Total topics: 14
Race as a Crime Predictor
At the individual level, the relationship between race and crime is extremely well established. Ellis, Beaver, and Wright (2009) reviewed 113 studies which looked at whether or not Blacks commit more crime than Whites and found that all 113 did. Similarly, all 17 studies looking at crime differences between East Asians and Whites found that East Asians commit less crime than Whites.
Ellis, Beaver, and Wright) also show that studies using self-reported criminality are less consistent. You might view this as evidence that Blacks are arrested more than Whites despite committing the same amount of crime. The OP of this thread Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) refutes that claim.
The relationship between race and crime at the regional level is also well established. Pratt and Cullen (2005) meta-analyzed 162 studies which looked at whether regions with a greater proportion of Black people had higher crime rates. The average study found a positive effect of .294 and 72% of said studies findings were statistically significant. Out of the 34 variables commonly thought to be associated with crime that Pratt and Cullen 2005 meta analyzed, only 5, or 15%, had a greater proportion of significant findings. Moreover, none of these 5 variables had even 15 studies done on them. This likely explains their highly consistent findings. Thus, of all the heavily studied variables in Pratt and Cullen, “percent black” is the one most consistently associated with crime.
Race vs Economics as Predictors of Crime
So, race predicts crime. How does its predictive power compare to that of economic variables?
Land, McCall, and Cohen collected data on the homicide rates of cities, standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSAs), and states for the years 1960, 1970, and 1980. In each year they included all 50 states and every city and SMSA included in the census. They then looked at how well the following 11 variables predicted crime variation between these areas: population size, population density, percent black, percentage aged between 15 and 29, percent divorced, percent of kids without two parents, median family income, the poverty rate, income inequality, the unemployment rate, and whether or not the city/SMSA/State was in the south. All of these variables were entered into a single regression model, meaning that the estimated effect size for each variable held all other 10 variables constant. This analysis thus produced 9 total models explaining crime variation in cities, SMSAs, and states, across 3 decades. Across these 9 models, race was a better predictor of homicide than unemployment, poverty, and median income, in 7, or 78%, cases, and a better predictor than income inequality in 8, or 89%, cases. Thus, over 3 decades of very large data sets, race was pretty consistently a better predictor of homicide rates than economic variables were.
Another relevant analysis was carried out by Unz.com owner Ron Unz. Unz 2013 looked at how well median income, population density, poverty, and % black, correlated with the crime rates of large American cities between 2006 and 2011. He found that the size of the black population of a substantially better predictor than any of the other variables tested.
Similarly, the New Century Foundation’s report “The Color of Crime” analyzed the violent crime rates of the 50 U.S. states and D.C for the year 2005. The analysis found that state violent crime rates correlated at .81 with the percentage of the population that was Black or Hispanic, 0.37 with the state’s percentage of high-school drop outs, 0.36 with the states poverty rate, and 0.35 with the state’s unemployment rate.
Templer and Rushton 2011 significantly replicated the New Century Foundation’s results. They analyzed crime variation across the 50 U.S. states and found that the percent of the population that was black was a stronger correlate than average income for murder rates (0.84 v -0.40), robbery rates (0.77 v 0.06) and assault rates (0.54 vs -0.23) The paper did find that income was a stronger predictor than black population size for rape rates (-0.16 v -0.22), but neither of these correlates were statistically significant or large.
Kposowa, Breault, and Harrison 1995 analyzed crime variation across 2,078 U.S counties. As can be seen below (standardized beta coefficients are under the “beta” column), the percent of the population that is black was a stronger explanatory variable than poverty, income inequality (gini), and unemployment, for explaining variation in both property and violent crime.
Relevant table for the above study's claims: 2-5.png (456×300) (thealternativehypothesis.org)
Also a relevant table for the above study's claims: 3-4.png (447×299) (thealternativehypothesis.org)
Finally, we have Rushton and Templer 2009 which looked at national variation in crime. They found that skin color, a proxy for race, was more strongly correlated than national income with homicide (0.25 vs 0.17), rape (0.24 vs 0.10), and serious assault (0.20 vs 0.09).
Thus, across a large range a literature analyzing crime variations across cities, counties, states, and nations, we see that race is a better predictor of crime than economic variables are.
American Blacks vs European Whites
Until now, we’ve just been looking at the relative predictive power of race and economic variables. At this point, I’d like to move on from that and look at how well racial wealth disparities predict racial crime disparities.
If poverty really was the root cause of racial crime disparities, then we would expect White populations with incomes lesser than or similar to African Americans to have higher or similar crime rates to African Americans. On a global scale, this comparison is easy to make. According to the Census, the average African American makes 20,458$ a year. According to the International Monetary Fund, the average income of a European is 25,434$. Thus, Europeans are just slightly richer than African Americans. Given this, if poverty is the main cause of racial crime disparities we should expect Europe to have similar crime rates to African Americans.
This does not pan out. The Black homicide rate in America is 34.4 per 100,000 (Cooper and Smith 2011). The homicide rate for White Americans is 4.5 per 100,000. And, according to the United Nation’s Global Study on Homicide 2013, the homicide rate for Europe is a mere 3 per 100,000. Thus, Europeans not only have lower murder rates than African Americans but also have slightly lower murder rates than White Americans. These results are hard to square with the view that Blacks have higher crime rates than Whites just because they are poor.
Racial Disparities in Crime and Economics Over Time
The changes in racial crime and economic disparities over time do not support the poverty causes black crime theory either. Over the 20th century, Black income relative to Whites has risen. Thus, on an economic theory of Black crime, we might expect Black crime rates relative to Whites to have fallen. Just the opposite has happened. Black crime rates relative to Whites have significantly increased over the 20th century and, between 1940 and 1990, have correlated at 0.86 with gains in Black wages relative to Whites (1).
Black/White Wages and Incarceration over Time (R= 0.86):
The high value of the correlation shouldn’t be taken too seriously as each data set only had 6 data points. But the general point remains: as Blacks have gained on Whites economically speaking their disproportional representation in crime has risen, not fallen as the economics causes black crime theory would predict.
Another Look at Regressions and a Conclusion
For the next argument of this post, we need to reconsider some data we’ve already seen. In Kposowa, Breault, and Harrison 1995 and Land, McCall, and Coen 1990 we saw that the proportion of an area that is Black is a significant predictor of crime at the county, city, SMSA, and state, level even when holding economic variables constant. Let me say that again: the blacker an area is the more criminal it will tend to be even after controlling for the effects of poverty, inequality, and unemployment.
Rich American Blacks vs Poor American Whites
Finally, we have Zaw and Darity (2016), which compared the likelihood of Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites becoming incarcerated at some point between 1985 and 2012 given what their net worth was in 1985. It is note worthy that this is the only study I am aware of which directly compares the incarceration rates of Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites, at different income levels.
Chart from Ehrenfreund (2016) graphs the data found in Zaw and Darity (2016): Incarceration-by-net-worth-decile-1.png (786×593) (thealternativehypothesis.org) .
Conclusion
Clearly then, economics cannot account for all, or even most, of the racial differences we see in crime. Given its weak relationship with crime in general, and the case against that relationship being causal, it’s causal role in racial crime disparities is probably very small if it exists at all.
All credit to Ryan Faulk and Sean Last for constructing all of these arguments.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
This is a difficult topic to discuss because it's about things that are probably far into the future and it's virtually impossible to predict the future. People in the 1800s weren't talking about iPhone 10s or even the possibilities of mobile phones, yet those were only 200 odd years into the future. Hell, even the Coronavirus came out of nowhere for most people, even days before it happened.
In my opinion, humans could benefit greatly from becoming transhuman/posthuman entities wherein some of the limitations of humans, or perhaps the human form itself, is improved upon/replaced with something far better.
Particularly troubling aspects of humans are currently:
- Tribalism (Generates conflict that wouldn't need to exist otherwise. Loyalty to a group and group dynamics should be replaced with doing what is most logical/best. The amount of effort and resources spent on dealing with tribalism I'd guess is astronomical and a massive burden on the human race. We might have needed it for our little tribes back in antiquity. We certainly don't need it with massive civilizations)
- Sexual reproduction (A cumbersome experience that isn't yet optimized, and the methods in which partners are selected far are slowly becoming unnecessary due to the safety of our modern world and the fact that some aspects of mate selection are anti-civilizational. Could be made obsolete by objectively selecting best specimens independent of courtship and mate selection. Could also be made obsolete by dual-sexual humans/entities)
- Literal consumption (Modifying humans to not require food or water would clearly be of benefit. Perhaps transhumans/posthumans could generate energy through solar power or wind power. Perhaps something yet to be invented could be our source of energy, too)
- Metaphysical consumption (Humans dislike both discomfort (for obvious reasons) and comfort (generates boredom). Humans aren't designed to be satisfied with anything, and thus this creates a hedonistic treadmill that never satisfies humans. This becomes a problem when humans realize that their chasing will be endless and that there is no difference in death between chasing and not chasing. Add to that the concept of 'achievement' which is created first by the human mind creating problems (they build broken chairs to fix), and often the 'achievement' doesn't generate anything of real value (i.e. kicking a ball into a net doesn't make you less thirsty -- any derived benefit from kicking the ball into the net could be garnered somewhere else; the universe doesn't need you to kick the ball into the net). Rewiring the human brain in various ways could lessen or resolve these problems).
- A need for the Divine (Religion solves a lot of problems humans have, such as avoiding a singular, flawed human being responsible for the creation of rules for a society to follow, and instead seemingly makes the rule maker a Divine entity who cannot be questioned. Humans also have a pronounced fear of the unknown, and the Divine entity solves that problem, too -- there are many benefits to believing in the Divine entity (religion was a positive evolutionary adaption). Of course, more educated civilizations start to realize they haven't proven such a Divine entity exists (or even can't), and suddenly people start to stop believing in such a Divine entity. Making humans better (particularly neurologically) may avoid the necessity for a Divine being to be believed in, and thus the problems that come along with it).
It's currently a royal pain to deal with humans. Rather than trying to endlessly change the world around us to suit human needs, why not start to change the needs humans have? Genetically modifying humans seems to be the way to go because all humanity seems to be able to do with humans in civilizations is swing between Traditional Conservatism and Progressivism. Unless you heavily restrict humans with TradCon rules (usually involving gender roles, religion/spiritualism etc.), they end up getting sick of it and moving closer and closer to ultra Liberal Progressivism, wherein everything becomes degenerate, weak and waiting to be conquered/implode, and so there is the cyclical reversion back to something TradCon.
I'm not even sure if this level of transhumanism/posthumanism possible, but if it is, this looks to be the way forward for humans.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
I thought I'd compile a list of the typical anti-white shitlib narratives that 'Progressives' like to peddle, as well as super brief sentences explaining why they are debunked, and finally linking them to an excellent site wherein more thorough explanations are giving for why they are debunked:
That human races don't exist (Wrong. Dead wrong: The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis ).
That there is more genetic variation within races and between, therefore human races don't exist (Wrong. It's true for total genetic markers, but wrong for the total variance generated by markers which creates racial differences: Variation Within and Between Races – The Alternative Hypothesis )
That race is a "social construct", therefore human races are arbitrary (Wrong, although human races are "social constructs" in the technical sense: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-is-a-social-construct/ ).
That racial equality is possible (Wrong. Dead wrong: The Impossibility of Equality – The Alternative Hypothesis )
That IQ is not valid (Wrong. Dead wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/ )
That cultural bias skews the results of IQ tests (Wrong. This doesn't happen for g loaded ones, which is where the data is derived: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/cultural-bias-on-iq-tests/ )
That IQ doesn't test for all kinds of intelligence (Wrong. It tests for all g loaded types: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/multiple-intelligences-emotional-intelligence-creativity-and-g/ )
That low SES/poverty causes differences in racial outcomes, that biology has nothing to do with it (Wrong. Biology is a large factor: IQ and Socio-Economic Status – The Alternative Hypothesis https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/ )
That lead poisoning is the only reason there is a white-black IQ/outcome gap (Wrong. Dead wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/23/race-iq-and-lead/ ).
That the black-white IQ gap is closing, therefore it's not genetic (Wrong on both fronts: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/10/the-flynn-effect-race-and-iq/ )
That the Black arrest rate in the US is due purely to "systemic racism" or "racial bias in policing", rather than biological differences (Wrong. Dead wrong: Race and Crime: the Causes of Black Crime Rates – The Alternative Hypothesis )
That racial diversity is a source of strength (Wrong. The truth is the complete opposite: Ethnic Diversity: Strength or Weakness? – The Alternative Hypothesis )
That American slavery and Native American genocide narratives taught in US schools are accurate (Wrong overall, although some parts are true: History – The Alternative Hypothesis ).
That white privilege exists (Wrong. Nothing but a slanderous label: White Privilege – The Alternative Hypothesis ).
I hope this helps :)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Nigeria is just too Black. There aren't enough other races represented in Nigeria because Nigeria is racist. Blacks are in power and causing systemic racism to oppress any racial group that isn't Black. This is clearly a result of racist Blacks and Black supremacists.
Nigeria should have far more Asians, Jews and Middle Easterners to the point where Blacks are the minority in Nigeria. This multiracial state wherein Blacks become the minority will not be a bad thing, but rather a source of Nigerian strength. Racial quotas should be immediately implemented to force Blacks out of political power, and instead make sure there is sufficient Asian, Jewish and Middle Eastern representation in Nigeria. Every race's voice needs to be heard except for Blacks because they are racist and oppress the other racial minorities in Nigeria.
Middle Easterners living in Nigeria should be paid mandatory reparations for Nigeria's slavery policy wherein some Middle Easterners of the past were slaves. This needs to be mandatory because slavery is not okay and Middle Easterners are still suffering from slavery. There should be a 'sorry day' in Nigeria for Nigeria's involvement in slavery in the past. During this sorry day, the Nigerian national anthem should be played and all non-Black people should be encouraged to kneel and boo during the anthem. Anyone who opposes any of this implicitly condones slavery and racism.
Any pro-Nigerian speech should be labelled hate speech as it is racist and Black supremacist. The Nigerian laws should be changed to make hate speech legally binding and punishable with a jail sentence. All anti-Nigerian speech should be allowed and encouraged because Nigeria is racist and engaged in slavery in the past. Anyone who speaks out against anti-Nigerian speeches should be labelled a Black supremacist and should be fired from his/her job.
Anyone who says 'it's okay to be Black' is anti-Asian and needs to be put before a court for hate speech and racism. Saying 'it's okay to be Black' ignores all of the racial struggles that Asians face in Nigeria. Nigeria needs to be Asian focused as they are a minority and suffering from racial oppression, racism and Black supremacy in Nigeria.
Hopefully, Nigerians will read these words and realize how bigoted and racist they are, and then start implementing these policies to make Nigeria more tolerant and less hateful.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
About 70% of the arguments I engage in on Dart are common/uncommon logical fallacious. Here are the most common ones I've come across and how to fix them:
(1) Ad Hominem -- when you attack the person making the argument instead of the argument itself. This is logically fallacious because even if the person has a negative trait, this in no way debunks the argument being made. Always avoid Ad Hominem.
(2) Appeal to Authority -- this incurs a similar problem to Ad Hominem in that the qualifications/position of someone is used as evidence, when again the evidence should be found within the argument itself, not who is making it. In times of knowing absolutely nothing about the topic, it may be reasonable to default to expert consensus. However, when material on the topic is available, you should never be using this line of reasoning.
(3) 'Lived experience' as evidence -- the issue with this is that you're applying your (potentially faulty) perception of events to make (potentially faulty) inductive conclusions. This renders whatever conclusion you draw likely fallacious because you are failing to control for confounding variables. Also, 'lived experience' lacks objectivity in that you're almost always unable to demonstrate your lived experience to other people. Again, in times of not knowing research and data on the topic, your lived experience may be the best evidence you have, but it is by default very poor due to the way it's constructed. Don't use 'lived experience' in your reasoning, unless you have nothing better.
(4) Begging the Question -- this occurs when you imbed the conclusion in your reasoning. This is a logical fallacy because you can't use the conclusion you're trying to prove as evidence for the conclusion you're trying to prove (you haven't yet proven the conclusion!) Always avoid begging the question.
I hope this short post helps some people realize the invalid nature of their logic, and thus allows them to construct stronger arguments.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Most people know that Blacks are arrested more often than Whites. Some people see this as systemic racism. Some people see this as Blacks being arrested more because they commit more crimes. I'm going to demonstrate that it's the latter using several arguments.
(1) Arrest Rates and Victimization Reports
We can confirm the validity of official arrest rates via the high degree to which they correspond with victimization reports. Using the National Crime Victimization Survey (for victimization reports) and the Uniform Crime Report (for official arrest rates), we can see that there is high correspondence (Last, 2015): 1.jpg (740×146) (thealternativehypothesis.org) . The fact that there is high correspondence is evidence that arrests being made are legitimate (i.e. not based on systemic racism, but rather actual crime).
(2) Black Misbehavior at School
Blacks get into trouble far more often at school than Whites do:
- Black preschoolers have an above average rate of suspension. Blacks make up 18% of preschools yet 50% of suspensions Education Department: Black preschoolers more likely to be suspended - CBS News
- Black females account for 12% of elementary school suspensions, but White females only accounted for 2% Schools’ Discipline for Girls Differs by Race and Hue - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
- A Department of Education report analyzed over 72,000 schools and found that Blacks were 18% of the population, yet 35% of people suspended once, 45% suspended more than once, and 39% of those expelled Black Students Face More Harsh Discipline, Data Shows - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
- After controlling for socio-economic status, Black middle schoolers were more likely to be suspended than White middle schoolers The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (ccsd.net)
A potential counter-argument to this is that teachers have racial bias against Blacks. However, there is strong evidence against this. When comparing Blacks and Whites with the same number of previous behavioral problem, both groups were as likely to be suspended Prior problem behavior accounts for the racial gap in school suspensions - ScienceDirect . Also, Blacks and Whites were equally likely to face suspension if they were sent to the principal's office The Color of Discipline: Sources of Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment (ccsd.net) .
Due to differences in Black crime rates reflecting the non-biased rate in which Blacks get in trouble at school, this adds evidence to the U.S. criminal justice system being legitimate.
(3) Dug Crime
Some people claim that Blacks do less drugs than Whites, but Blacks are arrested more, therefore systemic racism exists.
Firstly, Blacks are more likely than Whites to lie about using drugs, and this finding has been consistently found Supp82(3).book(jti065.fm) (nih.gov) Urinalysis Screened vs Verbally Reported Drug Use: The Identification of Discrepant Groups: International Journal of the Addictions: Vol 12, No 4 (tandfonline.com) "The Validity of Injection Drug Users Self-Reported Use of Opiates and " by Russel S. Falck, Harvey A. Siegal et al. (wright.edu) Drug Use among Juvenile Arrestees: A Comparison of Self-Report, Urinalysis and Hair Assay | Request PDF (researchgate.net) .
Secondly, Blacks are more likely to buy drugs outdoors than White people (which is riskier in terms of being caught) at 0.31 correlation versus White's 0.14. Blacks are about three times likely to buy from a stranger (0.3 versus 0.09). Blacks are also significantly more likely to buy away from their homes (0.61 versus 0.48) Racial differences in marijuana-users' risk of arrest in the United States - PubMed (nih.gov) . This riskier buying of drugs makes Blacks more likely to be caught.
Lastly, a report from the Justice Department found that Blacks are more likely to use drugs than Whites, use more dangerous drugs than Whites, and are more likely to take drugs in areas with high crime rates The Racial Disparity in U.S. Drug Arrests (ojp.gov) .
Based on the research, it is wise to assume that Blacks getting arrested more for drug use is a result of their higher drug usage (despite them lying about it), taking drugs in riskier areas, and buying drugs in riskier places.
(4) Police Brutality
It has become popular in some circles to claim that police are disproportionately brutal/murderous against Blacks. The data shows otherwise.
Using the National Crime Victimization Survey and the Uniform Crime Report like we did in point (1), we see that Blacks account for about 1/3 of rape and assaults, over half of robbery crimes -- the two data points agree (thus Blacks are being arrested as much as you would expect, given the amount of crime they do).
Also, using the Uniform Crime Report only, we see that Blacks are about 1/2 of the murderers, 38% of violent crime, and 29% of people arrested FBI — Table 43 . Given these facts, if police only killed criminals who posed a serious threat to society, and if these criminals were on average equally likely to be killed by police, we would expect people killed by police to be Black between 29% and 38% of the time.
Using other data points to see if people killed by police are Black 29-38% of the time, we have an analysis of Uniform Crime Report data which shows 32% of those killed by police were Black Police Killings of Blacks: Here Is What the Data Say - The New York Times (nytimes.com) . Another analysis of data found 30% Microsoft Word - Moskos 2015 why be a cop.docx (petermoskos.com) . Therefore, Blacks are indeed being killed at about the rate you'd expect based on the percentage of Blacks who are violent criminals (which means that based on this data, officers aren't being biased against Blacks).
(5) Unfair Sentencing
When controlling for how Blacks present themselves in courtrooms, how likely he/she will commit another crime in the future, Verbal IQ and self reported history of violence, we see that there is no unjust racial sentencing gap No evidence of racial discrimination in criminal justice processing: Results from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health - ScienceDirect .
Conclusion
For the above reasons, we should reject the notion of "systemic racism" in the U.S. criminal justice system as being a myth.
Arguments largely copied from Ryan Faulk and Sean Last's works. Credit should go to them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I'm going to crystallize arguments made in this thread and add fine-tuning to the general argument: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) .
As an astute member has pointed out Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com), whenever something is called "racist", there seems to always be a follow-up question asking 'how is this racist?' If a term is so clearly defined, then why do we seem to always need this follow-up question? Furthermore, how can we have debates that last for hours all over the internet about whether something is "racist" or not, and not have it resolved within seconds because of a clear definition? Why can't they just quote Wikipedia or Merriam Webster and be done with it?
It's because the term is nonsense.
Functionally, "racist" and "racism" are used when "race" is mentioned and people's feelings get hurt; labelling something "racist" doesn't add any information. That's it. It's like a trigger for someone to pull whenever race is mentioned in a debate or conversation. There's no clear-cut definition that is used, elsewise there wouldn't be widespread confusion and endless debates about what is "racist", unlike when we say things like "bed" and "chair" -- those things are crystal clear. Take into consideration all the wasted hours of human endeavor spent on determining whether something is "racist" when it's a nonsense term.
And we have to further wonder about the limits to the nonsense of the "racism" term when you consider scientific claims. IQ is a controversial topic that gets people upset, but if IQ is a valid concept, can IQ test results be "racist?" Can you be scientifically correct and "racist" at the same time? We get to the stage here where what could be scientific fact is considered wrong because it's "racist" -- a nonsensical contradiction. If we take something less controversial, such as the idea that human races exist, this can also be labelled "racist". Did humans not undergo evolution because it would be "racist" to think so? Now we're starting to deny scientific fact based on it being "racist" -- pretty malicious.
But the terms "racist" and "racism" gets even more harmful when you consider that it conflates with what Hitler did. According to users of the term "racist", Hitler was a "racist" (despite him and race realists being polar-opposites of each other. Hitler hated IQ tests because Jews did the best on them, and Hitler's notion of race is pseudo-science). So, despite Hitler not having a whole lot in common with race realists, race realists are slandered with the term "racist" which draws feelings of Jews dying in the Holocaust -- a truly malicious, incorrect conflation.
As you can see, "racist" is a nonsense, malicious term that doesn't make sense, wastes countless hours, slanders scientific claims with nonsense and slurs race realists with the emotional weight of the Holocaust.
Stop using this nonsense, malicious language.
If a Scientologist called you a suppressive, would you care? Do you even know what a suppressive is? Scientology is probably a religion that you don't believe in, hence you wouldn't care about being labelled a suppressive. You'd either mock them, ask them what they mean (because it's another nonsense term) or pretend you're a suppressive for comedic effect. You certainly wouldn't be so quick to defend yourself, or list off all the Scientology friends you have as proof of your non-suppressive personage, or debate endlessly about being a suppressive means. So why give "racist" the same credence? Start calling the terms "racist" and "racism" out for what they are: nonsense.
But clearly there are real ill-feelings relating to race, right? Surely, someone hating someone else because of their race is "racist?" This is where clear, sensical language can be used: racial hatred. If someone hates someone else because of their race, he/she has "racial hatred". If someone votes for a certain party because he/she think it's best represents your race's interest, he/she has "racial bias". Use clear, sensical language instead of the nonsense terms.
The saddest part about all of this is that "racist" and all the false narratives that go along with it (white privilege, systemic racism, Native American genocide etc.) are all taught to you before your brain has fully developed (roughly age 24). By the time you've reached this age, you've been forced to accept these false narratives all the way from 5 years old into college age. If you ever questioned any of it, you were wrong because your word was against your teacher's. This is indoctrination. If you ever dare try to critically think about all this stuff you learned at school, you've got this lingering feeling that you're doing the wrong thing because you've been conditioned from the age of 5 into feeling that it's wrong. If you somehow can ignore this lingering feeling that was imposed upon you as a child through this indoctrination, you're "racist".
"Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term, too.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I find it hypocritical this nasty term is freely available for use in general society. People get bent out of shape with terms like the n word, racial jokes and sometimes mere mention of race, but the general public seems complicit in slurring white people with this derogatory term. It clearly has racial overtones ("white" is literally built into the term) and it clearly is meant as a slur. According to the nonsense usually attributed with the term "racist" Racism is a nonsense, malicious term (debateart.com) , SJWs and progressive should be calling usage of this term "racist". Yet, these SJW and progressive people are usually the ones calling various white people this racial slur. This is a case of systemic racism against white people.
It's also true that this "white supremacist" racial slur is essentially an attack on white groups in general, whereas other racial groups are allowed to form groups without being slurred. If we search the term "white nationalism" on Wikipedia, we see "Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism", whereas a search of the term "black nationalism" has Wikipedia making the term free from black supremacism: "Black nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or a subset of, Black supremacism and Black separatism, and these terms have often been used interchangeably by journalists and academics.[2][3][4] They are in fact very different philosophies". So, despite having white and black people attempting to form ethnostates, only white people are slurred -- more systemic racism against white people.
I think SJW and progressive types need to thoroughly reconsider their usage of this racial slur against white people, because not only is it thoroughly hypocritical, it's indicative of racial hatred against white people.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Race realists have historically had problems with live debates, in that they're usually deplatformed, receive bad-faith opponents or are not debate-savvy to defend the position (particularly against sophistry but sometimes because they don't know what they are talking about).
However, Sean Last provided a resounding defense of race realism in his recent debate with STRDST DEBATE! Sean Last & STRDST will be debating Systemic Racism - YouTube .
It should be noted that STRDST was a good faith debater for most of the debate, and therefore we got to see the arguments for race realist positions. It allowed Sean to actually engage in the content of the arguments, rather than being called a racist over and over. It also allowed Sean to show us that he's actually quite a good debater, which usually isn't the case for data nerds who sit around reading studies all day.
Sean/Ryan Faulk are potentially going to debate Destiny next, and thus have far tougher opposition. I have doubts that this will take place, because opponents of race realism far more often go after weaker opponents because it's safer. Still, if it happens (because I think Destiny argues in good faith), we'll get a debate worth watching, if you're interested in race realism.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Race realism is slowly becoming accepted by mainstream thought. In days gone by, a lot of people believed race wasn't a valid concept, whereas today that view is held only by fringe, ideological extremists. Nowadays, the focus of the discussion has shifted towards implications of accepting race realism, which is a far more productive conversation.
Nonetheless, here are some critical tenants about understanding race realism:
1) It's entirely possible to find people of any race to be good natured. There are good natured and bad natured people of every race, and this fact does not detract from the message race realism attempts to disperse (that racial differences are real).
2) The economic benefits of importing well-to-do foreigners is pitted against the cultural degeneracy of waning identity and decreased societal trust. There is great debate as to which has more impact, but both certainly have impacts.
3) By default, people balkanize based on race and it takes a lot of conditioning to have a chance of shifting this default. Even if people learn to "tolerate" each other, often they still build communities wherein they cater to their racial/cultural groups and generally avoid other races/cultures (e.g. shops in different languages, religious-based food etc.) Most critically, acknowledging this fact has nothing to do with any race being superior to another.
4) More controversially, anyone who is an "anti-racist" gets blown to bits at elections. If your group is voting based on fairness and principles, and you come across a group of equal size voting based on their race, at best you'll get an even playing field if you win, but a racially biased system (against you) if you lose. Eventually, you'll lose enough elections to where the race-based group has majority control and implements policies that are not fair.
I hope these understandings help you comprehend race realism better.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Assuming the premise that people should have children (a debatable topic), research shows that children born into wedlock with their biological, adult parents have the best chance to live what most people consider a good life.
Children born out of wedlock are more likely to have teen parents
Not all teenage parents are bad, but on average, they will be worse than adult parents.
Giving birth to children as a teen is a significant contributor to dropping out in high school: "Only about 50% of teen mother receive a high school diploma by 22 years of age, whereas approximately 90% of women who do not give birth during adolescence graduate from high school" About Teen Pregnancy | CDC . By the age 30, these mothers have only a 1.5 chance of earning a college degree Teen Pregnancy Statistics - Teen Help . From this, children are going to be worse off because their mothers are more likely to be less educated, thus having increased difficulty in understanding adult documents and finding a well-paying job. This undereducation is also likely to extend to the child, wherein "the children of teenage mothers are more likely to have lower school achievement and to drop out of high school".
Health problems can extend from a number of reasons, ranging from an inability to eat well due to poverty, to receiving poor health advice from relatively uneducated parents. Moreover, "the children of teenage mothers are more likely to have more health problems" About Teen Pregnancy | CDC .
Economically, due to welfare and support systems, 80% of unmarried teen mothers are on welfare Teen Pregnancy Statistics - Teen Help . We can see the very costly effect of this teenage welfare usage: "between 1991 and 2015, the teen birth rate dropped 64%, which results in $4.4 billion in public savings in 2015 alone" About Teen Pregnancy | CDC . In 2010 specifically, $9.4 billion tax dollars (federal budget) were spent on teen pregnancy and childbirth Teen Pregnancy Statistics - Teen Help . Teens not having children helps save the economy money.
Children from teenage parents are also more likely to spend time in jail Teen Pregnancy Statistics - Teen Help .
In promoting children to be born into wedlock, we are inadvertently lowering the chance of the parents being teenaged and all the negative outcomes associated with that.
Children born out of wedlock are less likely to live with both biological parents growing up
Absence of a father in a child's life leads to a miserable host of negative outcomes. Inversely, the presence of a biological father prevents these negative outcomes Statistics | The Fatherless Generation (wordpress.com) :
- 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes – 5 times the average
- 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average
- 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average
- 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average
- Children with fathers who are involved are 40% less likely to repeat a grade in school
- Children with fathers who are involved are 70% less likely to drop out of school
- Children with fathers who are involved are more likely to get A’s in school and enjoy school by engaging in extracurricular activities
- 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average
- Children living in two-parent household with a poor relationship with their father are 68% more likely to smoke, drink, or use drugs compared to all teens in two-parent households
- Teens in single mother households are at a 30% higher risk than those in two-parent households
- 70% of youths in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average
- 85% of all youths in prison come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average
The list goes on. Check the source if you're interested. It's super clear that having a biological father in a child's life is a positive thing.
On another note, the Cinderella Effect is a phenomenon wherein non-biological parents are far more likely to treat non-biological children poorly. Studies have repeatedly shown that non-biological children are at 100-300 times the risk of being beaten to death by their non-biological parents (particularly the father). You can add to this the elevated rates which in stepfathers don't play with their stepchildren, contribute to accidental injury of their stepchildren and less investment in stepchild's education cinderella effect facts.doc (ucsb.edu) .
There's no doubt that being raised with both biological parents is preferable for a child.
Unmarried parents are more likely to: be poor, suffer from depression, report substance abuse and spend time in jail
I'm not sure how anyone would argue against factors being good Non-marital childbearing has increased dramatically since the 1970s (princeton.edu) . Nonetheless, I will make some short arguments.
Being poor, parent or child, means that on average you (compared to non-poor people): had two fewer years of schooling, had incomes less than half, received $826 more annually in food stamps, almost 3 times likely to report poor health and twice as likely to be arrested (if male) 2.4 The Consequences of Poverty – Social Problems (umn.edu) .
Depression not only feels draining to be under, but also "raises levels of the stress hormone cortisol and can significantly weaken the immune system" Coping With Depression: A Guide to Good Treatment | Everyday Health .
Drug abuse routinely leads to problems with memory attention and decision-making. It also increases your body temperature, which can lead to problems with sleeping and other health complications The Physical & Mental Effects of Drug Abuse | Gateway Foundation .
Spending time in jail is extremely self-evident as being bad.
Closing thoughts
It's time society stops seeing alternative parenting set-ups, such as non-married parents, single mothers, double mothers/fathers, step-dads and teen parents, as credible alternatives to the traditional set-up. Instead, we should view them as objectively inferior.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Society
Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD
It came to light in 1987 that Martin plagiarized a lot of his PhD. In particular, he plagiarized at least 45% of the first part of his dissertation, and 21% of the second.
For his bachelor degree, Martin also filled his papers with lot of "unacknowledged material lifted verbatim". Of these papers, one in particular has 20 out of the 24 paragraphs lifted verbatim.
Martin's 'Letter From Birmingham City Jail' has passages stolen so often that he knew them by heart.
Well-known passages from his famous 'I have a Dream' speech were stolen from the 1952 address by Archibald Carey, a black preacher. Martin then copyrighted the entire 'I have a Dream' speech.
No one was safe from Martin's plagiarism, not even himself: at university, Martin cycled his old work verbatim without referencing himself many times.
Martin Luther King was two-faced
Official FBI documents of Martin showed:
- that despite being a Christian, Martin managed to have 4 mistresses (read: adultery) as well as an illegitimate child (read: child out of wedlock), both of which most people wouldn't consider Christian actions. You can add to this the multiple sex-orgies Martin engaged in (which I'm sure the FBI had fun in documenting)
- worked with dozens of Communists to help them plan events and speeches (at a time when America was fighting Communism)
So, in these regards, Martin Luther King was a fraud.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People
(1) IQ has the capacity to (decently) predict a lot of life outcomes.
From "The Scientific American Book of the Brain", there is a researched table (on page 65) that shows the percentage of undesirable life outcomes occurring, relative to the IQ of the person: WwSHDHN.png (602×140) (imgur.com) . There isn't any instance of undesirable life outcomes percentage chance increasing as IQ increases, whilst a decrease in IQ always lead to an inflated chance of undesirable life outcomes.
IQ is able to predict job performance to some degree. Schmidt and Hunter (1990) examined the correlation between job performance and IQ Individual Differences in Output Variability as a Function of Job Complexity (gwern.net) . Methodologically speaking, they used coworker's assessments of work and tested it against metrics (such as IQ) to see correlation. IQ was the 2nd best metric, tying for second with a "Structured Interview", and beaten only by "Work Sample Tests" VA8gjB7.png (284×250) (imgur.com) . IQ beat things like "Job Experience," "Job Tryout," and even "Years of Education".
Schmidt and Hunter (1984) also did a review of job performance studies, which was assessed by Huffcutt and Arthur (1994) Huffcutt & Arthur (1994) Interview.pdf (radford.edu) . In this review, IQ was the best predictor of job performance across all the metrics measured: kssZoa7.png (411×232) (imgur.com) (there was only an interview, not a "Structured Interview", and there was no "Work Samples Test" this time).
Strenze (2006) performed a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies (average group size being 97,083) that compared various life factors (e.g. IQ, Grades, SES index etc.) with education, occupation and income levels doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004 (emilkirkegaard.dk) . With education, occupation and income levels, IQ consistently produced the best correlation qIGdGqI.png (378×564) (imgur.com) .
Clearly, IQ measures something that is valid, otherwise these decent correlations wouldn't be produced.
(2) "Intelligence" is probably measured by IQ (to some degree)
Heuristically, people can guess the intelligence of something. We certainly shouldn't measure IQ based on how smart people think something is, but this heuristic guess correlates very well with IQ. Denissen et al. 2011 provides the data to make this case: Antecedents and consequences of peer‐rated intelligence - Denissen - 2011 - European Journal of Personality - Wiley Online Library (sorry for paywall).
A limitation to this correlation was found in Morgan 1997, wherein they showed that the amount someone talked in the short-run (in a group discussion), actually inflated their perceived level of intelligence. However, if people in the group were allowed to speak for long enough, this effect subsided, and people's guess of people's IQ correlated very well with that of the actual IQ test results (PDF) Perceptions of Intelligence in Leaderless Groups: The Dynamic Effects of Shyness and Acquaintance (researchgate.net) .
===================================================================================================================================
So, IQ (1) measures something valid (better than most other things), and (2) that valid thing it measures is probably intelligence.
Credit to Ryan Faulk as most of this argument is his arguments reworded.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Science and Nature
"Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." Racism - Wikipedia
The notion that all races, despite evolving in different environments, evolved to be *exactly* the same, is nonsense. Clearly, if a species lived in an environment wherein adaptive traits will be selected for, then the species as a whole will adapt in order to better suit the environment. Over time, this will make them superior in ways other races are not *because* of this adaptation.
To give a specific example, African-Americans always have the Allele G (Gly180) which causes them to sweat more profusely than Koreans whom never have this allele, but instead have Allele A (Arg180). fgene-03-00306-g003.jpg (892×1167) (frontiersin.org) Frontiers | Pharmacogenetics of human ABC transporter ABCC11: new insights into apocrine gland growth and metabolite secretion | Genetics (frontiersin.org) To deem this racial difference as "racist", as akin to the Holocaust or a violent race-based attack, is nonsensical and malicious.
Furthermore, it is appropriate to say that African-Americans have a superior advantage (sweating) in surviving in hot, arid environments compared to Koreans, because sweating allows: cooling, detoxing of heavy metals, elimination of chemicals, and bacterial cleansing Sweating Benefits: Beyond Body Temperature Regulation (healthline.com)
Therefore, the "behavioral trait" of sweating allows African-Americans to be superior to Koreans in one way (two groups that are divided phenotypically, of which manifests in different "physical appearance[s]"), in regards to living in hotter environments. For "racism" to denote this scientific fact as negative should be considered malicious.
Theoretically, we could determine whether African-Americans are superior to Koreans, in regards to living in hotter environments, if we were to factor all relevant determinants (i.e. not just sweating). For example, Korean's higher I.Q. (roughly 106) may allow them to invent smart adaptations which are superior to merely being able to sweat. To say that this isn't possible is to say evolution had no effect on humans, which is nonsense (literal opposite of the effect evolution has) and malicious (slanders a scientific fact).
Furthermore, you could even determine if a race, overall, is superior to another, if you agreed upon valuable human traits (potentially: survivability, intelligence, civilization-building ability, reproduction capacity, absence of negative genes etc.), and then determined which races had the most desirable genes which best produced these desirable results. Again, to say that this isn't possible is to say evolution had no effect on humans.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics