|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 20:45 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 20:20 Plansix wrote:On June 09 2016 20:10 NukeD wrote:On June 09 2016 19:51 kwizach wrote:On June 09 2016 16:29 NukeD wrote: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. Did you seriously just argue "black people are more violent, and it's because of their genes"? No, I just didnt exclude genes from the equation. Science has come down on the side that you should exclude them, just an FYI. Well alright then. Anyway, just to return to my original point, I just wanted to say that on my experience black people are more impulsive, not violent. I even sound racist to myself for how that sounds when I read it but I am not trying to be. It think there is a problem where I feel like a racist for only typing out the words "black people". Doesnt that sound just ugly, this post of mine? I feel brainwashed.
I don't think what determines if the sentiment "black people are more impulsive than white people in my experience" from racism isn't the words you use. It's whether you're implicitly saying "black people are more impulsive than white people in my experience because they are black"; that is, you believe that if you swapped someone's skin color to white somehow but kept everything else constant they would become more impulsive. That causal statement is the one that results in systematic oppression. The problem is that people not only confuse the two things, they confuse that there's any difference between the two things.
For example, the main concern with police brutality and race is if victims would be alive if all other things being equal they hadn't been black.
|
On June 09 2016 15:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Is it realy?
The image I have of france is all the immigrants living in the high rise concrete sub urbs around paris and 2 or 3 other big cities. It is pretty rare to see a black person when you travel the country side in france and visit smaller villages.
Think I didn't see a single foreigner other then tourists and roma people (is this a politically correct term?) when travelling in france for a few weeks.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
white people being impulsive: just a good bro
black people being impulsive: looters being looters
|
On June 09 2016 22:48 oneofthem wrote:
white people being impulsive: just a good bro
black people being impulsive: looters being looters
You racist.
|
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not?
|
On June 09 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not?
Maybe, maybe not. Is there any solid proof of it one way or the other?
That's the problem with these discussions. Ambiguity in results and definitions on a politically charged scientific issue can just end up going in circles like the past two pages.
|
On June 09 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not?
For this reason, violence and impulsivity are closely tied to socioeconomic status/ poverty levels. On a related note, the black community tends to (as a whole) be in less affluent areas, but an educated, middle class black man wouldn't be expected to be more violent or impulsive than a poor, struggling white man.
|
On June 09 2016 13:39 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 13:36 Falling wrote:On June 09 2016 11:40 SK.Testie wrote:
Doesn't even realize that it worked on both the wildlings and the white walkers. ...of course it was also 700 feet tall. Now I'm not sure the dimensions of Trump's proposed wall, but I'm thinking it's likely on the smaller side- Hadrian's Wall style. Clearly not paying close enough attention to The Donald. It's gotten 10 feet taller so many times. Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 13:29 BallinWitStalin wrote:
[I'm not gonna lie to you - recommending a book in the same sentence as anything produced by Ann Coulter does not help credibility. Discrediting a book you haven't read because of the author despite the insane amount of documentation that went into it & how well sourced it is. Maybe Ann is.. right? But again, it's just libs saying, "omg that's from the source that's against the position I have" over and over again. It's not a good way to have an argument. Because I could discredit every liberal source as well. "Oh, Clinton News Network". etc etc etc... we've been down this road before. So what news source is untainted... AP? Reuters? Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 13:26 Plansix wrote:
Again that is only women who are crossing the border illegally, which is a much smaller group that the immigrants who just over stay their visas? So 80% of all illegal immigrants women have not been raped, which is what people told you last time. *Correction that will not be brought up again. 80% of illegal immigrant women making the journey from central America are raped along the way. We can put this one to rest with this correction. Thank you.
Sorry, team liquid crashed for me last time I tried to post this.
122 million mexicans to around 100,000 wildlings = factor of 1220
Wall against mexico = 6 times the border area of the wall in the north = another factor of 6
Height of trump's wall maxed at 55' by all budget estimates vs wall in the north at 700' = another factor of 12
12*6*1220 = 87840
This means that each wildling over the wall is the proportional equivalent of eighty-seven thousand eight hundred and forty mexican immigrants. This is assuming that these relationships are all linear, which is likely not true. Most of these factors would represent an exponential increase in pressure (aka if there were more wildlings they would also be far more likely to cross due to internal pressure). The wall gets exponentially easier to bypass the shorter it gets, and the wall gains more points of failure the larger it gets.
Clearly, the wall in the north did not solve the problem of wildlings crossing the border, because it is a dumb idea aimed at the kind of voters who couldn't figure their way over a baby fence.
|
On June 10 2016 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not? For this reason, violence and impulsivity are closely tied to socioeconomic status/ poverty levels. On a related note, the black community tends to (as a whole) be in less affluent areas, but an educated, middle class black man wouldn't be expected to be more violent or impulsive than a poor, struggling white man.
Right. Sorry if my post didn't imply the last part of your thought. It's not about being black, it's about being hopeless. People who are hopeless take significantly more risks than people who have stability to and success.
|
On June 10 2016 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not? For this reason, violence and impulsivity are closely tied to socioeconomic status/ poverty levels. On a related note, the black community tends to (as a whole) be in less affluent areas, but an educated, middle class black man wouldn't be expected to be more violent or impulsive than a poor, struggling white man. Right. Sorry if my post didn't imply the last part of your thought. It's not about being black, it's about being hopeless. People who are hopeless take significantly more risks than people who have stability to and success.
Agree with you're reasoning for the most part but you can't just exclude the reverse possibility: black people are in worse condition because of their impulsivity(or any genetic reason).
|
On June 09 2016 16:29 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So your understanding is that there is a black race, and that it is genetically more prone to violence.
Kuddos, talk of textbook racism.
If you look at history of violence in white societies, you will find out that we have nothing to envy to black people. Just look at the amount of genocides we have pulled in the last few centuries.
Poor, disfranchised people are prone to violence. Black people are victim of gigantic racism (it's enough to read this thread to get an idea), discrimination and often live in places with no perspective, a shitty education and a broken social tissue. You get your proportion of offender right there without needing that biggoted bullshit.
It's amazing that we need to have this kind of conversations in 2016.
As for Testie, we are getting dangerously close to the arguments pro-apartheid people were pulling in South Africa. Better to live separated, black people are violent, etc etc etc.
|
On June 10 2016 00:34 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2016 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not? For this reason, violence and impulsivity are closely tied to socioeconomic status/ poverty levels. On a related note, the black community tends to (as a whole) be in less affluent areas, but an educated, middle class black man wouldn't be expected to be more violent or impulsive than a poor, struggling white man. Right. Sorry if my post didn't imply the last part of your thought. It's not about being black, it's about being hopeless. People who are hopeless take significantly more risks than people who have stability to and success. Agree with you're reasoning for the most part but you can't just exclude the reverse possibility: black people are in worse condition because of their impulsivity(or any genetic reason).
I think the conditional would be "If you're of lower socioeconomic status, then you're more likely to feel hopeless and impulsive and possibly resort to violence or breaking rules as a sad attempt to get what you need, because you feel that you're a failure or that society has failed you", whereas the converse flips the if/then parts (If you're feeling hopeless and... then it's more likely that you're of lower...). Not black/ race though.
|
On June 10 2016 00:34 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2016 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not? For this reason, violence and impulsivity are closely tied to socioeconomic status/ poverty levels. On a related note, the black community tends to (as a whole) be in less affluent areas, but an educated, middle class black man wouldn't be expected to be more violent or impulsive than a poor, struggling white man. Right. Sorry if my post didn't imply the last part of your thought. It's not about being black, it's about being hopeless. People who are hopeless take significantly more risks than people who have stability to and success. Agree with you're reasoning for the most part but you can't just exclude the reverse possibility: black people are in worse condition because of their impulsivity(or any genetic reason).
Except that at different times and different place, the role of the violent (and suppressed) minority has varied wildly. Go to Romania, and you can take any racist post in this thread and replace the word "black" by "gypsy" to get a stereotypical right wing discourse. In France it would include the arab populations. In Russia the Chechen and other Ural people. etc etc.. Always with the same arguments: those people are worst off because their race is inferior, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
What is universal is that when people have perspectives, are not subject to racism and have accessed to an equal level of education they are infinitely less likely to turn out criminals.
|
On June 10 2016 00:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 16:29 NukeD wrote: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. So your understanding is that there is a black race, and that it is genetically more prone to violence. Kuddos, talk of textbook racism. If you look at history of violence in white societies, you will find out that we have nothing to envy to black people. Just look at the amount of genocides we have pulled in the last few centuries. Poor, disfranchised people are prone to violence. Black people are victim of gigantic racism (it's enough to read this thread to get an idea), discrimination and often live in places with no perspective, a shitty education and a broken social tissue. You get your proportion of offender right there without needing that biggoted bullshit. It's amazing that we need to have this kind of conversations in 2016. As for Testie, we are getting dangerously close to the arguments pro-apartheid people were pulling in South Africa. Better to live separated, black people are violent, etc etc etc.
I've spent last three pages explaining how that wasnt what I was implying.
|
On June 10 2016 00:46 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 09 2016 16:29 NukeD wrote: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. So your understanding is that there is a black race, and that it is genetically more prone to violence. Kuddos, talk of textbook racism. If you look at history of violence in white societies, you will find out that we have nothing to envy to black people. Just look at the amount of genocides we have pulled in the last few centuries. Poor, disfranchised people are prone to violence. Black people are victim of gigantic racism (it's enough to read this thread to get an idea), discrimination and often live in places with no perspective, a shitty education and a broken social tissue. You get your proportion of offender right there without needing that biggoted bullshit. It's amazing that we need to have this kind of conversations in 2016. As for Testie, we are getting dangerously close to the arguments pro-apartheid people were pulling in South Africa. Better to live separated, black people are violent, etc etc etc. I've spent last three pages explaining how that wasnt what I was implying.
You answered someone saying that the violence of black kids is not genetic by saying it is. I must lack the finesse to see how this is not textbook racism but maybe you can explain again because I am turning the problem in my head, and I can't seem to get to another conclusion.
|
On June 10 2016 00:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:34 biology]major wrote:On June 10 2016 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2016 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not? For this reason, violence and impulsivity are closely tied to socioeconomic status/ poverty levels. On a related note, the black community tends to (as a whole) be in less affluent areas, but an educated, middle class black man wouldn't be expected to be more violent or impulsive than a poor, struggling white man. Right. Sorry if my post didn't imply the last part of your thought. It's not about being black, it's about being hopeless. People who are hopeless take significantly more risks than people who have stability to and success. Agree with you're reasoning for the most part but you can't just exclude the reverse possibility: black people are in worse condition because of their impulsivity(or any genetic reason). Except that at different times and different place, the role of the violent (and suppressed) minority has varied wildly. Go to Romania, and you can take any racist post in this thread and replace the word "black" by "gypsy" to get a stereotypical right wing discourse. In France it would include the arab populations. In Russia the Chechen and other Ural people. etc etc.. Always with the same arguments: those people are worst off because their race is inferior, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. What is universal is that when people have perspectives, are not subject to racism and have accessed to an equal level of education they are infinitely less likely to turn out criminals.
Agreed, what nuked said is textbook racism. I think it is flat out asinine to think his opinion could hold any merit since he is a white guy from Croatia. His limited experience with blacks gives him almost no perspective and he most likely draws a lot of stereotypes of blacks from hollywood and other media. The entertainment industry continues to create a false narrative of black culture. While partially true, it does not encompass all of black culture.
Nuked provides a great example of racism that i am willing to fight against. People should be individually defined by their own character and abilities, and those unfair groupings of people not only holds no merit but is completely unnecessary and only exemplifies how much of a shitbag you are.
|
On June 10 2016 00:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
What is universal is that when people have perspectives, are not subject to racism and have accessed to an equal level of education they are infinitely less likely to turn out criminals.
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/money-school-performance-lessons-kansas-city-desegregation-experiment
Not always. Here's a case where the education was equal and they really went ham on school funding. Does it address other problems like lack of fathers or people at home? Of course not, the government can't find a man and say 'be this kids father'. But you have to go into it.
Also the poorest region in the united states is Appalachia. There's 10million+ more poor white people in the USA than there are black people, a total of 20,000,000 broke ass white people. If you go by purely socioeconomic factors you would have to explain why 6.6% of the population commits at least 38% of violent crimes. Does this 20,000,000 white population cause the majority of violent crimes in the USA on their side, which is 31%? So despite there being many more poor white communities that also feel disenfranchised, the violent neighbourhood chart looks like this. The violent cities repeat themselves as well.
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/pmBjq/f98b80727c.png)
To fight against racism, you will also have to fight against racist propaganda as well and answer each of their criticisms and blow holes in what they see as a global pattern.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
I would argue that it is indeed a global pattern of violence that repeats itself. In Canada, the most violent offenders are arab, blacks, and natives. Blacks are 1/36th of our population yet 1/5th of our incarcerated. I really think most people in Canada are not that racist considering how well everyone gets along day to day. I don't have a problem with most black people I meet in the weight room in my condo, nor the pool. But they still do face discrimination on things like job applications having to send out an average of 1.5x or 2x more iirc.
So if you're going to have an honest discussion on it you're going to have to refute a lot of propaganda, a lot of hard truths, and realize that the pattern of crime and violence is global when living in what is supposed to be a safe community. Not a single person gets worried when 50,000 Japanese move in next door.
Also, what I'm arguing for is more natural integration and not forced. If you're on the side to say "it's not natural and we should force it" that's far more damning. It's not like Apartheid is going to happen in NYC, a global hub and extremely diverse city. But people who do naturally segregate themselves as a whole from one another should not be forced to integrate against their will.
And yes, each individual should and will be defined by their own capabilities and merits. And that largely happens today. But there are entire cultures that people can dislike without being racist because they see those cultures as leading to more strife and violence within a community.
However my largest biases on people are not on race in real life. I'll say hello to the nice black family I see in my elevator from time to time, and completely ignore a guy whose pants are sagging and wearing timbalands.
I myself have an implicit bias against people on how they dress because that's how people choose to present themselves to the world. T-shirt and jeans says your casual. Bandanna and tattoos says you might be part of a gang. A nice suit says you probably have a decent job.
Nobody can change the colour of their skin and should not be judged on that alone. But even if a kid has PTSD and had a shit life and no education, if he chooses to act like a thug I will simply not give that kid the time of day regardless of his race. Because I'm not that noble.
|
On June 10 2016 00:34 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:On June 10 2016 00:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 09 2016 23:29 Mohdoo wrote:
Black people are more impulsive because they are usually in poor neighborhoods where everyone is black and poor and have been poor forever. There's a huge amount of hopelessness regarding economic mobility. Got nothing to lose, so why not? For this reason, violence and impulsivity are closely tied to socioeconomic status/ poverty levels. On a related note, the black community tends to (as a whole) be in less affluent areas, but an educated, middle class black man wouldn't be expected to be more violent or impulsive than a poor, struggling white man. Right. Sorry if my post didn't imply the last part of your thought. It's not about being black, it's about being hopeless. People who are hopeless take significantly more risks than people who have stability to and success. Agree with you're reasoning for the most part but you can't just exclude the reverse possibility: black people are in worse condition because of their impulsivity(or any genetic reason).
I hope you're just playing devil's advocate, otherwise please send me your biology degree so I can set it on fire.
|
On June 09 2016 22:35 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2016 15:28 WhiteDog wrote: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. Is it realy? The image I have of france is all the immigrants living in the high rise concrete sub urbs around paris and 2 or 3 other big cities. It is pretty rare to see a black person when you travel the country side in france and visit smaller villages. Think I didn't see a single foreigner other then tourists and roma people (is this a politically correct term?) when travelling in france for a few weeks.
Yes that's segregation : black and arabs are segregated in specific places ... Isn't that the case in the US, with a few cities and states having the entirety of the black population ?
There's no link at all between "impulsivity" and skin color ... At best, you can make a link between impulsivity, some kind of biological feature/hormones and the sex, with male people being more impulsive than women. BallinWithStallin said it all, but the skin color is basically an evolutionary adaptation to a specific geography / climate that has some kind of effect on disease (with less skin cancer, and some kind of disease), but the actual effect it has on the genome is very minimal.
Two population (and not "race") usually have two specific and distinguishable genotypes (part of the genome), but the variability (of the genome) between members of those two groups is statistically higher than the variability between those two groups ; which is why most modern genetician believe race to be a useless concept to them.
TL.DR : There's more difference in the genome of two random blacks or two random white than between a "typical" black and a "typical" white.
|
On June 10 2016 00:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 00:46 NukeD wrote:On June 10 2016 00:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 09 2016 16:29 NukeD wrote: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. So your understanding is that there is a black race, and that it is genetically more prone to violence. Kuddos, talk of textbook racism. If you look at history of violence in white societies, you will find out that we have nothing to envy to black people. Just look at the amount of genocides we have pulled in the last few centuries. Poor, disfranchised people are prone to violence. Black people are victim of gigantic racism (it's enough to read this thread to get an idea), discrimination and often live in places with no perspective, a shitty education and a broken social tissue. You get your proportion of offender right there without needing that biggoted bullshit. It's amazing that we need to have this kind of conversations in 2016. As for Testie, we are getting dangerously close to the arguments pro-apartheid people were pulling in South Africa. Better to live separated, black people are violent, etc etc etc. I've spent last three pages explaining how that wasnt what I was implying. You answered someone saying that the violence of black kids is not genetic by saying it is. I must lack the finesse to see how this is not textbook racism but maybe you can explain again because I am turning the problem in my head, and I can't seem to get to another conclusion.
I was focused to a part of his post where he denies genes having to do anything with behavior. I didnt care about rest of his post, to my fault, and it came out as it did. i was anoyed how dismisive he was of genes having anything to do with anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
