Total posts: 2,799
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe every individual deserves to be treated in accordance with what their group does?
We are speaking in generalized terms. You speak of oppression on a general scale. You use general worse life outcomes to justify special treatment. I fail to follow how me merely mentioning how average group behavior affecting outcomes has anything to do with treating individuals different.
But if you happen to support reparations or affirmative action or other forms of preferential treatment, you plan on treating White people according to what their group did (no slaver is still alive here, and most segregationists are dead) and using that as justification for discriminating against them today.
I stop there when I find myself talking to someone who won’t acknowledge it. It’s like talking to someone who won’t acknowledge that 2+2=4 but then wants to talk about multiplication. No point in going any further.
Who won't acknowledge it??? I have said multiple times that there are likely spillovers from segregation. Even the message that you responded to with this comment said "learning how historic policies affect today is a valid question".
It's like I'm talking to a brick wall. Anything less than 100% victimization mindset and blaming White people is an attack on dignity to you, apparently.
Telling me what I actually believe and what my motivations are is not an argument.
Yeah, and a lack of a substantive response to anything I say is also not an argument. Curious!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Source?????
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Hopefully we don't overcorrect again and can just instead be normal
Haha, pendulum go wrrrrrr
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And your plan is to let all murderers roam free to kill again! Yay!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you know how plea bargains work? When you plea guilty, it is getting executions off the table much of the time. Generally you save everyone’s time and take life in prison.
So where on earth are you getting that I want “to just execute everyone”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don’t think the rate of false convictions would go down. I think less murderers would avoid jail time since the burden of proof is high for criminal cases
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your point that even more defendants would plead guilty than already do? I think I explained that I don't see that as a net positive.
It would depend on the proportion that are actually guilty vs not. Also, pleas save a lot of court time and money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok I'm listening. What nuance would you like to add? What wide reaching effects are being overlooked here? Let's have a look at them.
Well based on the lack of consideration you gave to the one point I mentioned, I see no value in providing more.
To be honest, the death penalty isn't even that big of an issue for me. But considering your point was "Then it is an ineffective measure and should be discontinued.", I figured I would point out your flawed reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I know that not all guilty pleas are valid. I’m simply stating that there is more nuance than you suggested.
You said that the death penalty is not effective because it didn’t lower homicide rates and should thus be gotten rid of. I am saying that measuring based on the homicide rate is too narrow in scope because the policy has wide-reaching effects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then it is an ineffective measure and should be discontinued.
Whether or not it decreases the homicide rate isn't the only thing that matters.
For instance, it makes defendants more willing to plead guilty to get that off the table.
Heck, it can just be for the principle. For instance, they've done something so terrible that we as a society say they need to be removed permanently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
2. Rape is wrong, if Someone got raped by eye for an eye that person would then be able to rape the other guy.
Rapists should be sodomized with a bayonet. Give 'em the old Ghaddafi treatment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You’d have to be more specific. It could or could not be.
Junk food taxes? Not interfering with freedom.
Subsidizing healthy food? That’s fine.
Banning certain foods? That’s borderline.
But if people buy and eat bad things in spite of taxes, there isn’t much else you can do without interfering with freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure, I'll vote for Yang! Show me the nearest drop box (trash can)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Imagine if Joe Biden told Osha that being fat was an occupational hazard and you can be fined for employing fat people...
Then he would be #MyPresident
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
people dont have the freedom to be fati agree, punish fat people
I don't know if I agree with the first statement, but I definitely agree with the second. I think that you can have the "freedom to fat". How would you regulate them not being fat? Limit how much food people can buy? Force them to exercise? Ban certain foods? Maybe I am misinterpreting what you mean by "freedom", but it seems like you are saying the government can force people to not be fat.
Because I don't think there is any reasonable way by which to enforce that, I agree with punishing them. I support taxes on fattening products like soda, they should have higher healthcare premiums, schools should be much harder on exercise requirements, etc. I think the government should make it much harder to be fat, and I think that can be done with fairly reasonable means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Food is racist!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The stock market isn't entirely fueled by the fed. Congress has a big effect on it too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Improved: Aggregate stock values
Worsened: Everything else
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I don't see how that addressed what I said. I said that while the nominal rate was 91%, the effective rate was 42%. Meaning that, in reality, the tax rate wasn't as high as you make it seem.
The effective rates were probably higher in the past, but saying that the nominal rate was double what it currently is means essentially nothing other than corporations that had zero deductions and credits (something that is more or less impossible to achieve) would pay that double rate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Plus deductions and credit changes when we change tax rates also makes each comparison not 1:1.
Also, the brackets affected by different rates change, cost of living changes, etc.
Very hard to find it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Laffer curve is a real thing. You lose tax revenue if you raise rates too much.
I don't think most people really dispute that. Most of the argumentation is related to the point at which tax revenue starts to decrease
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Eisenhower had a top tax rate of 92 percent to pay off the debt of WW2 which was a smaller percent of GDP than our debt today.
That's an incredibly deceptive claim. The top 1%'s average effective tax rate in the 1950s was about 42% between federal, state, and local taxes.
You could pass a 99% tax on all income, and as long as there are plenty of deductions and credits to be taken advantage of, nobody will be paying anywhere close to 99%.
Nominal rates, in other words, mean essentially nothing at face value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
Murdering, raping, and assaulting people is also a choice. Hate to break it to you.
But if it is 1/5, yet the numbers are what? 76% among blacks? That means the vast majority of them are still because they don’t marry before having children
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I’ve never argued that it’s 100% all on racism, so what’s your point?
You have never mentioned any other factor and have simply pointed to disparities. Then you said we have to do something because something bad happened in the past. So, yes, you were implicitly stating that racism is the culprit since you added zero nuance.
If you don’t understand someone else’s rationale it’s better to ask questions than proclaim nonsense.I do believe everyone should be treated equally, that’s why I am against preferential treatment for anyone.Treating everyone equally begins with ensuring that everyone is given an equal opportunity to succeed. Please enlighten me as to how this is the case right now for the average black child vs the average white child in America.Assessing the collective intelligence of races serves no real purpose other than to explain away disparities in wealth by attributing it to “they’re just stupid” rather than taking a deep look at any other underlying issues that may also be factoring into it.It never ceases to amaze me how the same crowd that always talks about how we are all individuals suddenly has a penchant for categorizing everyone into an intelligence camp.
Really, the whole "equal opportunity" argument is a sham. Nobody will have equal opportunities no matter what. How your parents raise you, your religion, your genetics (even if you don't think they are different on a group-by-group basis, the scientific consensus is still that intelligence is 40-60% heritable). If a group on average behaves much differently than another, they never will have equal opportunity because they will make themselves less capable of taking advantage of those opportunities. And the laws and policies governing the country have already gone beyond "equal" to actively discriminating in favor of minorities, especially blacks.
And considering that blacks can have sub-par MCAT and GPA scores and have a significantly higher chance of getting into medical school (same applies to college in general with SAT scores), they are given subsidies for their businesses, etc.
Heck, they even have a whole agency for everyone except Whites' small businesses. I'd like some of that "equal opportunity", myself.
"The U.S. Department of Commerce operates the Minority Business Development Agency, which is dedicated to the growth and global competitiveness of business enterprises owned and operated by African Americans, Asian Americans, Hasidic Jews, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Pacific Islanders."
The thing is, I understand your rationale completely. You just aren't willing to say what you think. You're trying to hide it behind shallow phrases like "equal opportunity" and blaming segregation without acknowledging the other, much more relevant factors.
Whether our current state of wealth inequality is a result of our history/policies is an actual conversation, with actual facts that can actually be verified and linked backward to establish whether there is causation that continues into today’s society. Some arguments that there are may be valid, some may not be, but we don’t know until we actually have that conversation. Race realism has nothing to do with that.I remind you that this thread is specifically about why many on the left view race realism in the light we do and folks like yourself here continue to prove that point; because you refuse to recognize that even if there are in fact significant genetic differences playing into why we are still here, that doesn’t negate any moral obligation we have as a society to right whatever wrongs persist. Race realism isn’t an attempt to have a real conversation, it’s an attempt to skip over one.
You're only half right. Learning how historic policies affect today is a valid question. But then that's where you stop, because you only care about that and don't want to come to the uncomfortable realization that "huh, maybe it isn't all White people's fault". If you find out that *gasp* single motherhood (a choice) has bad outcomes on children, crazily enough, those groups will perform much worse on average. We care about having a holistic look at the causes of disparities, while you myopically only care about slavery and segregation.
You accuse me of not wanting a conversation, but it is blatantly obvious that this is mere projection. You only ever mention racist policies from over half a century ago. Race realists also consider genetics and group differences in lifestyle choices. Considering that you gloss over those and think that they aren't "relevant", you prove that you are only willing to blame White people for the failings of other groups.
So again, I iterate, you claim to want to rectify differences in outcomes that will never close as long as we live in a world in which personal choices impact your life outcomes. Considering that will never happen, you simply want perpetual special treatment (a continuation of the policies already present).
So what's the stopping point with preferential treatment? Because equal opportunity and preferential opportunities have done very little to achieve equal outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Sorry, we’re full. Pay living wages to your employees and you won’t have a worker shortage.
Unless your position is to have a class of people undercutting Americans by getting paid under the table?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I specifically stated that it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish.X is not relevant to Y =/= X has no purpose
Well supposedly you want everyone to be treated equally. Yet, your rationale is this "has no purpose" because you don't want others using that information to stop giving preferential treatment to certain groups at the expense of others.
It’s not an either/or. Even if the former is true, that doesn’t negate the latter.
No, it isn't necessarily an either/or. But blaming it all on racism is equally as absurd as blaming it all 100% on genetics.
No. Disparities in outcome is not the thing that proves oppression. We know the black community was oppressed because we record our history and we saw the disparities form as an immediate result. Sure one can argue that genetic cognitive differences (if they were in fact real and significant) played a large role in keeping them there but that has nothing to do with how they got there in the first place.
My position definitely isn't that disparities prove oppression lol. Biological differences that form over thousands of years aren't a result of oppression in America. I was saying that seeing how much of the difference in outcomes is based on personal choice/genetics will give more insight into how much was caused by "oppression" over half a century ago.
Based on your argument here, since not all groups will EVER achieve the same outcomes (it would be silly to argue otherwise), and you blame White people for "how they got there in the first place" is your position to provide preferential treatment to blacks until the end of time? Because that is what happens when your thought is brought to its logical conclusion.
To sum it up:
You're blaming something that happened in the past for something that will persist forever and then using that thing that will persist forever to justify preferential treatment to end that gap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Not every truth is relevant, it depends on what we’re trying to accomplish. If the goal is to live in a society that treats everyone equally, recognizing genetic differences among subgroups of the population serves no purpose.
At no point have I argued or suggested that it shouldn’t be studied. The topic of this thread is about why many people don’t want to discuss it. That’s a question about our political discourse, not science.
Well right here you say that the facts serve no purpose, and it just so happens that suppressing these facts can only benefit your narrative of blaming Whitey for disparities.
There is immense value in knowing that there are genetic differences and to take that into consideration when making policy. Because knowing the cause of disparities is what matters. Is it inherent limitations in people causing disparities or is it the fault of other people ("discrimination")? Do you not agree that those two different causes call for vastly different policy responses?
Created:
-->
@thett3
People really don’t understand just how severely age correlated with covid deaths and how little risk healthy young people are at
"Healthy 17-year-old died of COVID"
>click on story
>'healthy' teen is clearly over 300lbs
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Well maybe I don’t wanna. How’s that for a good reason, eh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Which is exactly why race realism is an attractive topic for every racist. How nice to not have to bother thinking about our history and it’s lasting effects on our society when you can just deem the minority race to be inferior, blame it all on Mother Nature and then call it a day.
And that is exactly why the topic is bashed by the people who have so much to gain by it not being studied.
How nice to not have to bother studying science and its permanent effects on human outcomes when you can just blame it all on White people for being evil and then call it a day?
If we find out that Whitey isn't the cause of disparities, those checks, the ability to guilt people into giving donations/positions of power, and preferential hiring might go away!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So let’s start out with addressing something important; the people suggesting race realism, often put forth pseudoscience implying that some small correlations are indicative of causation for things like this.Right now; there’s is no indication whatsoever that race is even a substantial component in determining what your ultimate IQ is; and yet a lot of individuals are still making that argument and pretending as if these claims are somehow rooted in science.Regardless of what any biological component of IQ ends up being; this form of argument, built on this type of premise is still clearly unreasonable. Which was my point.
There is very limited research into this area. However, the little bit that is available doesn't point to an egalitarian conclusion. While an imperfect study, the Minnesota adoption study is one example of such a study.
Furthermore, different races are different in many ways that we know:
Blood transfusions between different races can cause issues: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/well/live/blood-type-race-racial.html
Same with organ transplants: "Although organ transplant candidates are not matched based on race or ethnicity and people of different ethnicities often match one another, transplant matches made within ethnic groups can be even more compatible and successful" https://www.donoralliance.org/newsroom/donation-essentials/multicultural-groups-and-donation-does-race-matter-in-organ-transplants/
Different races also have different average cranial capacities: "(Blacks) average cranial capacities of 1267 cm3, European-descended people (Whites) 1347 cm3, and East Asian-descended people (East Asians) 1364 cm3" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222683780_Brain_size_IQ_and_racial-group_differences_Evidence_from_musculoskeletal_traits
So I think that your characterization of race realism doesn't afford the leniency that it should. Perhaps some people in this thread give the idea more credit than it deserves or make conclusions that haven't been proven enough yet, but my position is that the available science does support racial differences in IQ. We should look into it further to investigate how much is biological and how much is environmental. That would give us a meaningful metric by which to determine causes of disparities and if they can be fixed/how they should be fixed.
Now; if it turns out that due to immutable biological factors of a given race, some policy can’t work - I think that’s a good reason not to have that policy: but there are so many impractical ifs implicitly involved. For example; there would have to be an implicit genetic issue that is determinative of IQ: rather than giving a predisposition towards IQ - it must be immutable, in that a given intelligence cannot be attained by changing environmental factors; it must be determinable - so one doesn’t simply assume that an underachiever is underachieving because they have the wrong genetic disposition, as opposed to other environmental factors.
I would argue that even if it is a pre-disposition rather than a determinant, my stance really wouldn't change a large amount. A pre-disposition would still suggest that, if you expose the same amount of kids of different races to the exact same environment, you would still have the highest amount of smart East Asian kids, then White, then Hispanic, then Black. Based on the cranial capacity information, it would seem that there is at least some inherent, immutable limitation.
But from there, the question would be by how much can that pre-disposition be overcome and then do a cost-benefit calculation based on that. Because to even come close to reaching an equal outcome among groups, you would have to invest insane amounts of money to close disparities.
The final issue is that various “success” indicators and IQ being fundamentally linked is one example of assuming correlation is causation. While I could probably buy into the claim that no amount of training or learning will make me the next Einstein; and that levels of IQ has an impact on profession and thus earnings; but I don’t think it’s even close to a given that there is a causal link between IQ and things such as criminality, etc, as opposed to sharing broad correlating environmental factors.
But if lower IQ leads to worse life outcomes (less money) and leads to worse decision-making, wouldn't we expect more criminality, more single motherhood, less saving, etc?
I will not make the argument that IQ is the sole cause of criminality. But, I think it is a significant factor, and it is one that is largely influenced by genetics (between individuals, genetics are determined to be about 50% of the cause of intelligence) https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/intelligence/#:~:text=These%20studies%20suggest%20that%20genetic,difference%20in%20intelligence%20among%20individuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
And I doubt I will get a straightforward answer, assuming I get a response at all.
I think you’re right. He probably does believe that there are racial differences and he doesn’t want to stake a position that he would have to hold.
Usually when forced to concede, they start blaming culture. Obviously that is a factor, but even then no nuance is added. They still blame the entire difference on either racism or poverty caused by racism.
It seems like the people who bash creationism have their own blind spot: they at least pretend to think that groups that were separated for hundreds of thousands of years under vastly different environments led all groups to turn out exactly the same in terms of ability to achieve under a capitalist meritocracy. Now that would be nothing short of a “miracle”, especially considering that children with the same parents don’t even achieve equally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
It has access to birth records, so it already knows my age, gender, and other germane qualities that define me for all the government cares. Makes for an easy Census form.
But the census also asks for where you live, and they cannot surmise that from your birth certificate. That helps count population to allocate electoral votes.
That, and all the social security checks that go to dead people show that they wouldn't accurately know when to stop counting you in the census.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your response is under the presumption that it is a false idea.
Let's step into the realm of the hypothetical for a moment: let's say that we prove that the IQ gap between races are 100% biological (exaggerating for the purpose of clarity). Intelligence is known to be a very strong predictor of success in life.
How would you respond? Would you get rid of affirmative action? Do more of it? What kinds of policies would you propose since you say that this idea of race realism is used as a justification for not doing something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dfss9788
And until very recently, you couldn’t own land unless you were Liberian and only blacks can get Liberian citizenship.
I say the government should set up affirmative action programs for the rest of eternity to rectify this injustice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Enforcing immigration laws and caring about your citizens more than foreign citizens is for sh*thole countries only, I guess. That's the only possible point I could surmise from that utterly inappropriate response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Best way to deter Migrants is to turn the entire country into DC.
If we had half of the drones and active duty military on our border as we had in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have this problem...
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
Which tendencies are you referring to? Keeping dangerous people out of your country is what we should any sane country should try to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
the people going onto the planes very obviously want to leave afghanistan if they are going into the planes....
Yeah, anyone living in a sh*thole country would get on a plane in a heartbeat to go to a first world nation with a robust welfare state that will coddle them.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
They absolutely hate them yet nobody wants to say this?
Yes, pointing out that people hate your race is political suicide lmao.
What's not to love about clown world?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That’s the only distinguisher I can see. None of their attacks are for things exclusive to us. Slavery, for instance, is supposed to be a uniquely bad thing we did. However, the US was a tiny part of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Arab slave trade was larger than that trade, too (and more brutal).
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
"He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful"
I agree with everything up until this line. I think they hate Western civilization because of racial reasons. There are many successful, powerful Asian nations that they don't criticize for being sexist, imperialistic, etc. China is a big example. Instead they criticize Russia, which is much less of an imperial threat. Russia just so happens to be a majority White country.
Japan is strong, powerful, and according to modern US standards "sexist". As is South Korea. No criticism that I have ever seen.
Any White civilization that has any whiff of these issues they, as it said, wildly exaggerate the issues.
While lefties do seem to have an aversion to anything powerful, beautiful, and successful, I think that doesn't quite capture what is really happening. It was like when Bush said that Bin Laden attacked us because of our greatness and freedoms. Clearly, there are other motives present as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
the Supreme Court majority’s unwillingness to even stay patently unconstitutional state legislation
That's crazy, my man. I see nothing in the Constitution about legalizing child murder if the parents don't want it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
School has not been pleasant to me. I'll be free to respond soon if you're interested lol
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Yeah, we were there way too many years. Our goal initially was to kill those responsible for 9/11. The so-called "War on terror" is a delusional concept. There will always be terrorists abroad, and as long as they are only threats to their respective countries and not an imminent threat to ours, we should not care all that much. If we are to do something, it should not be our sole responsibility to take care of it (ex. ISIS was a much bigger threat to Europe than us, yet we were the main force fighting them).
The lack of resistance to the Taliban was proof that our attempts to enforce liberal democracy were not widely-supported. People were not willing to die for that. They were, however, willing to die for a conservative sect of their religion. That should tell us that if democracy is ever going to come to the Middle East, that movement must be supported from the general populace first. The presence of American soldiers surely didn't change their minds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
This is getting way off track though. Personhood is not relevant to this discussion. People don't get to use other people without consent.
Perhaps we don't need to touch on that, but I think that personhood is really the deciding factor. If it is a person, you can't murder it. If it is some valueless object, then who cares? But I guess that would have to come after the rights discussion.
We'll take this one step at a time. Let's say that I pushed you down the stairs. I now have an obligation to take care of your recovery, yes?Perhaps, but not with your blood, flesh, or organs....
While it isn't the status quo to help people you push down stairs with your blood, flesh, and organs, I think a very good argument could be made for that.
So since you believe there is some obligation to the person you injure, why would you stop at monetary obligations?
Let's say that when you are pushed down the stairs, you damage your liver and need a transplant, but there aren't any available donors. However, it just so happens that the person that pushed you down the stairs is a usable donor. Should you be able to force the person who put you in that position to give you a liver transplant or do you think you should be left to die? I'd say that you should force the transplant.
I'm arguing for equal rights, not absolute rights. Don't misrepresent my argument.
But no rights are truly equal. Some are more important than others. Having a life without free speech is quite different from having no life at all. The fact that free speech is limited to preserve life shows that you weight those two differently. You restrict one to defend another.
Rights can be removed because of bad actions. Again, it sure seems like you are suggesting getting pregnant is a bad action.
Getting pregnant when you don't want to is to some degree a bad action. It's reckless.
Yes. I am now ...being many decades old. ;-p At conception, I was not the being I am now...in fact I wasn't even a being.
The fact that people change over time seems to support what I am saying. You must take their entire life into account, as there will be dramatic changes. Even abortion proponents use the future of that life to justify their actions. They say that the life of that kid won't be good because they don't have a lot of money to care for it. But then the question is, is a bad life better or worse than no life at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Let's call it a puppy. A cute little puppy dog.
Yeah, screw that cute little puppy dog.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't think there should be "policing" as it's currently practiced at all. Preventive justice is oh so ineffective.
Crime rates went down as we mass incarcerated criminals in the 80's and 90's. Higher police presence has been proven to decrease homicide, rape, robbery, and other crimes in many cities.
So what exactly do you want? Has what you want ever worked?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
I share some things in common with them.
Created: