that would be, though.

How it is technically achieved and whether it is possible doesn’t really matter if there isn’t a definable objective. There is still too much subjectivity as to what would constitute a superior human, the only remotely objective concept would be to maximise pleasure. However, to live in a state of personal bliss would probably kill the incentive to achieve anything, as such incentive is driven by the need to obtain some personal feelings of satisfaction and by living in a state of bliss that satisfaction would already have been attained. I don’t think society could function under those conditions.

I think having masses of positive affect, especially in absence of negative affect, is better than nothing.

 

Wouldn't you agree?

As existence and non-existence are such profoundly different states, I don’t think one can be said to be better than the other, particularly as non-existence has nothing that can be improved upon.

 

From a position of debate I try to remain detached, but to answer that question from a purely personal perspective. As an animal with a survival instinct and a reasonable quality of life I would say existence is better.

Why can't you just address the arguments without looking for an excuse to call someone a c*nt?

The whole point of being on a debate website is to discuss arguments, rather than looking for a chance to abuse people.

I didn’t call anyone a c*nt, and is you paid attention, I did address an argument… 

I think something is only good or bad, when ends are identified, goals I mean.

And even then, something isn't 'good or 'bad, something simply achieves towards an end, or it does not.

'Survival for one,

Of one's brood, of one's culture,

How 'can everyone, everything be the same?

I'm aware there are religions that encourage such, and I think there's a logic in their ideas,

But I don't value logic as 'much as my impulses at times,

Shall we accept wolves, cats, goats, ants, as the same?

(Though likely I'm going off on a tangent, I continue)

Shall hostile action be met with nothing?

(Questions all rhetorical)

I'd expect you might say there would 'be 'no hostile action if we had no tribal instinct,

Perhaps you might say animals and insects cannot be considered people, and thus removed from the tribal instinct problem,

Perhaps you might say hostile action should be met with equal force, but not 'started by one.

 What kind of person or group is that?

If one has differences, then action is different, consideration is different,

Not necessarily 'overboard, but people have different opinions on what 'amount is 'right, I suppose.

Still, 'differences exist, and even if action is downplayed, moments come, where different action is necessitated.

Though it is hard, is it wrong during a famine for a person to feed their own child, rather than a strangers?

Though, after thinking about it for a minute after posting,

I don't think it'd be too hard for a society to implement removal of children from their parents, to be raised by society at large,

That was advocated in Plato's Republic, I'm pretty sure.

And argument of people's 'actions mattering more than genetics is often reasonable,

“He may have been your father, boy, but he wasn't your daddy." - Yondu

As such thoughts work towards removing 'genetic tribal behavior,

As humans are still more similar to each other in thought and action than other animals,

That their tribal focus would place there instead.

'Still tribal behavior I'd argue, even if people placed a greater importance on ideas/culture/action than genetics.

No, you're not just making a statistical point lol

He asserts, whilst completely ignoring the statistical point I just made.

and by “extreme response” that I mean “politically extreme” instead of “a very large difference in +\- compared to other groups”.

You immediately conceded ground by now saying: "Perceptions are perceptions they are sometimes true; often not", instead of your original: "Peoples perceptions about almost everything are wrong all the time." It's good to see that I'm making you more reasonable.

Huh, Those two things mean exactly the same thing. Perceptions are often wrong vs Perceptions are wrong all the time - are expressing identical sentiment. I think you have misread it by thinking I’m saying all perceptions are wrong all of the time. I’m not - only that it’s very common for perceptions to be wrong. I await the flurry of semantic nit picking; consider this, however:

You often say stupid things - you say stupid things all the time: mean the same thingz

Let’s wind back. This poll is a measure of peoples perceptions - what people think about specific things. You obviously can’t argue with this - because that’s what the poll is asking.

You are arguing that these perceptions indicate reality - how things are. I’m not entirely sure what that reality that you’re trying to show as you’re nor consistent with what you’re saying: but the options are:

(C1) There are more black racists than white racists.

(C2) The level of racism in blacks is stronger than than in whites.

I’m working under the assumption that you mean C1.

This poll asks people whether they think that more than 50% of a given group is racist. That was the question: “are most X racist”.

Some people answered yes - some people answered no. They can’t both be right - so we know for certain a large percentage of people in that poll have perceptions that are wrong. Are most blacks actually racist? If yes: then 63% of people underestimate black racism. If no: 37% are overestimating black racism. To accept this poll is to necessarily accept that there are a ton of people under or overestimating the amount racism.

You have absolutely no clue as to whether one side is under or overestimating; you also have absolutely no clue by how much: you have no clue as to whether it’s different based on response. You don’t have enough information to even speculate how broadly off the numbers are from reality. Thus the poll cannot show how many racists there in any individual group.

What you’re doing - is wildly speculating, with assumptions you’re pulling out of your ass - that despite perceptions being definitely wrong; and despite you having absolutely no justification whatsoever for whether anyones responses have any basis in reality, or are simply false perceptions based on any number of biases of the respondents - you can definitely assume they’re representing some actual aspect of how the people they are perceiving are.

Or in other words - the only way you can argue what you’re arguing is if you make stuff up that you can’t possibly know, and could very easily be completely untrue.

[,,,]

You don’t know the reason anyone responded to that question. You don’t know any of their motivations, or reasoning, you don’t know if the answers were due to social bias, biased experiences, interpretation of the question, or what went into their thinking - etc.

It could be accurate - or it could be wildly inaccurate because of the broad biases of the groups being questioned. You don’t know which - and you have no information at all that would allow you to even speculate about which it could be, or by how much.

You’re just  pretending that you have enough knowledge to conclude these answers are representative enough of how much actual racism there is - but you don’t - you can’t: it’s just pulled out of your ass.

As you have to make these completely baseless assumptions - in order to draw your conclusion - it’s effectively begging the question.

“Most racist” could mean number of racists, or how strongly racist. “More racist” could mean number of racists, or how strongly racist. You’ve clarified the ambiguous wording throughout - so thank you.

The key point you ignore - is that the whole point of this line of debate , is not to haggle over wording - but that if the poll doesn’t tell you C2 above - the poll is meaningless; it doesn’t tell you anything valuable.

Because, as I said - if 25% of whites are KKK members lynching black people, and 51% of blacks people harboured some minor animosity: then if everyone’s perceptions were accurate, 100% would say most blacks are racist, and 0% would say that most whites were racist - the answer of the poll as an effective measure of racism is utterly meaningless. This was my main point- which you ignored.

If through this sloppy and inconsistent language - you only mean C1 - great. You’re agreeing that this is meaningless as a measure of racism.

How do you think people are voting on the poll then

No clue. I have no idea of the motivation. Nor What factors into the vote. I don’t know whether the perceptions are accurate or biased; I don’t even know what any of the people even thought of as racism, or if there were biases in their interpretation, or differences between groups. Whites could be by far the most racist; and yet perceptions could be biased the other way: or could be indicative that blacks are generally racist in some really low level way, and whites are generally not racist other than a large core of very racist individuals - it could be literally any of those things: and I don’t have basis to even speculate as to which it is.

You don’t know either; however you pretend that you do in order to assert the conclusion you want.

Being called a racist in that context is designed to silence your free speech. 

Freedom of speech relates solely to freedom from government interference or restriction on you expressing your opinion. It does not afford you protection to not be called a c*nt if someone thinks you’re being a c*nt.

If you don’t like the idea of someone expressing their opinion, with the intent that in doing so someone else won’t express theirs - you probably should not read any of the internet.

Or your own post..

300 years of slavery and it took a civil war to abolish it where over 700,000 Americans died.

Racism is hardwired in the American DNA.

Black Americans are 3.23 times more likely than white Americans to be killed by police, according to a new study by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The researchers examined 5,494 police-related deaths in the U.S. between 2013 and 2017. Rates of deadly police encounters were higher in the West and South than in the Midwest and Northeast, according to the study. Racial disparities in killings by police varied widely across the country, with some metropolitan areas showing very high differences between treatment by race. Black Chicagoans, for example, were found to be over 650% more likely to be killed by police than white Chicagoans.

Your math is way off. Slavery began in 1619 and ended in 1865, 246 years; NOT 300. 

Also, it was not 700k soldiers that died, it was 620k.

Notwithstanding, so what! America is NOT the only country on the planet that utilized slave labor. 

Racism is part of the human experience the planet over, it is not isolated to just America. 

Blacks do not hold the trump card as being the only ones enslaved by others. 

You clearly do not know a damn thing about slavery in America let alone the history of it the world over. Bet you didn't know white Europeans were enslaved by blacks (Barbery pirates) before blacks were enslaved by white Dutch and Spaniards to be sold to Americans and taken to the Caribbean and South America. I also bet that you did not know only about 334k Africans were brought to America, while the remaining 10.7 million Africans that survived the Atlantic journey went to South America and the Caribbean. 

A small portion of black Americans commit over 50% of the entire nation's violent person crimes. They also commit a disproportionate amount of crime in general, which means they will have a lot of contact with law enforcement since cops go where the crime is, not where it is not happening. This small portion of black Americans who come into contact with law enforcement are immediately belligerent, combative, resist arrest and try to kill police. Cops are 18.5x more likely to be shot and killed by an armed black American than your mere 3.23x blacks being shot and allegedly killed.

Spot on! Thank you.

Thing is, I am not afraid. I cannot be silenced. I am not afraid of the truth that I am putting forth; leftist progressives are, as you so aptly pointed out here. 

thett3 even understands this but still thinks the same, oddly enough. 

Truth may hurt the left, but it's still the truth, nonetheless. 

I've addressed the arguments in your sources. I believe that bias and political agenda have affected the arguments in your sources. I believe you would be better off studying the statistics and data on your own, and then forming your own arguments. 

You need to address my arguments in the post. I've explained that race will impact how a community experiences poverty (as your source also indicates). I would concede that race could be a greater indicator in so far that many black people experience a systemic racism that keeps them in poverty and provides less resources to get them out than their white impoverish counterparts (as your study also points out).

"Wilson (1987, pp. 46-62) argues that the social transformation of the inner city in recent years (through segregation, selective out-migration by the middle class, and racial discrimination) has resulted in a disproportionate and criminogenic concentration of the disadvantaged. For example, opposition from organized community groups to public housing projects and the decisions of governments to neglect rehabilitation of existing single-family housing have led to the massive segregation of housing projects. The consequences for racial differences in living conditions are striking; according to Wilson's (1987)calculations, in 1980 less than 10% of urban poor whites lived in poverty areas, but 40% of poor blacks did. In addition to sheer economic deprivation, the corre- sponding decreasing vertical integration of middle- and lower-class black families may thus contribute-through a process Wilson (1987, p. 61) calls social isolation-to the disintegration of community social control institutions and the supervision capacity of adults."

This quote is not arguing that race alone indicates high crime. It's not arguing that black people commit more crime because they're black. It's arguing that black people face unique societal obstacles that leave them with less resources than their poor white counterparts.

Again, we're arguing about whether race is a better predictor of violent crime than poverty. We're not interested in tangential 'how poverty is experienced' arguments. You need to connect what you're saying to what we're arguing about.

The problem is that your side wants to argue that being black in and of itself is the problem. You want to end the conversation there, but it would be disingenuous to do so (for the many reasons I've already pointed out). If we see that a particular demographic is more prone to particular outputs, we have to see what is unique about that demographics experience that may influence those outputs. Wanting to leave it just at skin color is lazy at best.

First up: https://www.unz.com/article/race-and-crime-in-america/

This article hammers on two main points: The first, Black people are more likely to commit violent crime than other demographics. The second, the author compares the poverty/crime rates of El Paso and Atlanta as well as Santa Ana and Oakland. Similar poverty rates, very different crime rates. The author points out that the cities with a higher black population is more likely to have the higher crime rate.

The first point, I have no contention with. The second is where it gets bit more complicated. The author doesn’t explore why these differences exist, just acknowledges that they do. So, let’s try to actually explore these differences in a bit more detail:

“Hispanic” as a singular demographic is tricky because it encompasses a much more diverse group of people than “black” does. Typically, you’ll see it broken down between “white hispanics” and “non-white hispanics.” It’s important to acknowledge the different experiences between these two subgroups, because skin color impacts them differently. 

For example: Darker skinned hispanics reported experiencing racism from light-skinned/white hispanics at a similar rate as non-hispanic white people. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/02/latinos-experience-discrimination-from-other-latinos-about-as-much-as-from-non-latinos/

A majority of latinos say that skin color impacts their opportunities and their ability to get ahead:  https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/2021/11/04/majority-of-latinos-say-skin-color-impacts-opportunity-in-america-and-shapes-daily-life/

With this information, let’s look at the author’s comparison between El Paso and Atlanta. El Paso’s population is majority white-hispanic. Despite the similar poverty rates, we’ve already seen how skin color impacts opportunity, so this comparison is not as compelling as it may look superficially. 

The other comparison the author makes is between Santa Ana and Oakland. Both having similar poverty rates, Santa Ana having a lower crime rate. The main demographic of Santa Ana is non-white hispanic. The author points out the low crime rate among hispanic immigrants. Santa An has an immigrant population of 45% (https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/profile-of-foreign-born-population-santa-ana.pdf) nearly double that of Oakland. 

This is an important point, because crime rates tend to be lower among immigrants from many different backgrounds (regardless of income) including African and Haitian immigrants: https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-013-0799-3

So, it would make sense for a city with one of the highest populations of immigrants to not have a very high crime rate, and this would be true regardless of the skin color of the immigrant.

Moving on, the article then attempts to make its one of its weaker arguments. It suggests that with the election of Obama and mainstream media’s gradual change in representation of black people, that we should expect the crime rates to go down.

Ah. Ok. Typically, if i’m presenting an argument with data, I try to find data from sources that show no bias toward any particular political/social agenda. Objectivity and all that fun stuff. I’ll throw that out the window for this discussion.

I’m actually going to bring up one of your sources to help me begin: Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Are There Any Invariances Across Time and Social Space? (thank you for providing a readable version btw). Though this study argues that poverty alone may not explain violent crime rates, it does suggest that it can be explained in conjunction with other factors. The study actually points to the social isolation, segregation, racial discrimination, and single-parent homes in conjunction with poverty as being likely major factors for why the crime rate is higher within the black community. 

These two sources go into more detail about the different ways black and white communities experience poverty: http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief16/PolicyBrief16.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Long-Shadows_Final.pdf

As a white person, many crimes I may commit will net much lower prison sentences than if I were black.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200111/12_newsroom_colorofjustice/overview.shtml

Well... Rosa Parks was dismissed for standing for herself by sitting down a front seat meant for White people, so obviously it did exist.

After passing the "separate but equal" act in the 19th century, the water fountain drank by Black people were in stripped condition compared to the ones drank by White people.

Minorities were not allowed to run in some occupations back then, or are probably strongly voted against. White privilege is not a myth. It is a part of American history at least.

So you are a conservative and an atheist. You must lead a very lonely life. It’s pretty hard to put those two beliefs together.

What do you mean? Do you not consider Bobby Fischer to be intelligent? Do you think he was a "smart" man?

.. a total idiot in the realm of politics.

The sum of the outcomes of one's intelligence is what I would classify a person as "smart"

Well some conjecture that they have larger brains and that equates to intelligence.

I wouldn't consider Marx a particularly smart man despite his IQ.

I'm just saying in the Darwinian sense, if you don't have a tangible outcome, it's not a benefit. 

We generally accept dolphins being more intelligent than humans

Intelligence isn't measured by rhetorical debates, it is measured by positive tangible outcomes in the real world.

In the Darwinian sense of intelligence of course.

"The idea of color blindness as a metaphor plays upon a certain assumption on what race is and how it plays out in the blind community," Obasogie said. "So it's a metaphor that suggests that those who are blind or can't see race necessarily, kind of live in this racial utopia where they don't have to deal with this messy world of race because of their blindness."

This racial utopia, Obasogie argues, doesn't exist.

I don't view tribalism objectively as positive or negative.

Though subjectively I don't deny I feel it, depending on what tribe one is talking about.

Maybe forum would have been better called Transhumanism leading to a post-racial world,

Though I think race is vague at times.

To try and get to what I think is the main point. To implement transhumanism I maintained the need for an identifiable objective and you responded with this. “I think ridding humans of universally negative experiences is a clear enough objective, and is probably the easier one to start with (it's more grounded in reality).”

 

I agree that it is more grounded in reality. So following this to a logical conclusion, by ridding humans of universally negative experiences, would a perfect human be one without emotions, simply programmed to perform whatever tasks are deemed necessary

or to take it further, if we want to remove all negative experiences, could perfection be found in non-existence.

smarter Progressives like Oromagi and Ramshutu come along, 

Smart and Progressive should never be seen in a single sentence, ever.

It was the democrats that voted for Obama a black candidate and did it again to have Obama re-elected. This time they voted for Biden who is white.

So Democrats have proven they are not a racist party.

Your arbitrary standard is laughable.

Lol.

Electing a black candidate to the highest office in America twice is not an arbitrary standard. The Republicans tried to lower the bar by electing Trump. Now they cannot get Trump to accept he lost.

You should be addressing my claim (since you quoted it) of: "we don't need to know this data".

And your claim is wrong because you easily lose the ball when percentages are presented. If only 25 respondents are black, then claims that '44% of black people believe X' would be referring to 11 people out of 1000. If 1000 respondents were black it would be referring to 440 people out of 1000. There is a pretty big difference between 1.1% and 44% of respondents. We need this data to better understand the poll results.

I explained why in the following paragraph, of which you've manage to drop and not address: 

"So it's only Liberals who buck the trend with this: "Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans." That 6% gap isn't going to be enough to cover all the other gaps from the other demographics (White, Asian, Hispanic, Republican, no strong political belief etc.)

You think this is a point worth repeating? That statistic comes from the 2013 poll rather than the 2020 - you're referring to old data.

Beyond that, the fact you think the difference between 27% of liberals indicating white Americans are racist and 21% indicating blacks are racist is significant illustrates you don't understand the poll. It could have been that 100% of 'group X' indicated whites, and blacks, and Hispanics, and Asians were all racist. The questions were independent from one another.

Blacks are voting Blacks as majority racist more frequently than they are voting any other race. Hence, we conclude that Blacks believe Blacks are the most racist.

I see no info being provided regarding how blacks voted on blacks. Ive already shown how the Rasmussen article refutes this assertion. Blacks view all races equally racist. You pulled that stat out of thin air. 

Therefore, Blacks are shown as "more" racist than any other racial demographic, hence the OP's title is correct.

That is a misrepresentation of what the poll shows. It doesn't show blacks are more racist- it shows more people (a small minority of people) think blacks are racist.

...and also, there was really only one relevant poll, so 'poll after poll' was also hyperbolic. 

Also, you dropped all of the following, so I'll just assume you agree with it all: 

It wasn't dropped. It has either already been addressed and/or it is a strawman. Repetitions and misrepresentation speaks to your dishonesty. Keeping it out of my reply speaks to me having better things to do than entertain you.

Wow. You're showing yourself to be as wholeheartedly ignorant as the author of this thread is. I mean really, JFC. 

Police more reluctant to shoot blacks than whites, study finds - Washington Times

Racial Bias: Police More Willing to Shoot Whites, Study Shows - The New American

Man accused of kidnapping child in Greenville County in custody, deputies say (msn.com)

Shippensburg police take suspect into custody (msn.com)

Atlanta Police takes female suspect into custody in deadly Midtown shootings – Tampa Bay Now (cbslocal.com)