In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On June 09 2016 06:29 oneofthem wrote: spatial segregation is totally exaggerated for second generation and onward immigrants.
I'm amazed at this comment.
The average white child attends a school that is over 78% white. Only 9% of other children in this typical school are black, 8% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. Though children often do not attend neighborhood school, the racial composition of schools attended by white kids closely matches that of their own neighborhood. In sharp contrast, the average black child’s school is more than half black (57%). Hispanic children also are in majority Hispanic schools (57%). And Asians, despite being only 4% of elementary population, are in schools that average 19% Asian. Each minority group’s exposure to white children is declining. In 1989-90, 32% of the average black child’s schoolmates were white; that has dropped to 28% in 1999-2000. Similar drops were experienced by Hispanics (from 30% to 25%) and Asians (52% to 46%).
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for here. Can you be specific? The graphs don't look so bad to me considering one % of the population is a majority. It's not like it's a 40/30/30 split on the population.
This kind of reminds me of that recent storm the media tried to create about segregation in a Mississippi district. But when interviewed most of the school kids seemed fine with it. It wasn't 1 school was 100% white and the other 100% black either.
One was 78-86% x or y and the other was.. something similarish I don't remember but it seemed silly once reporters interviewed the kids and they didn't really care.
It just kinda felt like an SJW went nuts and said 'WHY ISN'T THIS 50/50!' and the community was... " ??? "
No it's huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge. Just saying, the figure I linked are only average. I only have french documentation in some books, but just envision adding to the skin color the average income of the famillies, and you'd see that for a poor black kid has like, on average, 90 % of his comrades in schools that are black. Good luck being the white kid by the way. You say "what's the problem ? Kids think it's fine", but it's not, as your entire daily experience is structured around the racial disparities, as are you're representations. From a certain point of view, it is fine as you say, because it tend to lower racial tensions, racism, conflict between groups (this has been argued, most notably by a famous american sociologue called Putnam). But to me, such spatial segregation is half the reason why our politics (in most occidental societies that had historics and important migration waves like the US, France or the UK) are so racialised, with people in specific areas having a feeling of "replacement" or massive and unchecked immigration. What you call the "SJW" are also a result of that.
By the way, it shouldn't be 50/50, it should be closer to the actual repartition within the society. The opposite means there are strong social forces that pushes groups to agglomerate, and according to study this process is stronger now than thirty years ago (the spatial segregation increased).
What should the %'s look like? The %'s seem fine. How are you to balance 63% of the population with 17 / 13% of the population better than that?
No, I think that's forcing integration on people who do not want to integrate with each other. Which I think is wrong. Here's Howard Stern talking about his experience in black school that he wanted to get the hell away from. I could link countless videos on this but since he's not random no-name guy who's daughter killed himself because of bullying here's what he had to say. Basically, he gets his ass kicked all the time. And he'd tell his parents and they wouldn't do anything about it. Black youth is far more violent than their other races counterparts. FBI table 43 can show you this over and over again. In this instance, black people didn't want to live with him and he didn't want to live with them. Awkward moment for his assistant here who clearly feels uncomfortable with his message.
So, should more white families have jumped onto the bomb in Howard Stern's neighbourhood here and gotten some ass whoopings? Or should everyone just beat on each other til it's all out of their system and they realize they're not so different after all!?
You can't force people to like each other. That doesn't all of them hate each other, but that doesn't mean you should stamp on their right to prefer being around people they identify more with. If you consider this simple fact you'll realize that those %'s are actually amazingly good in the chart. There's a rough mix in almost every school on average with the exception of white schools, but again, they are the majority. So people are integrating. But there's plenty of towns that are mostly white and some smaller ones that are even mostly black iirc in Maryland.
Let the people who like each other like each other. There will be natural mixing always eventually. But even in cities, generally white people live in X district, Chinese in X district, blacks in X district etc. There's a tonne of crossover, but usually if you check the demographics people tend to be with their own race. And you can see that in every major city that ever exists.
I know where to go for greektown, the russian district, the brown town, the chinese part of town, the white part of town.. but I'll still see every race pretty much in every part of town. Just at different levels. Saying "omg people are self segregating it's wrong!" Just let nature take its course.
Hell, I know a short Asian girl who dislikes being in crowds with a lot of tall people. Should I force her to go to the Netherlands where the tallest people in the world are in their most crowded city? (To elaborate, she feels more comfortable in an Asian market than a crowded multicultural market). lol
On June 09 2016 15:09 SK.Testie wrote: What should the %'s look like? The %'s seem fine. How are you to balance 63% of the population with 17 / 13% of the population better than that?
No, I think that's forcing integration on people who do not want to integrate with each other. Which I think is wrong. Here's Howard Stern talking about his experience in black school that he wanted to get the hell away from. I could link countless videos on this but since he's not random no-name guy who's daughter killed himself because of bullying here's what he had to say. Basically, he gets his ass kicked all the time. And he'd tell his parents and they wouldn't do anything about it. Black youth is far more violent than their other races counterparts. FBI table 43 can show you this over and over again. In this instance, black people didn't want to live with him and he didn't want to live with them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwb6FysDlhc So, should more white families have jumped onto the bomb in Howard Stern's neighbourhood here and gotten some ass whoopings?
You can't force people to like each other. That doesn't mean they hate each other, but that doesn't mean you should stamp on their right to prefer being around people they identify closer to. If you consider this simple fact you'll realize that those %'s are actually pretty amazingly good. There's a rough mix in almost every school on average with the exception of white schools, but again, they are the majority.
Let the people who like each other like each other. There will be natural mixing always eventually. But even in cities, generally white people live in X district, Chinese in X district, blacks in X district etc. There's a tonne of crossover, but usually if you check the demographics people tend to be with their own race.
Stern also lived this because he was the minority no ? Your points are all right, but I believe it's about the society you want. If a society structured around race is fine to you, then let people aggregate with members of their racial groups. Sure, you will have less daily racial "violence", but people will identify with their "race", you will have more racial tensions, more endless discussion on race. About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Just some random anecdotal thing I've noticed, but anytime someone calls him "Mr. Trump", it's always followed by a confusingly ludicrous statement. The Great Orange One imbues strange habits amongst his brood. You'd think that a guy who comes up with nicknames for everyone else would have a better one for himself.
I'm kind of regretting not voting "Martin O'Mally Dot Com" in the NJ primary but I figured staying home watching Jeb Bush vines would be more politically satisfying than the possibility of disgruntled Bernie fans trying to convince me to vote Libertarian. This election cycle has been a fun one so far.
Ok so let's take a country that's even more diverse like Brazil. How's that working out violence and crime wise? Or did people segregate themselves again?
On June 09 2016 15:26 SK.Testie wrote: Ok so let's take a country that's even more diverse like Brazil. How's that working out violence and crime wise? Or did people segregate themselves again?
Brazil is a terrible exemple (the spatial segregation is huge there, mostly economical segregation through from what I know of), take France for exemple, our spatial segregation (racial segregation) is half of the US and crime is a lot less.
On June 09 2016 06:29 oneofthem wrote: spatial segregation is totally exaggerated for second generation and onward immigrants.
I'm amazed at this comment.
The average white child attends a school that is over 78% white. Only 9% of other children in this typical school are black, 8% Hispanic, and 3% Asian. Though children often do not attend neighborhood school, the racial composition of schools attended by white kids closely matches that of their own neighborhood. In sharp contrast, the average black child’s school is more than half black (57%). Hispanic children also are in majority Hispanic schools (57%). And Asians, despite being only 4% of elementary population, are in schools that average 19% Asian. Each minority group’s exposure to white children is declining. In 1989-90, 32% of the average black child’s schoolmates were white; that has dropped to 28% in 1999-2000. Similar drops were experienced by Hispanics (from 30% to 25%) and Asians (52% to 46%).
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue for here. Can you be specific? The graphs don't look so bad to me considering one % of the population is a majority. It's not like it's a 40/30/30 split on the population.
This kind of reminds me of that recent storm the media tried to create about segregation in a Mississippi district. But when interviewed most of the school kids seemed fine with it. It wasn't 1 school was 100% white and the other 100% black either.
One was 78-86% x or y and the other was.. something similarish I don't remember but it seemed silly once reporters interviewed the kids and they didn't really care.
It just kinda felt like an SJW went nuts and said 'WHY ISN'T THIS 50/50!' and the community was... " ??? "
No it's huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge. Just saying, the figure I linked are only average. I only have french documentation in some books, but just envision adding to the skin color the average income of the famillies, and you'd see that for a poor black kid has like, on average, 90 % of his comrades in schools that are black. Good luck being the white kid by the way. You say "what's the problem ? Kids think it's fine", but it's not, as your entire daily experience is structured around the racial disparities, as are you're representations. Such spatial segregation is half the reason why our politics (in most occidental societies that had historics and important migration waves like the US, France or the UK) are so racialised, with people in specific areas having a feeling of "replacement" or massive and unchecked immigration. What you call the "SJW" are also a result of that.
By the way, it shouldn't be 50/50, it should be closer to the actual repartition within the society. The opposite means there are strong social forces that pushes groups to agglomerate.
Put the 10,000 of our nations richest children in the worst funded most segregated schools (different from their heritage) and I bet their parents will think we need to fund our schools better and integrate more in a hurry.
It's a lot easier to think it's not your problem when for most practical short term purposes it isn't. If the safety/quality of the poorest schools had a direct and obvious impact on rich and powerful people's children they wouldn't be so skeptical of the necessity of reform.
Schools, policing, workplace, neighborhoods, etc... All would be greatly improved if wealthy/powerful people couldn't isolate themselves from what it's like for less affluent people.
Rich kids and poor kids, black and white, etc... If they grow up segregated they will on balance think that segregation is normal/preferable. If they grow up sharing school desks, sports teams, first jobs, playgrounds, neighborhoods, etc... they will think that's normal instead. Segregation breeds more segregation, which in part explains why it would be no surprise that the people getting the raw end of segregation would venture to defend it.
On June 09 2016 15:26 SK.Testie wrote: Ok so let's take a country that's even more diverse like Brazil. How's that working out violence and crime wise? Or did people segregate themselves again?
Racism is a huge problem in Brazil too. "The darker the skin, the less human" is something reinforced by parts of the culture there as well.
So find me the country or place where it doesn't happen and is successful that has a large enough % of both. America has a very large population, and so does Brazil. In fact it has the largest populations of non homogeneous peoples. So they're the best examples we have. Does spatial segregation happen a lot in France? I know they have it in Sweden, and the UK at times. I think it'd be very easy to integrate a 2% minority population because they're such a small minority. But 15% ? 25%? You're trying to explain a global problem and global phenomenon by sectioning out pieces over and over again.
Find the country where it doesn't happen. Is it an African nation? European? American? South American? Asian? It's not a defense of segregation. It's do people prefer to naturally segregate themselves. And if so, why are you stopping their natural tendencies?
The video I linked showed black people not wanting a white kid in their neighbourhood. They wanted to self-segregate in that instance despite a very liberal family moving in and wanting to prove the world different.
On June 09 2016 15:32 SK.Testie wrote: So find me the country or place where it doesn't happen and is successful that has a large enough % of both. America has a very large population, and so does Brazil. In fact it has the largest populations of non homogeneous peoples. So they're the best examples we have. Does spatial segregation happen a lot in France? I know they have it in Sweden, and the UK at times. I think it'd be very easy to integrate a 2% minority population because they're such a small minority. But 15% ? 25%?
Spatial segregation is quite important in France, and is increasing (like the US, altho not in the same scale). The population is also very diverse, on par with the US I'd say (racial statistics are forbidden, because the state refuse to acknowledge the existence of race, so it's difficult for me to give you good sources, but the % of immigrants in the society is similar to the US, around 10 % - 9 % in 2013 exactly, altho it has decreased in the last decade, and around 50 % of the population as at least a migrant in their familly, in the area I live, migrants account for 35 % of the population). Yeah violence tend to be lot less in less segregated areas.
And if so, why are you stopping their natural tendencies?
It's more culture than nature I'd say - there are economic forces, and social forces that pushes minorities to agglomerate, it's not a natural tendancy.
On June 09 2016 15:32 SK.Testie wrote: So find me the country or place where it doesn't happen and is successful that has a large enough % of both. America has a very large population, and so does Brazil. In fact it has the largest populations of non homogeneous peoples. So they're the best examples we have. Does spatial segregation happen a lot in France? I know they have it in Sweden, and the UK at times. I think it'd be very easy to integrate a 2% minority population because they're such a small minority. But 15% ? 25%?
I for one am thankful that this is a problem that genetics is going to fix in a few generations anyway. Be nice to deal with before, but white people will either mix, get so inbred they struggle to survive, or stick around long enough for them to be the minority, then we get to decide if enough (or too much) is being done to integrate them into/make them comfortable in society.
Something tells me those future white people will wish they could come back to today's white people and tell them to get their crap together before it's too late.
The video I linked showed black people not wanting a white kid in their neighbourhood. They wanted to self-segregate in that instance despite a very liberal family moving in and wanting to prove the world different.
As I said that only shows that segregation is self-perpetuating. Black and white kids play together until someone teaches (directly or indirectly) them not to. In a segregated society they are getting taught to be segregated. Surely if you polled every single person they wouldn't unanimously agree they don't want them there but if you ask some people surely some won't like it.
I've said it too many times, but if you think that black people doing something means that it can't be racist if white people do it you don't understand what racism is or how it works.
I already told you the definition of racism. Your professors disagree with me because they are idiots. You can't change the definition of racism to "privilege + power". It's "I hate you because you're white or some shit in history" or "I hate you because you're black or some shit in history". Progressives attempting to redefine racism is retarded.
This is racism. This is how it works.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Why would white people become incredibly inbred? What sense does that make?
On June 09 2016 11:40 SK.Testie wrote: Doesn't even realize that it worked on both the wildlings and the white walkers.
I think it is safe to say that Testie is Ser Alliser Thorne.
I already told you the definition of racism. Your professors disagree with me because they are idiots. You can't change the definition of racism to "privilege + power". It's "I hate you because you're white or some shit in history" or "I hate you because you're black or some shit in history". Progressives attempting to redefine racism is retarded.
Much like laws, words and concepts are not eternal, unchanging essences
And if so, why are you stopping their natural tendencies?
It's more culture than nature I'd say - there are economic forces, and social forces that pushes minorities to agglomerate, it's not a natural tendancy.
If it's not natural then how did the races form and segregate themselves to begin with? I argue that it is natural for people to want to be with their own to people who look and talk like them. There is probably a subconscious feeling that goes with it. I don't know I lived in a super peaceful white town for 20 years and then I came to the city and now I live in a fairly black area of the city with a lot of brown people as well. So maybe for some people it's natural and some people are more social butterflies that are more curious and think everything's great. So what about the Asian girl who dislikes crowds with tall people in them? Should I force her into the Netherlands where the tallest people in the world are? (She's a rarity she actually sweats a lot when she feels too crowded )
I'm a pretty tolerant and loving guy though despite how I intentionally push boundaries here. Kind, courteous and friendly and the like.
I already told you the definition of racism. Your professors disagree with me because they are idiots. You can't change the definition of racism to "privilege + power". It's "I hate you because you're white or some shit in history" or "I hate you because you're black or some shit in history". Progressives attempting to redefine racism is retarded.
Much like laws, words and concepts are not eternal, unchanging essences
Poetic, but still a progressive bullshit meme. They would prefer I listen to them rather than an author of 6 books and 125 peer reviewed medical articles.
On June 09 2016 15:25 WhiteDog wrote: About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it.
I already told you the definition of racism. Your professors disagree with me because they are idiots. You can't change the definition of racism to "privilege + power". It's "I hate you because you're white or some shit in history" or "I hate you because you're black or some shit in history". Progressives attempting to redefine racism is retarded.
Much like laws, words and concepts are not eternal, unchanging essences
Poetic, but still a progressive bullshit meme. They would prefer I listen to them rather than an author of 6 books and 125 peer reviewed medical articles.
Who is this "they", and who is the author of 6 books and 125 peer reviewed medical articles? And what do peer reviewed medical articles have to do with penning a good definition of racism?
But of course, half a century of scholarship on systemic racism are just "progressive bullshit memes." Because the real definition of racism is and will always be "i hate you because you're black or some shit in history."
On June 09 2016 15:51 SK.Testie wrote: I already told you the definition of racism. Your professors disagree with me because they are idiots. You can't change the definition of racism to "privilege + power". It's "I hate you because you're white or some shit in history" or "I hate you because you're black or some shit in history". Progressives attempting to redefine racism is retarded.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Why would white people become incredibly inbred? What sense does that make?
No I'm familiar we disagree on the term, I meant even using that version. If a black person doesn't hire black people because they are black, it's still racist, for example. You seem pretty astute, so that should be pretty obvious to you.
If that's not "racist", I'm curious what you call it?
The inbred thing is because darker phenotypical features are dominant, so without a specific effort (to avoid inbreeding), "whiteness" will eventually dilute itself into a darker shade and "pure" populations will be working with ever shrinking gene pools.
On June 09 2016 15:25 WhiteDog wrote: About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it.
Oh the 6 books and 125 peered reviewed articles was on a very different topic than racism. It was just one of the main progressive agendas that's very, very different from racism. My apologies.
On June 09 2016 16:44 Surth wrote: But of course, half a century of scholarship on systemic racism are just "progressive bullshit memes." Because the real definition of racism is and will always be "i hate you because you're black or some shit in history."
Oh sure choose the loose throwaway words instead of the direct quote I gave defining racism. The full thing.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
On June 09 2016 15:26 SK.Testie wrote: Ok so let's take a country that's even more diverse like Brazil. How's that working out violence and crime wise? Or did people segregate themselves again?
Brazil is a terrible exemple (the spatial segregation is huge there, mostly economical segregation through from what I know of), take France for exemple, our spatial segregation (racial segregation) is half of the US and crime is a lot less.
Hard to compare because French/EU welfare is far more generous than the US system.Bread and circuses can keep things somewhat in check but i'd hardly call Molenbeek in Brussels a great place to live.France has many similar areas particularly in the south.Marseille anyone?
On June 09 2016 15:51 SK.Testie wrote: I already told you the definition of racism. Your professors disagree with me because they are idiots. You can't change the definition of racism to "privilege + power". It's "I hate you because you're white or some shit in history" or "I hate you because you're black or some shit in history". Progressives attempting to redefine racism is retarded.
This is racism. This is how it works.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Why would white people become incredibly inbred? What sense does that make?
No I'm familiar we disagree on the term, I meant even using that version. If a black person doesn't hire black people because they are black, it's still racist, for example. You seem pretty astute, so that should be pretty obvious to you.
If that's not "racist", I'm curious what you call it?
The inbred thing is because darker phenotypical features are dominant, so without a specific effort (to avoid inbreeding), "whiteness" will eventually dilute itself into a darker shade and "pure" populations will be working with ever shrinking gene
Well they're segregated to an extent, especially in Europe with regards marriage.50-60% of Pakistanis marry their first cousins so i'd be more worried about the future of their gene pool TBH.Seems to be an islamic world thing.
On June 09 2016 15:26 SK.Testie wrote: Ok so let's take a country that's even more diverse like Brazil. How's that working out violence and crime wise? Or did people segregate themselves again?
Brazil is a terrible exemple (the spatial segregation is huge there, mostly economical segregation through from what I know of), take France for exemple, our spatial segregation (racial segregation) is half of the US and crime is a lot less.
Hard to compare because French/EU welfare is far more generous than the US system.Bread and circuses can keep things somewhat in check but i'd hardly call Molenbeek in Brussels a great place to live.France has many similar areas particularly in the south.Marseille anyone?
Marseille and Molenbeek are two prime exemple of segregated areas.
On June 09 2016 15:25 WhiteDog wrote: About the specific violence of black kids, it has reasons, it's not in their genes I think we can agree with that. One of those reasons is their specificity as a group : the historical fact that they faced harder repression, harder living conditions, and more segregation than any other groups in the US for decades, effectively giving life to a specific "culture". One of the way out is also by destroying that specificity.
Why wouldnt it be genes? I think genes have a huge part to do with it.
It's basically a proven fact that genes are of no concern in regards to skin color. I'll argue in length later if you will, I need to go into work.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FIDseul.png)
)
