Total posts: 152
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You're not entitled to anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
OK. I'm afraid there's quite a bit more to "race realism" than simply that self identified races are distinguishable based on genetic tests. See, e.g., this usage dating back to 2005:
WANTED: MORE RACE REALISM, LESS MORALISTIC FALLACYDespite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to 18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations); the differences are as large today as they were when first measured nearly 100 years ago. They, and the concomitant difference in standard of living, level of education, and related phenomena, lie in factors that are largely heritable, not cultural. The IQ differences are attributable to differences in brain size more than to racism, stereotype threat, item selection on tests, and all the other suggestions given by the commentators. It is time to meet reality. It is time to stop committing the “moralistic fallacy” that good science must conform to approved outcomes.
The first google search result for "race realism" is an article on "scientific" racism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism - The only entries for "race realism" on onelook.com are a direct link to the Wikipedia's scientific racism article and this:
Nounrace realism (uncountable)(euphemistic) Synonym of scientific racism
I'm afraid when you claim that "race realism" simply means that races are real, well that's not what race realism really is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your argument is not the smoking gun you think it is, we can zoom in genetically speaking, and talk about soley human differences - you're being a moron.
His argument is generally this:
1. People self identify as a race
2. There are genetic markers which correlate to the self identified races
3. Therefore race is not a social construct
The reality is that there are genetic markers for population groups all the time. Most of these population groups are not considered to be races and have little, if any contemporary social significance. Take, for example, genetically distinct populations within Spain:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
"You made that up and your interpretation is baseless."I'm not interested in your interpretation of the methodology you got from the abstract (hint: the methodology isn't explained there).
I didn't say anything about their methodology.
They are getting the 38% number from the individual chance for loci being different/similar. if you don't want to accept that, then your word is against the dozen studies I've referenced.
Not really. There's nothing in the study that says that, and I don't see why you would look to outside studies to support an interpretation of statements within the study.
In any case, I think you may need is a bona fide external threat to get you on board for national unity. You know the Russians are always meddling in American politics, intentionally fomenting racial tensions to undermine our collective strength. That you're here doing their work for them, well now are you sure you're not working for the communists? The Chinese are always up to something with their nine dash line and other imperialist nonsense. Look what they're doing in Hong Kong. They're modernizing their military and we may go to war with them over Taiwan or something. There's no time to worry about petty racial divisions. I'd remind you that over 7,000 blacks died in Vietnam fighting the communists. It's not like they haven't done their part, and they're so poor anyway it's not like they're taking a lot out of the economy. Don't be afraid of the black people. In World War 2 in Europe when Americans came across a black soldier it was a great thing to see because they didn't have to be worried that they were on the other side. If they saw a white soldier it could be a Nazi, but everyone knew that there was no such thing as a black Nazi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You're essentially claiming that when K = 2, Asians only fit their category 62% of the time -- way off what most studies are showing.Do you see that now? If not, how do you explain all this research that contradicts what you've argued?
This is a strawman argument. 99.9% of the genome is the same. Human genetic variation (save for weird things like trisomy) is going to be that last 0.01% of the genome. Certain parts of the genome (e.g. ancestral markers) are consistent within population groups. I'm imagining that these studies are simply focusing on things like that and aren't looking at the entire genome.
Focus on that 0.01% difference. There is a way to measure how much you have in common with another person genetically. Select a random white person, call him "W1". Select another white person, call him "W2". Select a random Asian person, call him "A1". Test them genetically to see if W1 is more closely related to W2 or A1. 38% of the time when you perform this test, you will find that W1 is more closely related to A1 than he is to W2. This is a different test than looking at only the parts of the genome which are consistent within population groups. That test focuses on what the races do not have in common. Further reading: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/
BTW it is good to directly quote statements from source material when you claim that a source supports your position. When this is done iIt's a lot less work to verify that a source actually supports a position, and it is not much work for the source's proponent to present the supportive statements within the source (supposing the source actually does support him). People often make a claim, imply that some linked source supports their claim and try to leave it to other people to prove that the source does not support their position. I'm afraid my patience with that sort of thing has run out and I will disregard any implication that any source supports any claim unless this is done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have successfully debated the value of Black Live Matter but you can't credit BLM with this win.I'm not.
Thread title:
To those who think BLM haven't changed anything
It looks like you were using this article as evidence that BLM has changed things. Then you say that you were not crediting BLM for her acquittal. I lack the credulity to believe such things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Actually the article had this and I missed it:
"I have very, very strong feelings about this. By golly I lost this thing. But I am going to tell you every son of a gun that kills a baby in (my district), I am going to ask for the death penalty in every one of them."The former District Attorney claimed the case had been influenced by 'myths and fables since it was tried'.
He added: "It has gotten all garbed all the way down the line. It has been one of those situations where nobody wants to pay attention to the facts."
It's not much arguing of the evidence there. The article also says:
Sabrina was finally exonerated in her retrial - and she had to fend for herself in county jail during this time.
This is misleading. Not guilty verdict doesn't establish innocence. In the Sabrina case there was a separate, later proceeding where she actually proved that she did not do it. The later proceeding is far more significant in establishing innocence. It is not mentioned in the article. I infer that it happened on account of the restitution paid by the state because to get that compensation you have to prove innocence under the statute.
Relating this to your original claim about BLM - This defendant was acquitted on December 17th, 1995. I don't think BLM was even around back then. So, they don't deserve any credit for this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
LOoK aT yOu, dfss, the one to go 'huh a dumb jury said it, it doesn't matter' when a woman was going to be literally killed and trapped in a cell losing several years of her life branded as a baby killer because of a misinformed, potentially racist all-white jury and the verdict they gave her.What is most unforgivable is that you sit there on some fucking high horse about hearing the other side when that's the very thing they never did to her in the first place. Fuck the other side, they're rich and powerful enough to get their side heard of they had an iota of defense worth publishing.
Grow up
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Tell me right now that the way she was treated in her trial and lack of representation she had would have happened if she were a Caucasian American.Do not look '.co.uk' and tell me she was British, read the article. It was a British lawyer that saved her. That is irrelevant to the piece, I am just clarifying before people try to correct me on this. The British legal system also has needed a lot of work pushed forward by BLM protests and campaigns in order to improve, it's just further along the way, I believe.
The other side of the story is not represented in this article. There is not even a statement to the effect that the journalist attempted to contact the prosecuting attorney for comment, nor does there appear to have been any investigation in to legal record. That a not guilty verdict in a retrial was characterized as an "exoneration" strikes me as a bit misleading. Such a verdict means merely that a jury found there was reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Smells like fake news to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Looks like I'm going to have to spell it out for you.When a locus is tested, that is 'one time'. When 100 loci are tested, that is 100 times. When 5 of those 100 loci are more similar between than within groups, they are more similar 5% of the time (due to 5% of the loci tested). When you say "38% of the time" that means "38% of the loci tested" because that's how you determine the percentage of time wherein there is similarity -- this is what your quoted study is talking about.
"of the time" is referring to genetic similarity between one random European and a random Asian. It is not referring to a genetic locus. You made that up and your interpretation is baseless. Look at what the study says and the context:
Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population [...] pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population [...] These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e., more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002, p. 2007.5) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.” However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time (Bamshad et al. 2004; population definitions and data from Rosenberg et al. 2002). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
You don't understand this because you think your study refers to *total impact* of that variance (i.e. a single locus producing lactose intolerance is of greater impact than having a mandible 0.00001 mms higher), instead of *total instances* (i.e. how many loci differ, ignoring their impact). This is why you made the stupid 'more variation within than between' argument.
Well map every single gene on the genome and figure out what all of it does, come back with a list of impacts and figure out which loci are important and which are not. Assign them a significance value, say 1-10. Then you can say "this gene matters, this gene doesn't matter" etc. Let me guess: You're going to select the ancestral markers as the only important loci.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
If you think there is a contradiction to my characterization of your argument (there's not), then you need to demonstrate that, instead of barely asserting it.
Your characterization was inaccurate. I said this:
Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time
You said this:
You already argued that "Asians" are more genetically similar than Whites are with each other at roughly 38% of the loci tested.
That is a completely different meaning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You already argued that "Asians" are more genetically similar than Whites are with each other at roughly 38% of the loci tested.
No, you do not understand. Let me put it another way.
Imagine 2 fictitious genomes - 1 is the average white person's genome (Call it John Doe) and 2 is the average east asian genome (Call it Ching Chong). OK. Now, select a random white person from the human population. Look at this random white person's genome. Compare it to the John Doe genome and the Ching Chong genome. You will find that 38% of the random white people you select will be closely related to the Ching Chong genome than the John Doe genome.
You've already dropped a lot of what I wrote, so I seem to be doing pretty well.
I'm not trying to convince them. I'm trying to convince you. A lot of what you wrote doesn't have much weight argumentatively. Focus on what's more significant. You don't see something when I show it to you in a lot of different ways. Well, I will try showing it to you in another way because it did not work. You should not conflate that with a concession.
BTW, do you think the Hutus and the Tutsis are different races?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Depending on which and the amount of loci you use (taken from 1996 study: variation within than between chimpanzees - Bing images ), there is more variation within than between chimpanzee and human groups 1996-nei-takezaki.pdf (psu.edu) . After all, humans are genetically 96-99% similar to chimpanzees New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level. Are we now the same as chimpanzees, or are distinction between us arbitrary, because 'there is more variation within than between?' Do you see how stupid that argument is?
Well just pick whatever loci you want instead of looking at the entire genome. No, you should be looking at the entire genome when you're talking about how closely related one organism is to another.
All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Differences in the remaining 0.1 percent https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-GenomicsHumans and chimps share a surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps
The greatest gap in terms of genetic distance between one human and the next is 0.1% of the genome. Humans and chimps share 98.8% of DNA. The variation between average human and chimp is 100% - 98.8% = 1.2% of the genome. That is the genetic variation between human and chimp. This is 12 times larger than the greatest genetic distance from one person to the next. (The most extreme distance)
Not really sure what you're getting at.
I'm glad that you've decided to drop the dumb, old and wrong continuum fallacy argument. Really makes me smile.Unfortunately, you've now made the even stupider 'more variation within than between' argument.
Appeal to snobbery is a common fallacy. Come up with something better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time
Are you genetically closer to the average Asian than you are European? 38% of Europeans are. The Asians could be your people. Rank every white American and Han Chinese in terms of how different from you they are genetically. You will get a list of ~1.5 billion people. If you look at the top ~100 million people on that list, you will find more Han Chinese up there than white people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
What you've decided to argue is the old, dumb and wrong continuum fallacy argument wherein you implicitly question the validity of races based on implying distinctions between races are sometimes too hard to see, therefore races don't exist (or in your special case, your conclusion is that Uyghurs and Palestinians are my race because to you, there aren't clear genetic distinctions between them and me).
Not really.
If you want to use genetics as the basis of group identity, then use genetics as the basis for group identity. You go where evidence of genetic relatedness takes you. Lets look at it again -
There are 3 big clusters, like you say, among Africans, Europeans, and East Asians. So, what about the Persians, Arabs and Palestinians? They're not white, but they are Caucasian genetically.
For the science, races fit into distinct genetic clustered groups with virtually 100% accuracy if you use sufficient SNP or loci. Bamshad (2003) found that if you use 160 loci, you can fit the entirety of humanity into Asian, African and European and only have Asian not fit at 100% (it's 99%). PrpZbSl.png (460×611) (imgur.com) Bamshad then looked at K=4 and got results that further sorted humans into racially distinct groups with even more accuracy Human Population Genetic Structure and Inference of Group Membership (nih.gov) . Alloco (2007) looked at SNPs (up to 100) and found similar findings as to Bamshad's 100 loci results (97% overall fFYScwp.png (635×384) (imgur.com) ) 1471-2164-8-68.fm (nih.gov) . Guo (2015) used 384 SNPs in the ROOM study, and used 1,536 SNPs in the ADD study. His results echoed the other's findings Genetic Bio-Ancestry and Social Construction of Racial Classification in Social Surveys in the Contemporary United States (nih.gov) . White people matched at 99.5% and 99.4% respectively. Africans perfectly matched 100% of the time in the ADD study. So, when we use more genetic markers, the differences between races become clearer, and we have 100% distinction when you use sufficient genetic markers.
The only reason they're fitting in to distinct groups is because these studies start out with self identified race and then assign the results in to those groups. That's putting the cart before the horse. You must do things in the correct order. If your focus is genetic relatedness, then you map the genetic relatedness of respective populations and you go where the evidence takes you. Lock the ball and chain around your leg, throw it off the side of the boat because that's where it's going.
You do not see how disconnected group identities are from genetic relatedness. Consider the one-drop rule; People who are more white than black genetically are nonetheless considered to be black. Was Prince Harry's marriage a "cuck move" ? Consider how closely related the Chinese are to the Japanese, the Jews to the Palestinians, the Germans to the Russians. Much more closely related than European populations. Compare that to history and present day. The identities are rather fluid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
If you don't vote based on your race, if you're so high-minded that you vote based on 'principles' or 'Libertarian based philosophy', you get smacked around by the other racial groups WHO DO vote based on their race. If you sit around and "criticize" those who act based on race-based policy, your voice doesn't count because they are in power, not you. Your argument isn't only (by your own words) something where "there is no getting around [race]" (you know, self-defeated from the get-go), but it's a cuck stance wherein you will always eventually get steamrolled by those playing the race-based political game.That's why we should vote based on genetic realism.
Well here's the big map of average genetic distance between populations if that's how you want to vote.
So, like, uh, what color box on this thing do they got to be before they're "your people" ? You're white, right? The Uyghurs aren't having a blue box. They're having a white box! Does this mean the Uyghur genocide is the real white genocide?
EDIT: Are these your people, too?
They got pretty warm colors on the box map with all the other Europeans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
You conveniently left out this part of what I said:
It's much more so dependent on your choice to become vaccinated. The data suggest that seasonal flu is 5 times more of a risk than a breakthrough COVID-19 infection. And your profile says you were born in 2004? OK so your risk is like nothing, even without the vaccine. If you were older then it would be different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
When I pressed him on that earlier he said the claim was merely that races are real. I doubt he will suppose anything falsifiable about it, and I mean that in the scientific sense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
You conveniently left out this part of what I said:"Everyone has a higher chance of keeping the pandemic going forever the more that the virus spreads and mutates until the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines becomes slim to nil."
If you're boxing and your opponent has quadriplegia, he's going to drop to the floor and you will win despite having done nothing. Your point must be strong enough to stand on its own two legs to be worthy of being addressed. The correct response to shotgun argumentation is to ignore such things.
the amount that I am safe is dependent on the choice of others to be vaccinated.
It's much more so dependent on your choice to become vaccinated. The data suggest that seasonal flu is 5 times more of a risk than a breakthrough COVID-19 infection. And your profile says you were born in 2004? OK so your risk is like nothing, even without the vaccine. If you were older then it would be different.
What of children who have anti-vax parents? Those who can't get the vaccine yet? Those who work 3 jobs and can't afford a day off? We can't simply say "It's your fault you didn't get vaccinated lol. You took the risk" especially when, and I want to stress this, people who are vaccinated can still be infected and have life-long damage.
Negligible hypotheticals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nyxified
The issue with this analogy is that seat belts are a choice that help us stay safe regardless of the choices of others, whereas with the vaccine, the only thing that keeps us safe is everyone taking it.
That's not true. Our immune response to the vaccine keeps us safe. It's not 100%, but neither are seat belts.
Those who are allergic to the vaccine are hurt by the unvaccinated. Those who are vaccinated have a higher chance of having a breakthrough case due to the unvaccinated.
These numbers are small. Mortality rate for breakthrough COVID-19 infections is ~3 deaths per 100,000 vaccinated. Seasonal flu deaths is like ~15 deaths per 100,000 people.
Created:
Posted in:
The vaccines work. People who haven't gotten the vaccine by now have chosen to take the risk, and that's on them. We shouldn't have to abstain from driving simply because some people refuse to wear seat belts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Race realism is about showing that human races are real.
Race is largely the conspicuous natural features and/or shared ancestry. I'd say that most people do group people that way, but given that its a basis of categorizing people its not really meaningful to say that it is "real". You can categorize people on any basis you want and your basis will be no more "real" than any other. You could categorize people based on shoe size and say "oh yes, shoe sizes are real" and you would be correct as people do have an objective shoe size.
Created:
The data suggest that incel subculture is not "a major threat". More of a nuisance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
A problem with these trans-racial adoption studies is that they don't control for prenatal environmental conditions which can have demonstrable impacts on IQ. For example, the lead content of the water consumed by an expectant mother can have an adverse impact on the future IQ of the child. ("Prenatal lead exposure was associated with a deficit of 1.8 IQ points for every doubling of prenatal maternal blood lead" https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/docs/publications/leadandpregnancy2010.pdf page 36) The black population in the USA has, for several generations now, often been concentrated in urban areas where the water pipes are older and the water supply is more likely to be contaminated by lead, and also tends to reside in older houses because they're more affordable (racial wealth and income gap).
Created:
How is there any real choice here besides Joe Biden? (except how could he "become" President if he already is that)There would have to be a very compelling reason for me to overrule the electorate (e.g. people voted in the next Hitler). I don't see one.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why do you think Fox News likes to put angry black people on the air making accusations of racism? It's not because their viewers like it. It's because their viewers hate it. This generates greater interest and causes their viewers to become more interested in the news. This leads to greater viewership and greater advertising revenue.
In permitting hate speech, perhaps this site is doing something similar.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Ask yourself why you're so ready to post information that makes America the target of criticism. It's probably because you don't like it. Well if you don't like it, there's the door. BTW, how many Americans died to stop the Nazis and imperial Japan? How many Americans died to keep South Korea from being overrun by the communists? What would the world look like today if America didn't do those things? You tell me.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
Ah, well, perhaps you can join the Taliban with their death to America chants. Don't forget to renounce your citizenship first, if you're an American, or you may be liable for treason.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
The Afghan government knew America wouldn't stay forever. They knew this day would come and were unprepared. Too bad.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
I can't tell if it's an emperor has no clothes situation or the people who make these decisions really are a bunch of lunatics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
the most racist people you will ever meet are people who talk about race and play the race card
The people who do that are typically gaslighting and/or guilt tripping you to get what they want. They're using what they got to try to get ahead. Can't be a sucker for it, but it's those people who actually are victimized by racism and don't speak up that I feel for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I do agree that genetic differences may be contributing to the observed racial disparities. There is, unfortunately, a dearth of credible scientific evidence from which I may confidently draw factual conclusions. Perhaps the issue is so politically charged that good funding for studies is hard to come by or good researchers are unwilling to risk being shunned for putting their names on a study that basically says black people are stupid. There is little one can do other than say "I don't know" when faced with a lack of good evidence.
Suffice to say that we both agree that there are instances where it is economically rational to be racially discriminatory. We also appear to agree that it's unfair as it's not something you denied. Rather, you drew attention to economic rationality and also to the unfairness of white guilt being pushed. Yet, I'm not convinced by either of these things and I hope to draw you to my side on the subject.
I don't know where you are in life, but if you haven't already then at some point you may find yourself in a position of power over other people. If you're not there yet then I will let you know that at first you will be a bit giddy, but that wears off and you come to terms with what you are - Someone who can make dreams come true or ruin lives with the stroke of a pen, and be perfectly within his rights to do so. Faced with that, there is the understanding that power and responsibility go hand in hand, and also that there is a duty to be fair, noblesse oblige, in professional and personal relations. As you've pointed out, this duty conflicts with rational economic interest in some cases. To that extent, furthering fairness may sometimes come as a sacrifice. How much should be sacrificed is something you should determine dispassionately according to your own code of honor. After all, it would be unfair for you or those you represent to be unduly burdened.
And what is the value of fairness or of justice or anything like that? Well, the nihilist in me suspects that there is no objective value to any of it. Yet, there is utility and humanistic basis for it. As a practical matter, when people are treated unfairly it engenders resentment which often leads to the destruction of the interpersonal relationship, whatever its nature. Fairness maintains relationships, and on a broader scale with protected classes like race or religion to which people may galvanize, justice is paramount for social cohesion. Other than that, it is really just what you believe, how you feel about it and how those beliefs and feelings may have be rationalized, either by you or whoever codified your belief system.
Most people have experienced unfairness and the resulting resentment. Nobody wants to be treated that way. You obviously do not, as you resent that your ethnic group has been blamed for the past. I agree with you that that is an unfairness and a cultural double standard for there to be a green light for anti-white racism, especially that which has lately been institutionalized by the Biden administration and Democrats in their COVID relief bill and infrastructure bill. Despite that and other problems, it is clear to me that being white in America is a superior life experience and I am thankful for it, but it is something I can never say at Thanksgiving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
are the policy implications negligible? How many tens of billions of dollars have been spent trying to bring about equity in the United States when if race realism is true, this simply isn’t possible? The social implications are greater still. Right now any racial inequality is assumed to be the result of racism. If race realism is true, we know that at least some of it is not due to racism.I get why it is an extremely uncomfortable topic to talk about and I would also prefer to sweep it under the rug. But if we must have a “conversation about race” that requires a discussion of all of the facts.
Yes. The claim is usually that black people (or whatever alleged inferior race) are, on average, genetically predisposed to being inferior. Usually the claim has to do with intelligence and/or a predisposition for criminality. Lets accept those alleged facts as true for purposes of discussing the policy implications. Now combine those alleged facts with the undisputed facts - the observed racial disparities and you then have the question - To what extent are the observed racial disparities caused by innate inferiority as opposed to adverse racial discrimination? It would be reasonable to assume that both factors were contributing. Yet, even if there is racial correlation to a predisposition to some innate inferiority, racial discrimination would still (in most cases) be an injustice that should be mitigated through policy.
So, what's wrong with racial discrimination in the first place? Lets say that you're a sole proprietor and you desire intelligent workers without criminal propensity. To that end, you implement a racially discriminatory policy, that you will not hire black people. What's wrong with it? It's your business. It's your money. Perhaps you should be able to do what you want with your property, at least that's what the libertarians say. Nonetheless, even supposing it is your right, that does not make it right - And it is still wrong, even assuming the fact that being black is correlated with low intelligence and criminal propensity. And why is it wrong? It's wrong because people are worthy of better treatment than products where we may shop according to brand without any further investigation. With power comes responsibility, and it's wrong because it's an unnecessary unfairness that can be easily avoided by minimal inquiry on the employer's part in to the prospective employee's background. For example, filtering out the stupid and criminally inclined may be done simply by adequately interviewing prospective employees and conducting criminal background checks, etc.
There are some instances where decisions must be made quickly and more compelling interests (e.g. personal safety) are at stake than fairness where I consider that people should be free, at least for the moment, to exercise racial discrimination. These circumstances are narrow. For example, taxi cab drivers frequently discriminate against picking up young black men for fear of being robbed. The fear of robbery is legitimate, and there is a strong positive correlation with young black men and robbery, at least according to the FBI's data. The nature of cab driving, with a dozen+ customers a day, is that it would be unduly burdensome for a driver to conduct an inquiry in to every person who is going to get in the car. The driver must size up people quickly based on what limited information he has. This is unlike the situation with an employer where there is every opportunity to inquire in to prospective hires.
There are other examples of unfair discrimination that, for lack of political influence, large groups of people are rampantly discriminated against. The ugly and the short are probably the best examples. They are passed over for jobs quite often due to their stature or looks. I would prefer some generalized policy furthering fairness than I would the American system of protected classes.
In any case, the point I'm trying to get across is that public policy should favor fairness, which would generally be against racial discrimination despite the fact that there may be some innate inferiority that is correlated with race. That is equal opportunity, not equal results. Hence the results which you mention - racial disparities - are immaterial to the inquiry and are not conclusive evidence of any racism going on. I don't think most racial discrimination is even like that. It comes across more as some in-group favoritism thing to me rather than a racial hatred thing. Blacks especially are seen as different. Perhaps it is because they look the most different, and perhaps it is because the American population is bombarded with media indicating that blacks are a different and unique people, separate from the rest of the population. It's unfortunate that so much of that media was made with good intentions. Perhaps if the media presented blacks like Geordi La Forge rather than Will Smith there would be substantially less racial discrimination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
I've claimed multiple things in the OP that are cognizable.
Not really, largely because "race realism" is an amorphous thing that isn't clearly defined. What do you mean, specifically? The claim isn't cognizable without specifics. I reiterate that you've made no case to support it nor have you presented any evidence. You need evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
What do you really want?People to accept race realism as factual.
BTW you've made no case. You've presented no evidence. You haven't even made a cognizable factual claim. You're pretty far off from convincing anybody.You haven't addressed anything in the OP or thread's topic. You've attempted to derail the conversation into policy, which isn't the topic. Why would I need to present evidence on an irrelevant topic, one of which I haven't made arguments for at all in this thread?
I wasn't talking about policy. I was talking about your desire for "people to accept race realism as factual".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Stop derailing this thread.
I'll talk about what I want to talk about. Do something about it. BTW you've made no case. You've presented no evidence. You haven't even made a cognizable factual claim. You're pretty far off from convincing anybody.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
Policy discussion happens *after* people agree that race realism is a reality.
Even if it is true, the policy implications are negligible and the factual inquiry is therefore moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
You didn't answer the question. You are deliberately withholding information. Generally when someone withholds information the reasonable inference is that the information withheld is damaging to their position. Didn't deny it, therefore guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mesmer
People to accept race realism as factual.
Facts are used to support policies. So, what's the corresponding policy? Here's how it usually goes: "Black people's lives suck because, by and large, black people suck. There is no problem with observed racial disparities. They are an expected and natural consequence of the inferiority of black people. Black people are to blame for their problems. Combating systemic racism will do little to improve the lives of the black population as it is not the true cause of their problems." The policies being pushed are generally a laissez-faire approach to racism. Generally, just do nothing.
How am I doing so far?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Prepare to $ign up for your quarterly jab for the re$t of your life.
I was figuring it'd be like you get it with the flu shot every year.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
50 is a ridiculously small sample size.
It's always possible that the study results were merely a statistical anomaly, but that doesn't strike me as very probable. TBH from what I read earlier the immunity from a COVID infection against re-infection was something like 85% protective vs the vaccines being something like 94% protective, at least for Moderna and Pfizer. Those numbers seem to square somewhat with the results of the study. What isn't really being talked about is waning immunity. It seems to happen with immunity from vaccines and COVID infection. Israel is doing booster shots now, but they aren't authorized in the USA. Last year COVID picked up a lot around the holidays, presumably because a lot of people traveled a lot and stayed indoors (close to one another) due to the colder weather. Maybe delaying getting a vaccine for people who have been infected with COVID is wiser so they can boost their immunity from vaccines in time for the holidays, depending on when they were infected and recovered from COVID initially. That way they have a greater period of high immunity. (For example, someone who was infected with COVID 100 days ago would still have high immunity compared to someone infected with COVID over a year ago. The person infected over a year ago would reach high immunity again. The person infected 100 days ago may be wise to wait until 200 days from the initial infection to get vaccinated so that they can have a greater period of high immunity.) Haven't really looked in to that, but it's good to get the CDC cards so you can travel and bypass quarantine orders.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
where's the link to the actual study.
Edit:
Second, do you have any idea how a vaccination functions ?A vaccine uses a weakened version of the biological threat which ONLY prompts your own immune system to recognize the threat.It is impossible for a vaccine to be any more effective than exposure to the actual, full strength biological threat.I also have a close personal friend who is the same age as myself, who has been vaccinated and they have been sick and unable to work since last April.
My ideas as to how vaccines function are not relevant. I am not an expert on the subject. Your claim that it's impossible for a vaccine to be more effective than immunity from exposure is not consistent with the results of the study. Your anecdote, even if it is true, carries little weight as it is a single case.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Corporate America loves fat ugly black women. It's symptomatic of post truth politics. Just keep saying something is true when it isn't, and then it'll make it true somehow. Fat black women keep showing up as underwear models in the Walmart women's clothing section. Oh yes, everyone says, sure fat, black and barren that's how we like our women! Everybody agrees that the emperor has no clothes, except nobody's getting an erection. It reminds me of the big lie about treating women with respect if you want to get in their pants. "What Women Want" with Mel Gibson is a good example. It's a bunch of bologna. They want to be your friend if you treat them like that, and then all you're going to hear about is problems with ex boyfriends and you won't get any sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Everything takes longerIf you have a home, laundry is a quick process, but for me it can take 6 to 8 hours. Everything takes longer when you have nothing. Even getting a bite to eat can be an all day process.
I've been homeless before, sortof. I used to sleep in my car and keep things in a storage unit. There are things you can do to save time. Use a laundromat and multiple machines at once if you have multiple loads. It really doesn't take more than 2 hours if you have your timers going on your phone. You can also head over to the gym to shower after your laundry cycles start. Also find a spot with a gym, a library, a post office for your PO box, where you sleep, and the laundromat are all in close proximity. That way you don't have to spend so much time traveling from one place to the next.
Created:
Posted in:
It's not really clear what people mean when they say "racist" these days. It's like when people say something is "rape", the definition has become so amorphous that it now, in some cases, appears to encompass not paying the hooker after having sex.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Moving millions of people is a monumental undertaking that would be extremely disruptive and expensive.
Created: