Mesmer

So, you’re saying that if a single racial group has total control of the country for long enough; they may well construct some some sort of system that generates unequal racial outcomes that is beneficial to them, and not to other races; the racism is no longer individual, but is kinda, I don’t know... systemic?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

If only we had an example of where that happened...

Dude you gotta find some better talking points the "liberals hate white people" has been way overused.

Maybe watch some more tucker carlson

Evidence?

That is after all, kind of the point of a debate site.

You just said all pro-Nigerian speech are hate speech or something like that. You also said that Nigeria is racist for being mostly black. Is China racist too for having most of its populations Asian?

I don’t believe someone would say these things unironically.

Your speech sounds like a parody of a Twitter SJW, White to black, and American to Nigerian.

Are you being ironic?

Nigeria is certainly a National Region predominated by humans that exhibit a dark skin tone.

Though I'm not certain that Nigerians will find much encouragement in your ensuing rhetoric.

And I'm not certain that many Asians, Jews or Middle Easterners will be greatly encouraged by your propositions either.

Her ignorance of the history of the nations that actually were racist is atrocious, let alone Nigera's history.

White Nigerians and Asian Nigerians live free in the nation as much as any black citizen of their income bracket

in fact in Nigeria it is strictly the blacks within it who are in poverty.

The reason there aren't many Arab Nigerians is because it's a Christian African nation with nearby Islamic ones to migrate to (and actually because Arabs don't tend to reside where they colonised in Africa, it's not really known why).

You’re clearly not too smart. Leading debaters on this site would disagree with you; and I have not seen any of those fallacies used myself. Everyone here makes great arguments, and if that’s the case it’s not possible that these four fallacies are that common.

One assumes that something that is logical, therefore isn't fallacious.

And so something that is fallacious won't be logical.

Can you explain why not in words greater than "Nope".

The cost of having African Americans in America costs around $1 trillion a year 

African Americans pay for themselves through the tax dollars they pay.  I don’t trust your source.

A good policy would be to stop African immigration into the U.S. (or at least vet for the top Africans)

A better way to get out of debt is to allow as many workers in the US as we can get to increase the taxpayer count as much as we can to make paying off the debt easier.

We can also (and we are) look into automation and robotics to replace the low-skilled jobs that a lot of African Americans typically do, thus relieve the U.S. of some of the burden of importing the 3rd world to complete these jobs.

The only time I would support automation is if there is a better alternative for the worker being automated.

A solution for Hispanics would be to deport illegals back to South America (this deportation is cost effective because you only need to transport them over the border).

If we deport people, we lose the sales tax they pay.  I made a complex plan to get us out of debt.  Want to check it out?

I’m with you on not funding Israel any more.  I don’t like America picking sides in foreign conflicts.

Muslims don't assimilate into populations. Muslims tend to want Sharia and a caliphate wherever they go Muslim Beliefs About Sharia | Pew Research Center (pewforum.org). When you bring Muslims into your country, you're bringing in a population that will contest your systems -- that's a real reason to oppose Muslim immigration.

There are 1 billion Muslims and 1.7 billion westerners.  If every single Muslim moved to a western country, they would still be the minority in the west.  Since this will never happen, Muslims will always be a minority in the west in our lifetimes unless enough westerners get converted.  

Moreover, the children of Muslims are much more secular than the parents.  Not allowing Muslims to enter your country because they are theocrats is like not letting Bible Belt conservatives into your country because they are theocrats.

Two Muslim terrorist attacks have cost the U.S. significant amounts, around $3 trillion for 9/11, and $800 million in the other WTC attack The 10 Most Expensive Terrorist Attacks In History | TheRichest

I think your statistics are over blown.  The US annual budget for the entire government is $3 trillion.  No way does a terrorist attack cost that much.  America has spent more killing middle easterners than it has spent on Middle Easterners attacking the US.  But when your odds of dying from a terror attack is very small, your being petty if your worried about it.

Are you perhaps talking about forums? Because forums is a place to talk, not engage in high-intensity debating. In reality, anybody who does that will get clapped with losses, sooner or later.

Isn't "logical fallacies" a contradiction in terms.

So which one then?

Or is it mix and match?

Who do you think the US should be benefitting? Nigerians in Africa? Aliens on Mars? Turtles in creeks?

The liberal's answer to all three is "yes". And by that yes he doesn't mean benefitting alongside, oh no, he means benefitting Nigerians, Aliens, and turtles FIRST.

While I don't think you're wrong to say that the US spending budget is a horrible mess, the perspective of "I don't under how it benefits the US or how it personally benefits me, therefore toss it out" is incredibly shortsighted.

Fair enough. Ive read Hume's theory of Probability, but I have just been informed by scholars that Hume did not adequately read Newtonian Physics. I thought I was onto something very grand in Humean probability but unfortunately, I wasted my time. I despise Hume for not reading enough. I think my level of mathematical comprehension is about the same as Hume: it's pre-Newton. I'm afraid I don't possess much insights in that area. Whatever, Ill read Newton some other day but probability is pretty boring.

Huh, I think that your sources mentioned that there are social problems with race preferences. I disagree with her statement but that's another topic for another time. I do believe people are free to like what they see. Fetishizing men/women on race is not a problem imho.

Buginese women tend to criticize and whine about my habits. In other words, they criticize my way of life. For example, if I read a lot, they tend to whine about how I should go outside. In contrast, Chinese women are materialistic, so they're more concerned with making complaints about why I'm not making enough money. I don't mind complaints (people have to socialize) but I highly prefer chinese women over malay women. Their complaints are free of personal attacks, unlike malay women. The same applies to the opposite sex, Chinese men are most desirable to the average malay women. Of course, this is my logical way of approaching attraction. 

Well, I think this is a consequence of seeing love in a very logical way. I can't glean your whole perspective, but I do want to take this opportunity that romantic relationships seen in this manner are completely stupid. Love's not meant to be logical. 

For example,

People marrying bums with no money but have the looks? That's idiotic imho. 

I think the catchy phrase among dreamers that "love should be without impressions" is a better idea. Sure, it's a panaceas for the young, but I don't care. I don't think logically like gold-diggers reasoning why they chose a sociopath millionaire or how men reasoning how their pretty retail-worker spouses turned out to be a Hume Scholar. Lol, those are some silly u-turns. Amazing how abritrary reason can be.

My opinion.

You're free to be in ostrich and hide your head in the sand but those of us that work in the system know better thanks and who's going to walk into an interview and say yeah I'm racist I like arresting black people more than white people.

As someone who's worked in the criminal justice system for 22 years there most certainly is institutional racism within the criminal justice system.

You can't have racist in the system and not have a racist system. Criminal justice covers police officers, probation officers, parole officers, judges,prosecutors, defense attorneys and any system or service that a criminal will come into for. So now you're looking at rehabs, day programs, halfway houses things of that nature. A lot of those systems work on certain areas of town or bad, the names of certain families are bad, the police often work on there's no such thing as rehab or rehabilitation and will target people and considering that whites have been in position to hold these jobs over the years African Americans are targeted. And that doesn't even address the problems of these systems protecting their own when they screw up to protect their image so now you have a system where if you don't want racism or problems you still cover those up because you don't want to look bad.

Perhaps, but the phrase "continuum fallacy" does not appear in that article. Further investigation is appropriate.

They just aren't well adapted to industrial society. Having industrial society adapt to our brains, i stead of forcing humans to fit into an unintelligently created system, would be better. 

It's fair to make these criticisms, because you are suggesting a posthuman society, to fix these forms of suffering. If I present a better alternative than you should drop your argument.  

Or is there some unspoken reason you would like to see posthumanism?

To me it seems like the cure is worse than the disease. It's not a semantics game. Posthumanism, is human extinction. If we wouldn't be recognizable as humans, it stands to reason..... it's because we aren't.  Your solution to psychological suffering, is extinction. 

I just have a self preservation instinct I can't shake. I don't want to die. The radical life extension elements of transhumanism are appealing, as is the intelligence explosion that should help those along, but not a fan of the posthuman stuff.

[...]

What destruction can they inflict upon themselves that would be worse than extinction? 

Transhumanism has many elements of religion, and is just a substitute for the most part. It has it's paradise myth, of paradise after an intelligence explosion caused by artificial intelligence.  It has it's resurrection myth, of people joining Alcor to be resurrected. 

It has it's myth of transcendence, where you can become a posthuman God, if you play your cards right. 

It's probably just a cope for death, like religion is. Except this cope is using optimism about technological advances to feel good about having an escape plan for death. 

Transhumanism is not a solution you see. It is religion, saying God will save us all. Except this God is an intelligence explosion, most likely caused from advances in artificial intelligence.  Your God is quite literally an artificial intelligence, that has not been created yet. One that will remove all suffering from the world, and turn you into a God/posthuman

Do solutions need to be permanent. Can't we just have some well placed revolutions when we are on the verge of creating an industrial society?

It's not something being pushed. It's just acknowledgement that any upgrades you make to humans, will not remove their humanity. 

Any more than giving a crocodile the ability to use a gun, would remove it's crocodile nature. It will still seek prey, it would just shoot it, to feed itself. 

It isn't something being espoused, like people are hoping for it. The reason transhumanists get more into predicting what advancement will bring, instead of directing it, is because ultimately they know, that once technology starts advancing, we lose control over what happens with it, and how it will be used. 

This really feels like a call out thread.

I seen this discussed within certain groups, but you really should read uncle Ted's stuff. 

Right now they try to reduce human suffering by giving pills to depressed people or people who do not fit into society. Uncle Ted says we should not be perverting human society by artificially altering everyone's brai. Structure to fit into industrial society. Instead we should destroy industrially society, so humans can be happy like before they ate the fruit in the garden of eden. 

Correct, when humans become extinct and are replaced with post humans, there will be no human problems. 

You know these theoretical post humans will come in 2 varieties.

1. Post humans are so radically different than is, they can't be described as human. This is really the same as human extinction.

2. We are still humans no matter what. It would be like giving an aunt super aunt abilities. Now it is just an aunt that can do cool shit.  

Either option isn't really good

I'd still vote you over RM X'D

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/08/19/exploring-racial-bias-among-biracial-and-single-race-adults-the-iat/

I'm sure you're aware of the implicit association test. The data indicate that about half of whites favor whites over blacks, about a quarter of whites have no preference, and about a quarter of whites favor blacks over whites. In other words, by about 2 to 1, the number of whites who favor whites over blacks outnumber the the number of whites who favor blacks over whites. The decision of a white police officer to pull someone over is a subjective one that is made quickly, and I do not think it even possible for ethnocentric feelings to be eliminated from that decision. That there would be disparities in quick and subjective decisions like these is what I would expect. When a black person is in an environment with white police officers, well that these things are going to happen is just how it is.

Firstly, this doesn't actually (potentially) provide evidence that systemic racism exists. All this data could show is that some people have racial bias. So this is already a non-starter.

Secondly, this data (specifically the black-white data) contradicts the overall data on this topic. A meta-analysis of 17 studies found that White people (n=10,435) had a net effect of no discrimination. It also found that Black people (n=2,781) had a "small to moderate" bias in favor of their own race. These sample sizes are far larger than the Pew Study's White (n=328) and Black (n=370) numbers Black and White discrimination in the United States: Evidence from an archive of survey experiment studies (sagepub.com) . 

Thirdly, you don't have to guess as to whether police officers are biased (based on your Pew Study) because we already have data on this. This study found that police officers were quicker to shoot AND more likely to incorrectly shoot White unarmed criminals than Black unarmed criminals exhibiting the same threatening behavior (here is the relevant data points, since it's paywalled: Imgur: The magic of the Internet ; Imgur: The magic of the Internet ) (sorry it's paywalled: The Reverse Racism Effect: Are Cops More Hesitant to Shoot Black Than White Suspects? | Request PDF (researchgate.net) ) If anything, this shows police are racially biased against White people more than Black people.

I don't really remember what we we're talking about, but I did look at those studies. The Harvard IAT goes a lot faster than those studies and is more casual (if you're familiar with it). Like, if you look at the studies that were part of the meta-analysis and particularly the one with the police simulation you're going to see that they're a lot different in their detection methods. The study participants are heavily primed for what is going on. They know people are watching them and they probably know what they're looking for. They will worry of testing as racist. The Harvard IAT is pushing buttons on a keyboard as fast as one can and really comes across as no big deal / nobody cares.

I suppose I had anti-black racial bias in my mind as a factor. The threshold was not very high. At what point it becomes prevalent enough to be considered "systemic" is unclear.

There are other problems with the inference. When it becomes night some violations are hidden by darkness (e.g. carpool violations, drinking while driving) and other violations become more obvious (e.g. tail light out, headlamp out). There may be some racial correlation with the change in which violations are obvious and which become less obvious. So, day/night may not be the best way to check if officers are using race as a factor in their decisions. That the inference was made in the study.

The data from Stanford is quite extensive. Some of the datasets include the race of the officer. I had hoped that black officers showed different racial biases on the IAT and other tests, but apparently they show the same biases as white officers do. I had thought about a way to check for racial biases in policing that would be a better method than the day/night approach, and I think using the individual officer hash ID's might be the best way provided that other factors could be controlled for (e.g. location, time of day, day of week, type of offense). I would imagine that a racist cop's decisions would stand out in patterns. This would be a lot of data analysis work though.

Something that's rather difficult about systemic racism is the lack of a working definition for it.  I would generally view the "war on drugs" to probably be the best example of it. While your OP focused on the behaviors of blacks that made them more likely to get caught, this is not where you should be looking if you wish to find systemic racism. You should be looking at the policy decisions of those in power and their impacts. Importantly those decisions may not be racially motivated at all a politician's decision is often to do or say whatever he thinks is best for his political career. I encourage you to review this article:

https://www.aclu.org/other/drug-war-new-jim-crow

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-01.htm#P179_32170

Also, the history of federal crack cocaine sentencing is a good example of how the system can be biased. These articles are a good resource on the subject: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act  

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/cracksinsystem_20061025.pdf

It wasn't until 2010 that the disparities in possession thresholds for cocaine sentencing were somewhat addressed under the fair sentencing act. That Congress was on notice of the problem in 1994 and allowed it to continue for 16 years represents a deliberate failure to act - And why? I surmise that it had to do with political expediency, or perhaps the issue was a legislative bargaining chip that was held up in negotiations.

The entire approach to the drug problem is destructive. Gangs fight over territory, murdering each other. Drug users overdose, now killing 70,000+ Americans every year. Drug users and dealers receive substantial prison sentences, removing them from the workforce and causing  them to be a drain on society. The high black market price of these substances is financially devastating to addicts who end up homeless and then turn to property crime as a way to pay for their habits. The cash flow leaves the USA and empowers drug lords, destabilizing other countries. If the production and distribution of these substances were socialized and regulated, one wonders how much of this damage could have been avoided.

I'm imagining the whole thing with the disparities may feed in to itself. Black men sent to prison obviously aren't able to provide for children very well while they're in there and being a convicted felon isn't good for your career prospects. When they get out, they take prison culture with them and contaminate the community with it. In prison one way you protect yourself is by having a reputation for a readiness to resort to violence (i.e. "don't fuck with that guy"; AKA "cred" when they get out) That these things from prison are part of black culture today should be obvious.

And really, these are simply the impacts. Was the war on drugs a racist decision, or any of this legislation inherently racist in the first place? I don't think so. As I said before, politicians are too often indifferent cogs in a racist machine. As crudely explained by a Republican strategist:

legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:  You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

As you've pointed out, it's just so much easier to catch black people using or dealing drugs than white people because they're doing it out in public on street corners or whatever. Drug crimes are one of the easiest crimes to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It's so simple. "We found crack in his pocket. Here is the bodycam video. This is the test result. Case closed." OK then - You're running the DA's office and the police department. What are the investigative and prosecutorial priorities? Well in our republic those are going to be set by elected officials, and it's time for us to be "tough on crime" which seems to be a good dog whistle these days. The priority is drugs! More drug arrests. More convictions. Drug abuse violations have consistently been a high priority for policing. (e.g. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-29 - measuring by # of arrests it is usually the biggest category other than "all other arrests"); (also - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/persons-arrested - see marijuana arrests as about a third)

You're a big fan of studies. I'm sure you're aware of the benign nature of marijuana. It's not killing thousands of people like fentanyl or alcohol do. And yet, it's a huge priority for law enforcement. And why is that? Why does the harm from the drug bear so little relation to the decision to arrest? It's not like the policy makers don't know about it by now. Who is making those policy decisions and why are they doing it? Well, go look at the disparate racial impact and perhaps you have your answer. Democracy appears to be working just as it was designed to. Racial hatred in, systemic racism out; An expression of the will of the people.

Yes it's enjoyable for me. I like making excellent arguments and doing better than other people, as does anyone else. It feels really good to know you're right about something.

I sense there is an element of psychology at play here. Perhaps some sort of inferiority complex, where feeling right alleviates those feelings of inferiority. Nobody is better than you Mesmer.  You have nothing to prove

Ted kazynski has some interesting works explaining why transhumanism, will not alleviate suffering. As a transhumanist I've been meaning to get around to digging through his more obscure works to find a good outline of his arguments. he barely touches on it in his manifesto.  

"moving past tribalism", is the problem with the white race. Whites have no racial identity. It's genetic, we mostly believe in individualism and merit based decisions. We have a lot of in group preference with every other race. This is like the whites have made the wrong decision in the prisoner's dilemna. We would all be better off, if we acted like individuals and believed in merit above all else. However, only whites believe in this, so it is harming both whites and society as a whole. 

Moving past tribalism also brings a host of other problems. Over socialization is one. We care about others at our own expense and we have a society of martyrs, where only psycopaths who cannot be oversocialized can succeed. It leaves us in a less authentically connected community, where we truly have no close friends or support network, leaving us to feel empty inside and unloved. 

The move away from tribalism, means we have less control over our fate. Far away presidents have more effect on our daily lives than tribe leaders who we could talk to on a daily basis. Moving past tribalism is not going to help us, or even necessarily move us to a post human world.

That sounds very altruistic of you. You must be a very good person

OK so he says whatever and then you imply that he is delusional, stupid, worthless and pitiable. Were you just having a bad or are you really that thin skinned and vindictive?

He blocked me. Looks like some people are too bigoted to accept reality.

I think white men should have a post limit on this board, because they simply won't understand other perspectives as much (especially those by downtrodden trans black obese women of color) from their insane privilege. 

We should just ban all bigoted right wingers from this board for being homophobic transphobic MAPphobic anti-BIPOC pieces of shit that don't stand to salute the LGBTQIIP++AABCDXYZ flag