|
In the vote, there should be a definition of racist that most people can agree upon...
To me; a racist is someone who believes that, for whatever reason, people of a certain race (or several races) should not enjoy the same rights - in all respects, in all of society - as the superior race(s).
I don't think someone is a racist for saying "asians have smaller penises" or "blacks have more testosterone".
Of course, the most common way to think about it would be that you're a racist if you think some race is "superior" to another. But then you have to define what superior really means. Taller, smarter, more muscular, more creative, . . . , better social skills? It quickly becomes a pain.
|
On December 09 2008 05:31 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 05:22 QibingZero wrote:On December 09 2008 04:56 HnR)hT wrote:Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke. The difference is obvious. One asserts their racist statement bluntly, while the other uses more intellectual means to try to persuade by gaining recognition. That's a disgusting statement. It's in the same league as comparing Bush to Hitler.
Wow. Please fancy me for once in this thread and explain that one.
|
On December 09 2008 05:45 ParasitJonte wrote:
In the vote, there should be a definition of racist that most people can agree upon...
To me; a racist is someone who believes that, for whatever reason, people of a certain race (or several races) should not enjoy the same rights - in all respects, in all of society - as the superior race(s).
I don't think someone is a racist for saying "asians have smaller penises" or "blacks have more testosterone".
Of course, the most common way to think about it would be that you're a racist if you think some race is "superior" to another. But then you have to define what superior really means. Taller, smarter, more muscular, more creative, . . . , better social skills? It quickly becomes a pain.
We're talking about saying that "minorities" are so inferior to whites they should not work in science or, by inference, any other comparable field. It's not racist to cite observable differences in a broad enough group of people to be called a "race" - it's racist to use that data to justify social inequity.
|
What I don't get is why this thread got derailed from "liberal press bias" to THIS!
So rather than talk about race and IQ you guys could make a new thread dedicated to that discussion.
|
On December 09 2008 05:55 Rev0lution wrote:
What I don't get is why this thread got derailed from "liberal press bias" to THIS!
So rather than talk about race and IQ you guys could make a new thread dedicated to that discussion.
Because liberal bias in the media is a myth created by the right, and a discussion of the right (conservatives) follows. Evidence supporting liberal media bias, interestingly enough, exists almost exclusively in the domain of groups attached directly to the right - which is why I don't even bother trying to go in depth trying to explain to the poor misguided kids who buy into it.
|
Let's take a look at your posts, HnR)hT:
On December 07 2008 10:26 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 10:00 FzeroXx wrote:
Can't you harass other communities than TL with this shit? This is like the fourth thread you're trying to convince a young, educated, racially diverse community about the merits of Republicanism. Let me make it perfectly clear that this community is probably 80% or greater Liberal. So stop wasting your time, please. Hrm, if only this entire "community" were put on a boat and sent on a one-way trip to Africa, where they could celebrate "diversity" as obnoxiously as they like for the rest of their horrible lives. > 
Did you just tell everyone who doesn't share your views to go to Africa?
On December 08 2008 02:10 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2008 01:21 Wysp wrote:
What's wrong with women in combat? If you are physically and mentally capable, go get shot biddy. But in fact VERY FEW women are physically and mentally capable. That's why they are held to much lower standards on physical tests. And even more importantly, they ruin unit cohesion. The romantic attachments and love triangles that will inevitably result are the LAST things you want in an effective combat team.
I mean, that post is just overflowing with hypothetical generalizations and intolerance.
On December 08 2008 03:39 HnR)hT wrote:
The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
Wait.
Cite this data.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 09 2008 05:50 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 05:45 ParasitJonte wrote:
In the vote, there should be a definition of racist that most people can agree upon...
To me; a racist is someone who believes that, for whatever reason, people of a certain race (or several races) should not enjoy the same rights - in all respects, in all of society - as the superior race(s).
I don't think someone is a racist for saying "asians have smaller penises" or "blacks have more testosterone".
Of course, the most common way to think about it would be that you're a racist if you think some race is "superior" to another. But then you have to define what superior really means. Taller, smarter, more muscular, more creative, . . . , better social skills? It quickly becomes a pain. We're talking about saying that "minorities" are so inferior to whites they should not work in science or, by inference, any other comparable field. It's not racist to cite observable differences in a broad enough group of people to be called a "race" - it's racist to use that data to justify social inequity.
Wow. Just how shameless can you possibly get?
I'm absolutely speechless...
You are deliberately putting words in my mouth to smear me, since only a complete idiot - which I don't believe you are - would sincerely "interpret" my affirmative action comment in this way.
I'm done with pointless apologetics, since it only encourages unscrupulous individuals who are hellbent on slandering me by any means possible.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
ZERG_RUSSIAN, the time for discussion here is over. Although the first quote you cited was pretty obviously not serious... 
edit: if you really care about "the data", and not just engaging in theatrics, PM me.
|
On December 09 2008 06:14 HnR)hT wrote:ZERG_RUSSIAN, the time for discussion here is over. Although the first quote you cited was pretty obviously not serious...
Ah, pulling the ol' "Bush stops talking to North Korea" out, huh?
=P
Nah, I'm just kidding. You seem pretty smart, it's just too bad you're not surrounded by more people who share your political views. Maybe then you'd have some backup for your claims.
|
On December 09 2008 06:11 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2008 05:50 Louder wrote:On December 09 2008 05:45 ParasitJonte wrote:
In the vote, there should be a definition of racist that most people can agree upon...
To me; a racist is someone who believes that, for whatever reason, people of a certain race (or several races) should not enjoy the same rights - in all respects, in all of society - as the superior race(s).
I don't think someone is a racist for saying "asians have smaller penises" or "blacks have more testosterone".
Of course, the most common way to think about it would be that you're a racist if you think some race is "superior" to another. But then you have to define what superior really means. Taller, smarter, more muscular, more creative, . . . , better social skills? It quickly becomes a pain. We're talking about saying that "minorities" are so inferior to whites they should not work in science or, by inference, any other comparable field. It's not racist to cite observable differences in a broad enough group of people to be called a "race" - it's racist to use that data to justify social inequity. Wow. Just how shameless can you possibly get? I'm absolutely speechless... You are deliberately putting words in my mouth to smear me, since only a complete idiot - which I don't believe you are - would sincerely "interpret" my affirmative action comment in this way. I'm done with pointless apologetics, since it only encourages unscrupulous individuals who are hellbent on slandering me by any means possible.
This is sad.
If you want us to make other assumptions based on your plethora of seemingly racist statements, you'll have to actually finish your thoughts for a change.
Now you want us to believe you're really upset about all this? It's more likely that you're just continuing to play the victim so that you don't have to respond to any real arguments. That's what you've been doing for most of this thread, at any rate.
|
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote:You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given. Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence".
Again, assuming that there is a significant effect in this study that you can't assume way to cultural and historical differences with the backwards counting thing, what relevance does that have to with actual "intelligence?" I think everyone has argued, quite effectively I might add, that intelligence is an ambiguous characteristic, in which any test would be hard pressed to define or measure. In essence, all everyone has argued that any of your proposed studies that finds a correlation, cannot reasonably infer any causational argument.
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote:
You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Yes there is no a priori reason why races' intelligence should not be difference. However, what a priori reason is there that they should be different? What a priori reason do you have to link skin color, nose shape, and hair texture to intelligence? I mean I suppose you could come up with some vague narrative of why they might be different, but it is not very convincing. I think universally, "intelligence" is a characteristic that is valued because it improves quality of life. The argument, that in some ancestries "intelligence" would not be valued seems extremely illogical and erroneous.
Potato, potaato, you call it rationalizing, I call it extremely, weak evidence. I think that is the problem with scientists, is that they expect human behavior to work the same way as a physics problem and it doesn't. It is a dynamic problem that is extremely complicated to model.
It means no more "No Child Left Behind", no more affirmative action, and other dumb and unfair policies to get more minorities into the sciences, professions, etc.
There is still a need for policies because of the inherent racism in this country. Maybe you choose not to believe in racism being prevalent in this country, or you don't understand its effect, but there will always be a need for such policies like affirmative action. I have first hand experience with covert and overt racism and every labor/education paper I have ever heard of has found a significant effect ceteris paribus of race on wage and quality of education. It is clear that opportunities are not equal, no matter how much you wish it to be, or how much you do not believe it to be. That being said, any merit based system should implement affirmative action because of the inherent negative externalities of racism. Maybe they are not implemented well, but there is a definite need (even from a merit-based perspective) for such opportunities, even by your logic. The argument about intelligence and race, is completely erroneous to the nature of the affirmative action debate.
|
Poll: hT is:
(Vote): a retard
(Vote): racist
(Vote): a great thinker
Lets see if TL is biased.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
how can great thinker and retard be tied? which one is he?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
retards can be great thinkers, don't discriminate
|
That poll isn't mutually exclusive.
It's like asking
Is Barack Obama...
White?
Black?
The President-elect?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
keep it balanced. a little bit of each makes everything better
|
On December 07 2008 18:07 BraveGhost wrote:
Savio, I am liberal.. and the news I choose to watch simply happens to have a slight liberal bias in the United States, I really don't care though... does it really matter anyways ? If people base their views off of just what the media on television tells them, then that's their own problem.
Thank you for the post. I actually asked these questions in my OP but we all happened to just focus in on whether or not there was a bias...then we just had a brawl.
But the question about whether or not it really matter is a good one. There has been a liberal slant for years, and yet Republicans have done just fine in politics winning more presidential elections (and by much larger margins), and having good representation in Congress.
My own view is that having a liberal bias may make the Left more active, but that effect is offset by a reaction by moderates against the bias, helping Republicans.
|
On December 07 2008 19:20 tomatriedes wrote:
And yes, you still need to provide an examples examples of news stories as opposed to opinion pieces which display clear 'liberal bias'.
Picking stories myself would be pointless because people would say I was just cherry picking. The point is that I shared studies where you can look up the methodology and surveys of journalists that show the bias. I am not about to do that work myself but it was done by non-partisan groups and their methodology has not been shown to be wrong.
|
On December 07 2008 21:50 RowdierBob wrote:
I don't really get the point of this thread.
Of course the media is bias. Should it be? No, but unfortunately it is.
What are we trying to achieve with this discussion =/
The goal is to get more people to the point you are at. I don't think bias should be eliminated because I think it CAN'T be eliminated...but I do think that people should be aware of it so they can be better judges of the information they take in. That will correct for much of the effect of bias.
If you read the thread, you will see that not everyone agrees with you. Many think its bunk and that there is no [liberal] bias in the media.
IMO, that's willful ignorance on their part.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
