frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities




Are races Equal?

Debate Information

I was once a staunch anti racist.    Then I realised that those university activist types who are always banging on about the sanctity of "equality" were all looking down their noses at me (I am a tradesman).   Worse, the only explanation that this demographic could come up with to explain why certain ethnicities were always a crime and welfare problem in every western country they inhabited, was it was "all the white guys fault."    I was taught to recognise racism when I was a kid, and here it was again, only this time it was anti white racism.    Worse, this premise has now formalised into Critical Race Theory.     This anti white racist ideology is based upon a disputable premise, it assumes that since all races are equal in every way possible, from IQ's to personality, to physical ability, then the only possible explanation for the continuing dysfunctions of notoriously dysfunctional minorities, must be that western society is inherently racist, riven with unconscious bias.     So the critical question is, are races equal?   

With ethnic division including race riots now tearing apart the very social fabric of western societies, I think that this question is the most important of our time.     
RichyValdesDreamerDr_BatmanNomenclatureOakTownAMineSubCraftStarved
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    If races were equal, white people would have skin with equal solar protection as darker skinned people.    Africans, Pacific Islanders and Australia aborigines would compete as equal in Olympic swimming events.    Dark skinned people would not dominate sports involving running or jumping.    The composition of US football teams would not show a preponderance of black Africans.  

    University entrance, especially to Ivy League universities, was once regulated by intelligence tests.    This was because universities no longer trusted the various state, city, or state education boards to examine children using standard tests, as well as standardized marking.     Too many young people were entering university unable to cope with the first year syllabus, despite apparently being given high marks by their various school boards.      The IQ tests were called SAT scores and they rather pointedly confirmed the findings of the Cognitive Metricians, who had discovered that Jews were the smartest, followed by Asians, followed by whites, the Hispanics, and then Africans.      Left wing activists succeeded in universities using stopping SAT scores to screen suitable students, and they insisted on a racial quota system.  This simply meant that too many unsuitable candidates were admitted into universities, unable to handle anything except the "soft" disciples of an Artz course.    The fact that black Africans in particular were not represented at all in subjects like Mathematics caused left wing activists to label Mathematics as "racist." 

    Now we have reverse racism against whites and Asians.    Despite Affirmative Action giving African blacks an unfair advantage in enrolments based upon their race, so few black people are able to handle the workload of the more challenging courses, that left wing activists are now demanding racial quotas for these harder courses.    Since Asians are very disproportionately represented in challenging courses, they are insisting that there should be quotas on Asian students.    So now those who claim that they are anti racist are now demanding racial quotas.

    The lunatics are running the asylum.    Perhaps the reason why universities today seem to be over run by woke leftists is that too many students who never had the intelligence to be there, and who are failing their courses anyway, (and even if they pass, have no hope of ever getting a job beyond government employment) have too much time on their hands and look for opportunities to hit back at the world which demands merit to gain success?  
    Dreamer
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -   edited December 2022
    Argument Topic: People have never had equal outcomes

    First, what happened to all the comments?  I'm not seeing them any longer.

    From the beginning of time people have never had equal outcomes.  If that is what is meant, by the question of are people equal, then the answer is "they will never be".  Identical twins who went to the same school and picked up the same degree often will discover one is at a job that pays more.  One may contract a disease that takes her health away, while the other one will never be sick a day in her life.  

    It would be wrong to assume that all inequities are based on race.  Yes, the poorest geographic region in the US is 98% white - the Appalachian mountains, with many people subsisting on $5,000 or less a year.  It would be easy to conclude that their poverty is due to discrimination against Appalachian Americans because there is definitely bias and discrimination against them.  However, while I don't want to discount the impact of  negative stereotypes, and implicit and overt bias, there are other factors to be considered.  Historically, people who live in mountain regions, away from major trading routes, have been poorer.  The topography of the region makes it difficult to build roads that freight trucks can easily navigate in the winter.  Because the area is not highly populated, there are fewer businesses, government services, and educational institutions.  This leads to fewer good paying jobs, and educational opportunities.  No doubt this has as much, or more, of an impact than the discrimination that Appalachian Americans experience.  People who dismiss the impact that choices, chance, chromosomes, and current location have on outcomes are just not being intellectually honest.   
    Dreamer
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I Don't Believe You Were Ever A Staunch Anti-Racist

    I think that's a laughable way to begin a post, since the only reason for doing so is to justify a racist point of view. Your claim that "university activist types" had no better answer than blaming whites for black crime is similarly ridiculous. Only a racist would divide crime along racial lines in the first place, so it's circular reasoning. Only a racist would reference racial crime statistics without bothering to check for a correlation to racial poverty statistics. 
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    For decades, those who championed black American rights in the USA demanded equality of opportunity in order to lift black Americans up from poverty.   The theory was, that since it was taken for granted that blacks and whites were equal, then given equal opportunities, especially in education, and time, black Americans would have exactly the same jobs, opportunities, crime rates, welfare dependency rates, tertiary education graduation rates, and life outcomes as whites.     Blacks were given equality of opportunity in Education when the US Federal government in the 60's prevented state governments from segregating schools based on race.         'Bussing" was established to allow black African students to go to "good" white schools and force white students to go to "bad" formerly black only schools.     This equality of educational learning it was supposed to ensure black and white equality. 

    What resulted from educational equality, was that while some black students did have the capacity to excel in scholastic work and attain job opportunities and a lifestyle commensurate with whites, the vast majority of African blacks (and to a lesser extent, Hispanics) were unable to excel in educational testing, with many simply being disruptive influences in the school, resulting in a very high drop out rate.

    I think that with the self evident failure of "equality" to obtain equal outcomes for whites and blacks, US society as a whole should have realized that in terms of intelligence, races simply are not equal.   Scientifically, this was reinforced by the publication of 'the Bell Curve" in which Cognitive Metricians published the results of 60 years of IQ testing which clearly displayed an IQ gap of around 15 points between US whites and US blacks.      The furore which ensued after the publication of this book matched that of Darwin's "Origin of Species."    Obviously, there were a lot of people around the world that seemed to have a pathological opposition to any idea that races were not equal in every way.  

    However, results speak for themselves.     Few black Americans attained equal outcomes with whites, which simply seemed to prove "The Bell Curve's" findings that some black Americans didin fact have high IQ, although none seemed to possess the towering intellects of some of the western world's most respected scientific researchers.  

    This was anathema to socialists as the ideal of human equality was a sacred to them as the Trinity was to Catholics.      What to do?    Socialist minded left wing activists convinced US legislators to enact "Affirmative Action" to remedy the self evident  gap which still remained between whites and blacks.      This was, to assign racial quotas for university admission and plum government jobs.    That this amounted to racism was dismissed by the activists as righting a historical wrong.   By doing this, they were in fact admitting that racism is okay when they do it.  

    But even "Affirmative Action" did not do as promised, so what the activists wanted was even more racism in the form of even more "affirmative Action"     This was justified on the new catchword of "equity of outcomes."

    The reasoning went like this, since it must be assumed that blacks and whites are equal in every way, then the very real outcomes gap between most whites and most blacks must be caused by intrinsic racism with white western society.    white Americans have "unconscious bias" and "unconscious discrimination.    White society is just inherently racist.    Slavery which ended 170 years ago had traumatized blacks so much that nothing less than quotas could end the historical injustice of slavery.  

    it was all a lot of cr-ap.     What we had was a bunch of socialists who's most cherished ideal was simply being disproven, every day..      But getting them to admit the obvious is like getting the Christians to admit that one of their Gods, Jesus Christ, was just a man who was a Jewish pacifist..


    Sonofasonjust_sayinDreamer
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Many social factors contribute to disparities

    @Bogan
    I am not aware of any credible study that claims that different races are less intelligent.  I don't believe that is the reason for educational and financial disparities among races.  I believe that there are a number of factors, other than race, that impact outcomes.  Things like (this is just a sample):

    1) Growing up in a single parent household - not only does this half the income of the family, and halves the parental supervision, studies show that kids from single parent households, of all races, are less likely to finish high school, be truant, have a teenage pregnancy, be in a gang, be arrested, experience prolonged depression, commit suicide, and do poorer academically.  The book, The Boy Crisis, identifies about 70 different negative things that kids who grow up in single parent home are more likely to experience.  Whether you finish high school, grow up poor, have a teen age pregnancy, or are arrested significantly impact your educational and job opportunities.

    2) Where you grow up - A kid who grows up in Appalachia, typically will attend schools with less academic rigor, have fewer post-high school educational opportunities, and have fewer nearby job opportunities, with fewer high paying job opportunities in that area.  Though not to the same degree, a kid growing up in the bad part of an urban area, will also grow up in a poorer setting where not only the quality of schools is poorer, but academic achievement may not be as valued, and where there are fewer good paying jobs.  The environment can greatly influence how someone perceives themselves and what dreams and goals they set for themselves.  If you grew up in a suburb outside of Washington DC or Silicon Valley, where there are lots of good jobs and good schools, personal and parental expectations, as well as more access and opportunities would influence life decisions.

    3) Affirmative Action programs - Studies on pass rates for the bar for lawyers and STEM studies at schools like Duke suggest that schools, in an attempt to increase the percentage of minorities in their programs, allowed minority students who scored poorer on their SAT scores than the institution accepted for white students.  This resulted in results where Black students were much more likely to fail their bar exam, and where the rigor of the programs lead several to change majors, from higher paying STEM programs, to lower paying majors.

    4) Degree choice - Research from the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, African-American college students are more likely to pursue majors that lead to lower-paying jobs. Black college students are over-represented in service-oriented fields: humanities, education and social work.  This may come from a greater interest in giving back to their communities.  Regardless, they are less likely to pursue jobs in higher paying STEM fields.  
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: A lot of factors cause inequalities - but intelligence isn't one of them

    @Bogan
    First, this is the second time, I've posted this.  What keeps happening to the comments.
    I don't know of any credible study that shows that one race is more intelligent than another.  Instead I believe there are a myriad of factors that result in people having different outcomes.  Here are a few (this is just a sampling and certainly not an exhaustive list):

    1) Growing up in single parent household - Not only does this result in half the income, and half the parental supervision, numerous studies show that kids who grow up in a single parent household are more likely to not finish high school, be truant, less likely to go to college, more likely to have a teenage pregnancy, more likely to be arrested, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be in a gang, and more likely to have mental health issues.  The book, the Boy Crisis, lists about 70 negative outcomes that kids who grow up in a single parent household are more likely to experience.  It certainly isn't their fault.  

    2)   Where you grew up - A kid growing up in Appalachia will generally have less education and income less than a kid who grew up in a rich suburb of Washington DC or Silicon Valley.  The educational and job opportunities are fewer, and high paying jobs are not as available to the kid in Appalachia.  Often kids from Appalachia have to leave the area to get a good education and job.  The same concept applies to kids in poor urban settings.  While their may be more opportunities, often the schools are not as good, and a kid growing up in a poorer home will have more obstacles to success.

    3) Affirmative Actions Programs - Studies in pass rates for the law bar exam and studies on STEM student performance suggest that some colleges have inadvertently set some minorities up for failure by placing them in programs, that they would not allow white students with similar academic credentials in.  This mismatching has resulted in a high rate of minority students dropping out of STEM degree programs and pursuing lesser  paying degree programs. 

    4) Person Choice of Degree Programresearch from the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, African-American college students are more likely to pursue majors that lead to low-paying jobs.  Black college students are over-represented in service-oriented fields: humanities, education and social work.  They are underrepresented in STEM degrees.  Selecting a lower paying degree will result in lower incomes.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: There are lot of factors that contribute to inequities - but the intelligence of the races is not one of them

    @Bogan
    First, this is the second time, I've posted this.  What keeps happening to the comments.
    I don't know of any credible study that shows that one race is more intelligent than another.  Instead I believe there are a myriad of factors that result in people having different outcomes.  Here are a few (this is just a sampling and certainly not an exhaustive list):

    1) Growing up in single parent household - Not only does this result in half the income, and half the parental supervision, numerous studies show that kids who grow up in a single parent household are more likely to not finish high school, be truant, less likely to go to college, more likely to have a teenage pregnancy, more likely to be arrested, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be in a gang, and more likely to have mental health issues.  The book, the Boy Crisis, lists about 70 negative outcomes that kids who grow up in a single parent household are more likely to experience.  It certainly isn't their fault.  

    2)   Where you grew up - A kid growing up in Appalachia will generally have less education and income less than a kid who grew up in a rich suburb of Washington DC or Silicon Valley.  The educational and job opportunities are fewer, and high paying jobs are not as available to the kid in Appalachia.  Often kids from Appalachia have to leave the area to get a good education and job.  The same concept applies to kids in poor urban settings.  While their may be more opportunities, often the schools are not as good, and a kid growing up in a poorer home will have more obstacles to success.

    3) Affirmative Actions Programs - Studies in pass rates for the law bar exam and studies on STEM student performance suggest that some colleges have inadvertently set some minorities up for failure by placing them in programs, that they would not allow white students with similar academic credentials in.  This mismatching has resulted in a high rate of minority students dropping out of STEM degree programs and pursuing lesser  paying degree programs. 

    4) Person Choice of Degree Programresearch from the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, African-American college students are more likely to pursue majors that lead to low-paying jobs.  Black college students are over-represented in service-oriented fields: humanities, education and social work.  They are underrepresented in STEM degrees.  Selecting a lower paying degree will result in lower incomes.

  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    1) Growing up in single parent household - Not only does this result in half the income, and half the parental supervision, numerous studies show that kids who grow up in a single parent household are more likely to not finish high school, be truant, less likely to go to college, more likely to have a teenage pregnancy, more likely to be arrested, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be in a gang, and more likely to have mental health issues.  The book, the Boy Crisis, lists about 70 negative outcomes that kids who grow up in a single parent household are more likely to experience.  It certainly isn't their fault.  Happy Saturnalia to you, "just-sayiing"

    "just-sayin" wrote      I don't know of any credible study that shows that one race is more intelligent than another. 

    The two most important scientific books in the last 200 years were Darwin's "Origin of Species", which proposed that life on earth had evolved.   And Herstein and Murray's "the Bell Curve" , which dealt with the results and implications of 70 years of IQ testing.   The Bell Curve would have been considered just an exhaustive scientific work which was universally praised, , except that the book included one chapter which dealt with the measured differences in racial IQ's.    Both books ignited a firestorm of controversy when they were both published.   Origin of Species" because it cast doubt on the long held belief that all life on earth, in all of it's multitude of species, and sub species, was created in six days by a supernatural supreme being.       'The Bell Curve" because it cast doubt on the long held liberal belief that all races were equal.  

    "just-sayin" wrote     Instead I believe there are a myriad of factors that result in people having different outcomes.  Here are a few (this is just a sampling and certainly not an exhaustive list):
    1) Growing up in single parent household - Not only does this result in half the income, and half the parental supervision, numerous studies show that kids who grow up in a single parent household are more likely to not finish high school, be truant, less likely to go to college, more likely to have a teenage pregnancy, more likely to be arrested, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be in a gang, and more likely to have mental health issues.  The book, the Boy Crisis, lists about 70 negative outcomes that kids who grow up in a single parent household are more likely to experience.  It certainly isn't their fault.  

    Having low intelligence is nobody's fault.       According to "the Bell Curve" African Americans have a measured mean (most common) IQ of 70-85, depending upon which part of Africa their ancestors originally evolved from.    Hispanics 97, whites 103, Asians 106, and Jews 116.   

    Dumb people have lots of kids which they do not bother nurturing or even parenting.    80% of African American households are single parent.   Only 20% of Asian Americans households are single parent.    even President Obama stated publicly that African American men should stop having kids that they have no intention of looking after.   I think that you may agree that the primary factor here is low intelligence?

    Just-sayin wrote      2)   Where you grew up - A kid growing up in Appalachia will generally have less education and income less than a kid who grew up in a rich suburb of Washington DC or Silicon Valley.  The educational and job opportunities are fewer, and high paying jobs are not as available to the kid in Appalachia.  Often kids from Appalachia have to leave the area to get a good education and job.  The same concept applies to kids in poor urban settings.  While their may be more opportunities, often the schools are not as good, and a kid growing up in a poorer home will have more obstacles to success.

    According to articles I have read on Criminology, (no, I am sorry, I can't give you a reference to that information)  Appalachia was once used by Criminologists as an example of how very poor communities were not automatically crime prone.   Poverty did not cause crime, although in extremely poor societies where people had to steal to eat, it most certainly did.      But before the scourge of meth-amphetamine, Appalachia had the least crime, the lowest incarceration rates, and  the lowest ratio of police and community,    Education does make people smarter, and living in an mentally stimulating environment can make people smarter.    But no amount of education can make a basically dumb person into a Mensa.     People are born with various levels of IQ, in the same way that females are born with various levels of beauty.   Mother nature is no egalitarian. 

    Smart people value education and they live in communities with good education prospects for their kids.    Dumb people do not value education, and use schools as simply child minding facilities.  Here in Australia, the Northern Territory government spends two thirds of it's education budget on one third of children who are "aboriginal" for a 90% failure rate in national testing.   This includes giving aboriginal children free food at school because their usually drunk and uncaring parents do not bother to feed them.    The government also gives Aboriginal parents a special allowance to send their children to school.   Since truancy is a serious problem among aboriginal children, the government also pays aboriginal people to drive around aboriginal homes in government supplied cars and government supplied petrol to pick up the kids and drive them to school.   

    Now compare aboriginal people to Asian people.    Vietnamese refugees came to Australia after the Vietnam war.    Although most were unable to speak the language they are an intelligent race and they soon moved beyond social welfare and started opening businesses.    They settled in areas not noted for educational excellence, but they went with what they had.   Their kids did very well at school and now are become professional people in law, medicine, engineering, and even in politics.     There persist serious organised crime in Vietnamese suburbs but it seems to be abating as the decades pass, and street crime such as muggings and robberies are so rare that Vietnamese suburbs are considered safe suburbs.  

    just-sayin wrote   3) Affirmative Actions Programs - Studies in pass rates for the law bar exam and studies on STEM student performance suggest that some colleges have inadvertently set some minorities up for failure by placing them in programs, that they would not allow white students with similar academic credentials in.  This mismatching has resulted in a high rate of minority students dropping out of STEM degree programs and pursuing lesser  paying degree programs. 

    Another way of looking at that is contrary to political correctness.     US ivy league universities once only used IQ testing as a way to judge student suitability for higher education.  (SAT scores)      This was prior to IQ testing because the universities had experienced too many students who were unable to cope with the work.    The universities decided that they could not rely upon school examination results for assessing student suitability because of  wide variations in testing and assessments by different teachers and school boards.      But since IQ scores effectively screened out most candidates of African American ancestry, black Americans were very disproportionately unrepresented in university admissions.     This led to 'Affirmative Action" programs, which just happens to be racism.    Selecting people on the basis of their race is racism.   Now, you can argue that the intentions of Affirmative Action are good?   But if you do, you are tacitly admitting that racism is okay in certain circumstances.     The idea that racism is utterly wrong just went out the window.

    The claim that minority students had a high drop out rate because universities set then up to fail looks like complete bovine excreta to me.    The minorities insisted that they be included in university admissions, even though IQ tests had already displayed that they were just not smart enough to handle the work in difficult STEM disciples.    This seems to me to confirm that IQ testing was correct.    Black Americans are not represented at all in subjects like advanced mathematics, which led black activists to claim that "mathematics is racist."     Dumb, dumb, dumb.

    Just-sayin wrote  4) Person Choice of Degree Program - research from the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University, African-American college students are more likely to pursue majors that lead to low-paying jobs.  Black college students are over-represented in service-oriented fields: humanities, education and social work.  They are underrepresented in STEM degrees.  Selecting a lower paying degree will result in lower incomes.  

    You are smart enough to figure out that if African American students choose the easier subjects it is probably because they know that they can not handle the very hard subjects.     And if they choose to do Artz courses, 'Black studies" and "Gender Studies", they can hardly be surprised if nobody outside of the government wants to hire them for their qualifications.  


  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: An IQ test isn't as objective as some think

    @Bogan
    I tis true that Blacks and Hispanics score lower on IQ tests than Whites and Asians in the US.  However, I believe it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that is because of genetics.  And there are several studies that suggest that other factors influence IQ tests.  Two French adoption studies that controlled for the socioeconomic status of birth and adoptive parents  found that being raised by high‐​SES (socioeconomic status) parents led to an IQ boost of between 12 and 16 points – a huge improvement that testifies to the powerful influence that upbringing can have.  The same article mentions a twin study by Eric Turkheimer  that tracked parents’ education, occupation, and income in relation to kids IQ results. He found that the “heritability” of IQ – the degree to which IQ variations can be explained by genes – varies dramatically by socioeconomic class. Heritability among high‐​SES (socioeconomic status) kids was 0.72; in other words, genetic factors accounted for 72 percent of the variations in IQ, while shared environment accounted for only 15 percent. For low‐​SES kids, on the other hand, the relative influence of genes and environment was inverted: Estimated heritability was only 0.10, while shared environment explained 58 percent of IQ variations.  So, IQ was very much influenced by the wealth of the family.

    I imagine if one did an IQ test on Black kids whose parents are rich versus white kids from poorer families, one could come to the conclusion that Black kids are genetically smarter than white kids.  But in reality, the differences are not so much about race, but in the environment the child grew up in.  

    Regarding the real problem of mismatch for minority students, see this article.  Black students are twice as likely to drop out of college or switch to a lower paying major than white students.  Now mismatch is not as big of a problem at elite colleges like Harvard or Princeton - those students were at the top of the academic ladder anyway and are therefore more likely to make it through.  However, as Richard Sanders points out in his book, Mismatch, it is the students going to mid-level schools who really are negatively impacted.  They are allowed in to schools that they may not be ready for the academic rigor of and find themselves struggling through.  This results in higher drop out rates and significantly higher rates of switching to lower paying majors.  
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  

     just-sayin wrote    It is true that Blacks and Hispanics score lower on IQ tests than Whites and Asians in the US.  However, I believe it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that is because of genetics. 

     If different races have different IQ scores, then genetics looks like the only reasonable explanation?  Unless you can suggest another valid scenario? 


     just-sayin wrote   And there are several studies that suggest that other factors influence IQ tests.  Two French adoption studies that controlled for the socioeconomic status of birth and adoptive parents  found that being raised by high‐​SES (socioeconomic status) parents led to an IQ boost of between 12 and 16 points – a huge improvement that testifies to the powerful influence that upbringing can have. 

     The same article mentions a twin study by Eric Turkheimer  that tracked parents’ education, occupation, and income in relation to kids IQ results. He found that the “heritability” of IQ – the degree to which IQ variations can be explained by genes – varies dramatically by socioeconomic class. Heritability among high‐​SES (socioeconomic status) kids was 0.72; in other words, genetic factors accounted for 72 percent of the variations in IQ, while shared environment accounted for only 15 percent. For low‐​SES kids, on the other hand, the relative influence of genes and environment was inverted: Estimated heritability was only 0.10, while shared environment explained 58 percent of IQ variations.  So, IQ was very much influenced by the wealth of the family.

     This sounds very suspicious to me, as programs which claimed to significantly improve minority IQ's were sponsored by the various US state and federal governments in the 1960's and proven to be either failures, of if they reported significant gains, fraudulent.      By the 1960's education researchers in the US were well aware of the 15 point gap between the IQ scores of African American students and Caucasian students.    At that time, US psychologists were almost unanimous in believing that the cause of the IQ gap was environmental factors such as  poor nutrition, poor education opportunities, racism, and discrimination.     Various taxpayer funded programs to improve minority IQ were instigated to remedy this, such as the Federal Headstart Program and the Early Childhood Program.  In these programs, kindergarten aged minority children were given free lunches at special schools where they were given cognitively stimulating teaching by quality teachers.     All of the supporters of these noble programs reported modest to huge gains in minority IQ.   Most claimed a modest 5 point gain, while one (dubbed by the media as "The Miracle in Milwaukee")  claimed a gain of 30 points.    The man responsible for this claim was jailed, when investigators discovered that he had fabricated his data, which when using taxpayer funds for scientific research, is a criminal offence in the USA. 

     A respected Educational Psychologist  by the name of Arthur Jensen was hired to assess the veracity of the claims about IQ rises made by the various programs.      After examining and criticising the scientific methodology used to support the claims of IQ rises, Jenson ended up saying in his report that these "Compensatory Programs" were a complete failure.     He further enraged the liberal left by saying that it should at least be considered that the gap between white and black IQ's COULD HAVE a genetic basis.    In 1969, microbiological research into the genetic influence on human behaviour was very primitive, so at that time, no informed scientist could say if Jenson was right or wrong. 

     However, openly stating that genetics MIGHT be responsible for the IQ gap between whites and blacks, was not tolerated by the liberal left.   Jenson was vilified to the extent that he could not address the American Psychological Association meetings without bomb threats clearing the lecture hall.    His university police (Berkley) were constantly on the alert to any possible attack on his person while on campus.   He also received threats in the mail and had to change his address.      This is what happens to scientists who tell the anti racist ideologues what they definitely don't want to hear.    

     I am sure that you are a decent young person who has great respect for science?    And you would agree with me that civilised societies and civilised people do not treat scientists this way who make reasonable assertions that may be topical and even hotly disputed.   People who try to intimidate scientists and shut them up are wild eyed ideological zealots with no tolerance at all for scientific opinion.    If you wish to ally yourself to such people and their intellectually bankrupt causes, then I think you should think again.

     

    just-sayin wrote    I imagine if one did an IQ test on Black kids whose parents are rich versus white kids from poorer families, one could come to the conclusion that Black kids are genetically smarter than white kids. 

     I think that you are correct.   That black Africans have a bell curve of mean IQ lower than the mean bell curve of Caucasians (or Asians) does not Mean that there are no smart blacks.(or dumb whites)  Every race has smart people and every race has people with a low IQ.    But it is the proportions of dumb, average, or smart people in races that are different.   What "the Bell Curve" claimed to find, was that African blacks with average to high IQ were generally accepted as equal by white people who had the same average or high IQ's as the blacks..     Smart parents, regardless of race, usually have smart kids.   Dumb parents, regardless of race, almost always have dumb kids.


    just-sayin wrote     But in reality, the differences are not so much about race, but in the environment the child grew up in.   

    No.   Smart people, regardless of race, are upwardly mobile and usually they live in the more privileged areas where crime is low and educational opportunities high.       

       

    just-sayin wrote

     Regarding the real problem of mismatch for minority students, see this article.  Black students are twice as likely to drop out of college or switch to a lower paying major than white students.  Now mismatch is not as big of a problem at elite colleges like Harvard or Princeton - those students were at the top of the academic ladder anyway and are therefore more likely to make it through.  However, as Richard Sanders points out in his book, Mismatch, it is the students going to mid-level schools who really are negatively impacted.  They are allowed in to schools that they may not be ready for the academic rigor of and find themselves struggling through.  This results in higher drop out rates and significantly higher rates of switching to lower paying majors.  

     A simpler explanation is that black African students have a 15 point difference in IQ.    Therefore,  'Affirmative Action" does not work because ignoring SAT scores and simply inserting black students into universities where they are not smart enough to handle the work, is a failure.     Especially in the hard STEM subjects where IQ is crucial to understanding the difficult concepts.

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:

     just-sayin wrote    It is true that Blacks and Hispanics score lower on IQ tests than Whites and Asians in the US.  However, I believe it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that is because of genetics. 

     If different races have different IQ scores, then genetics looks like the only reasonable explanation?  Unless you can suggest another valid scenario? 

    I find it curious how, after all the times that the other reasonable explanations have been suggested to you (and demonstrated on real world data), you still keep confusing correlation with causation on this one. There are countless environmental factors that, by nature of people of different races predominantly populating different regions, can lead to differences in various aspects such as IQ test results, without any genetical factors at play. For instance, South Koreans and North Koreans are clearly people of the same race, ethnicity and so on - yet South Koreans, on average, are significantly taller than North Koreans. A few decades of malnutrition caused not by any biological factors specific to the North Korean population, but by horrible governmental policies, can do that to you.

    If you compare the conditions in which the average Black person in the US grows up to the conditions in which the average Asian person in the US grows up, the differences will be striking. A few generations of that can very well result in significant differences in the IQ test results (which to this day is not clear what exactly they mean) between these populations, regardless of any genetical factors. Or, if you want to look outside the US, compare the conditions in which most Blacks live (in Africa) to the conditions in which most Asians live (in Asia).

    Now, you may say that, in turn, the differences in these conditions are caused by genetical differences. Partially this may be the case. Yet simply stating it without any specific evidence makes for a circular argument: "The Black population is poorer than the Asian population because of genetical differences, and the genetical differences are perpetuated by the Black population bein poorer than the Asian population". This has to actually be demonstrated, the effects in question separated from the noise. I have yet to see anyone making this kind of claims actually do that. In most cases (yours is one such case) the people making them do not even think the demonstration necessarily, assuming that everything is "obvious" (which, to a logical mind, is synonymous with "I do not know how to justify it").
    jackMineSubCraftStarved
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  

    To Maycaesar.  

     Oh, wow!    After 12 or more months of shunning me and giving me The Silent Treatment, you now want to contribute on this topic?       What's the matter?    Are you fed up of "debating" with mor-ons like Barnadot, Dee, Piloteer, and jack/excon?   Have you finally realised that I am a genuine and well informed debater who treats my opponents with respect if they do the same to me?     

     Look, Maycaesar, I don't think it is really worth my while engaging in debate with you, because I have previously criticised your debating style on this topic before, and you refused to lift your game.     Your position was, that it is taken as a given that races are equal, so that this is nothing that you need to support with a reasoned argument.   Your position then became, that I must support my premise with reasoned arguments which you always poo poohed,  while you never need do the same.    I find that unacceptable.   It is a dishonest debating tactic that I have experienced before, and I well aware of the futility of "debating" against an opponent who uses such tactics.

     So if you wish to contribute on this subject, submit a reasoned argument supporting your BELIEF that races are equal.   Or, keep giving me the silent treatment and go and "debate" with the trolls.

    If you debate fairly then I will be happy to address the reasonable positions that you have supplied in your last post.  

  • BarnardotBarnardot 272 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    So what I was born in to a 1 parent family because my mother left before I was born and my dad didn’t work except what they paid him in the klink so the well fare and foster homes were my real homes and a lot of the people there were black. But they never caused any trouble any way. It’s only when they go in the correctional centers that they play up because the screws treat them like skim so is it any wonder any way.
  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Systemic racism exists.

    Ignoring systemic racism will not make it go away.


    Any calls to fix institutional racism is met with accusations of they myth of reverse racism. Never mind, that such affirmative action quotas are low.
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  

    Hi Dreamer, I think I must be getting to you, if the best thing you can reply with to my last post, is a leftist propaganda video which claims that the reason for black dysfunction is "systemic racism."   Normally, I will not debate against links...  But I like you, and I will make an exception for you.  

     My opinion of you, is that you are an intelligent young person who is probably a high school kid, who has come onto this debate site to brush up on your debating techniques?      You chose this topic because you thought it was a no brainer?     You have been culturally conditioned to think that races are equal, and that racists like me are just cretins who should be easy to checkmate.   But one thing I think you are learning, is that people like me are not as as you have been conditioned to believe?    And we have valid debating positions which we can argue with effectively.

     My history is, I was "once like you are now" (to quote the old Cat Steven's song) and I too had been conditioned (brainwashed) in my youth by my culture, peers, and teachers, to think that racism was just awful, and "racists" were beyond the pale.    Utterly disgusting people who were akin to Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen.     My culture constantly reinforced the notion that racists were , and anti racists were intelligent.   This is actually a tactic by the socialist left.    They know that everyone wants to think that they are smart, and so they provide them with a supposedly noble leftist cause, and present it in a way that only "intelligent" people can see the "truth."

     But I am a perceptive person, and I got sick and tired of "anti racists" always blaming my race for the dysfunctions of every dysfunctional race.     As a person who had been trained to recognise racism, I could recognise racism directed at my own race.    I am sorry if you can't do the same thing. (if you are white yourself)   

     The anti white racism was once quite subtle, but today it is right out in the open and clear for anyone with a discerning mind to see.     Blaming one race for the dysfunctions of another race is racism.    That is what Hitler did to the Jews.    I would have thought that an intelligent young man like yourself could see that?    But perhaps you just need a little context to see what I can see?

     Anti white racism is now the official line within western educational systems and your propaganda video is proof of that.  I will bet it was financed by a government department?

     Okay, let us look at your video and pick apart it's lies.    

     To begin with, it claims that black children go to lousy schools while white children go to good schools.   Correct me if I am wrong, but this issue was addressed by the US Supreme court who ordered that school districts be desegregated using "bussing" to mix the races at government funded schools.    I will agree that many white people got around that by moving completely away from areas of high black population proportions, because of very real concerns for their children's safety.    But white people can not be held responsible for the fact that so many young black kids are violent, and are in in violent youth gangs.

     The second point your video put up, was the "redlining" of black areas by corporations.     Look at the rioting, looting, and high crime rates in black suburbs and it is not hard to understand why they do that.     Businesses are simply commercial operations, and there is nothing wrong with them realising that it is just too unsafe and too much trouble to do business in black neighbourhoods.    Who's fault is that, if black neighbourhoods are renowned for armed robberies, muggings, and shop lifting?      Your video did not even mention that inconvenient fact.    I wonder why?      A half truth is a whole lie.   It is hardly balanced reportage.  it is simply one sided anti white propaganda.

     Next comes bank loans.    Banks are in the business of lending money, and if white and black repayment figures were equal or even near equal, banks would have no trouble lending to blacks.    Obviously, they are not equal.   I can't give the figures for US loans, but I can give you an example from Australia.    Banks in Australia are very reluctant to give loans to Arabs without a lot of collateral being put up by the lender to guarantee the loan.    This is because, the idea of lending money in Arab countries is a concept which does not exist.    Financial trading markets like Wall Street, Fleet Street, or the Paris Bourse, do not even exist in the Arab world.    Arabs regard any person who lends them money as simply fools who should not expect to be paid back.   Arabs regard loans as "gifts" from infidels.       Cause and effect?      Australian banks have been burned too many times to trust Arabs with loans, and I will bet it is the same in the USA with black Americans.  

     Next comes "systemic racism", this presupposes that the system is stacked against black Americans.     The problem with that is that Asian immigrants to the USA should also be victims of "systemic racism" by whites, but Asian Americans are doing even better that white people within white countries.    If prejudice towards black Americans exists, has it ever occurred to you it is for a good reason?    The cause of this discrimination is the group behaviour of US blacks which leaves a lot to be desired.

     And if US blacks are so poorly treated in the USA, why do so many African blacks want to live in the USA with it's so called "systemic racism"?      Why do they keep trying to immigrate, legally or illegally?    Obviously they see US society a lot better than their own dysfunctional societies?    At least they can live on white provided welfare while they whine and complain.  

     Lastly, we get to the excuse of slavery being cause of US African dysfunction.      Slavery ended 170 years ago so that excuse is getting a little stale.    Australia was founded with white slavery, as the original settlers were almost all convicts who were effectively slaves, yet we rose above that.   You don't hear Australians whining about slavery as an excuse for any behavioural problems by white Australians.   

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: The video is pushing a misleading debunked notion that low performing schools aren't getting as much money as other schools

    @Dreamer
    I get that some want to mislead people, and not talk about all funding sources for education, so that more money will be spent on schools.  I truly do get that.  But the video shared is misleading.  It has not considered funding from ALL sources - local, state, and federal.  According to the pro-teacher union journal, Education Next (2017):

    Nationwide, per-student K-12 education funding from all sources (local, state, and federal) is similar, on average, at the districts attended by poor students ($12,961) and non-poor students ($12,640), a difference of 2.5 percent in favor of poor students.

    And guess what?  Funding for poorer schools has been equal or greater than richer neighboring schools since the 1970's.  Now there are some areas where some poorer schools do receive less - like in Appalachia.  However, these are the exception and not the rule.  Those who suggest otherwise are often omitting funding sources like Federal and state funding and grants.  What's even more surprising for some is that some of the worst performing urban school districts in the US receive the most money - Washington DC ($22,856 per student), Baltimore City MD ($21,000 per student), New York City ($32,757 per student).

    The average spent per student for public education in the US is $16,993 per pupil.  While poorer states like Mississippi and Alabama spend less, it would be wrong to conclude that educational spending is the reason for inequities between different racial groups.

  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -   edited January 1
    Argument Topic: Did you take into account inflation?


    New York City for example everything is super expensive.

    "New York City is the most expensive city in the world."


    With redlining this is the same city and state. Therefore, the entire rural versus urban price differences would not be impacted. Also, rich white people tend to go to very white and expensive private schools.


  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -   edited January 1
    Argument Topic: White people historically have been doing most of the rioting and damage.


    Just look at Tulsa and Rosewood. White mobs razed the thriving Black communities. Then, history books conveniently omitted this fact. Over and over in the book White Rage by Carol Anderson violent white mobs destroy Black progress. A real shame and unpatriotic action considering the United States' many rivals.



    White man roads through Black people's homes. Ronald Reagan funding the CONTRAS by selling cocaine targeting Black communities. The point is when Black people follow the rules and succeed they lose anyways as Kimberley Jones has shown.

    Your argument has elements of conspiracy thinking, the idea that a government department funded the video I posted.


  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer ;   Just look at Tulsa and Rosewood. White mobs razed the thriving Black communities. Then, history books conveniently omitted this fact. Over and over in the book White Rage by Carol Anderson violent white mobs destroy Black progress. A real shame and unpatriotic action considering the United States' many rivals.

     According to wiki, Tulsa and Rosewood happened 100 yers ago.    How does that justify black rioting and black resentment towards whites today?    During WW2, an Australian hospital ship was sunk by the Japanese Navy, and 32 young Australian nurses survived, swam to shore, and were captured by the Japanese Army.    Over the next few hours, all of these young nurses were gang raped, then marched out to sea from the beach and machine gunned to death.      But do I hate the Japanese of today for that?   Of course not.    The sins of the father are not visited upon the children.

     

     Now you are submitting a video where an obviously low IQ black woman tries and fails to justify black looting, and the destroying of her own neighbourhoods through rioting and arson.   Hey, Dreamer, intelligent people do not think that way, and they do not act that way.     Black people can not engage in rampant shoplifting, loot the local supermarket during a riot, and then burn it down, then complain that there is nowhere to buy food.

     

    Dreamer wrote

     White man roads through Black people's homes.

     Hey ma-a-a-a-te (sorry, bud-dee), here in Australia, if a state or federal government want to build a road or a railway or a airport on your land, they just resume the land and there is nothing you can do about it.   Racism is not a factor.

     

    Dreamer wrote

      Ronald Reagan funding the CONTRAS by selling cocaine targeting Black communities.   

     

    Black communities are notorious for rampant illegal drug use, no matter which President is in power.   And that is Ronald Reagans fault?     Ronald Reagan was one of your greatest presidents, who was responsible more than any other person for the downfall of the Soviet Union (the USA's most dangerous enemy) and the freeing of 500 million East Europeans from Soviet tyranny.    A lot of people in east Europe have Reagan's photo up on their living room wall.      But I presume your leftist teachers just taught you to hate him?    The saddest thing about young people today, is that they are so ignorant of history.

     

    Dreamer wrote

      The point is when Black people follow the rules and succeed they lose anyways as Kimberley Jones has shown.

     I looked up "Kimberly Jones" and she appears to be another whiny black activist who wants to blame the white world she hates but prefers to live in, for everything that ever went wrong with blacks.      Oddly enough, you get a mega prosperous city like Chicago or Detroit with plenty of jobs and high incomes.    In come the Africans, who settle in an area which becomes renowned for muggings, robberies, sexual assaults, break ins, home invasions, gunfights. and copious welfare.    As more and more blacks move in, more and more whites move out.    You know, the guys who go to work and pay the taxes that pay for the black welfare, so the Africans have to time to engage in criminal behaviour.

     Eventually, the whites move right out and get the hell out of Dodge.   Now if your theory about white supremacy is correct, how is it that these now 90% black cities become bankrupt without the white welfare to pay for the blacks?    Without "white superiority" these places should be like mythical Akanza, shouldn't they?     Could I draw a parallel here?    After Idi Amin took over Uganda, they Ugandans engaged in the most brutal racist genocide against the Indians, who were the smart people who ran Ugandan commerce after the whites fled.    Surprise, surprise, after kicking out the smart Indians, and taking over their stores and businesses, they whole country went bankrupt.    Kinda proves my point, doesn't it?   The problem is not "white supremacy" or "Indian supremacy" it is just that sadly, most African people are not intelligent enough to prosper in the modern world.

     

    Dreamer wrote

     Your argument has elements of conspiracy thinking, the idea that a government department funded the video I posted.

     Because I understand how the world works, Dreamer.    You are a young person with high ideals who believes the Elmer Gantry figures who pretend to share your ideals, while they engage in every underhanded trick to gain money, sex, and power.     Do you remember Abscam?    1980.  31 Congressmen, senators, and mayors got caught in an influence peddling FBI operation, and all but one was a Democrat.     The FBI is supposed to root out political corruption, now it engages in it itself, or at lest the guys at the top do.     According to The Twitter Files, both Hunter Biden and his father, President Joe Biden were also influence peddling and even taking money from the Chinese, which just happens to be your nations present most dangerous enemy.     And the FBI knew it and protected them.   There is something very rotten in the USA today,  Dreamer, I hope you are smart enough to realise what I said is true, in the years ahead of you.



  • jackjack 135 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:

    Are races Equal?

    Hello B:

    In what terms?  Physiologically, sociologically, culturally?   Based on those factors, of course they're equal. 

    Or, maybe you have something else in mind..  Does bad behavior reflect on everybody of your ethnicity?  No, of course not..  Does being smarter?  Nahh..  Does having a different culture make a difference??  Nope.

    Anything else?

    excon
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Oh here we go.    Here come the trolls.     Do you submit a reasoned argument supporting your contention that races are equal?   Of course not.    Not being too bright, knowing nothing, and unable to write even a paragraph, you instead revert to the typical troll tactic of asking people who genuinely want to debate a bunch of questions.    Of course, if I was silly enough to accommodate you and answer the questions in full to show my good faith, all this would accomplish is to give you ammunition to fling back a bunch of sneery one liners.     This you think, displays how "clever"; you are.     Got news for you bud, it displays the opposite. 
  • jackjack 135 Pts   -   edited January 1
    Bogan said:
    @jack

    Do you submit a reasoned argument supporting your contention that races are equal?  Of course not.    This you think, displays how "clever"; you are.    
    Hello B:

    Clever has nothing to do with it, nor does the length of my response.. Truly, what I say isn't for the simple minded.  You ask for contentions, but the truth is not contentious.   It demands no prolonged debate.  There's only the self evident truth, and your denial of it.   

    I'm not here to convince you...  I'm here to expose you.

    excon

  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    .@jack ;    Yawn,
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    Thomas Sowell, in his book, Charter School and Their Enemies, talks about 2 schools in Harlem that are meeting in the same building and reaching kids of the same economic background (the charter school has a slightly greater percentage of poorer kids from single parent homes on free or discounted lunches) - one a public school and one a charter school.  The public school is spending the $32,000 per student and has less than 15% of kids on grade level in math and English.  The charter school spends about $10,000 per student, and some of that goes to the rent of the building, yet has 85% of kids on grade level in math and English.  The school board is trying to shut down the charter school, well, it has sought to shut down all charter schools in the city, even though they account for 15 of the top 20 public schools in the state. 

    The point is that its not really about the money, but how it is spent, and the structures that the education occurs under.  You can spend a million dollars per child, but if you have a bad system in place, the results will be like the school with just 15% meeting grade level expectations.  
  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Ever watch the Inconvenient Truth behind Waiting for Superman?


    According to the documentary charter schools reject anyone with a learning disability. You do have a point about money. There are super rich schools that spends all its money on sports and hot tubs. What do you know they don't get the past grades.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer
    Charter schools are public schools and must take anyone who wins the lottery.  It is inaccurate to say that they don't take kids with disabilities.  Further, voucher programs are required to take whoever wins the lottery.  Now, a voucher or charter school may not have the resources to meet the needs of every disabled child.  That is true.  So, the worst case scenario is that a disabled child ends up back in a crappy public school.  However, as many parents of disabled kids have pointed out, charter and voucher schools typically do a better job of paying attention to IDPs.  Public schools are notorious for ignoring them.  Charter and voucher schools are much more accountable in having to accommodate IDPs.

    If you are interested in seeing how each voucher, school choice, and even some charter school programs stack up to public schools, https://www.edchoice.org/ publishes an annual review of all studies involving any state, city or federal (just DC schools right now) program.
  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Getting a little off topic with charters schools.


    When I have the time I will look into charter versus public schools. Being overcrowded in an underfunded school is bound to reduce performance. Schools in predominantly Black neighborhoods tend to be overcrowded.
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    I do not know the situation in the USA in regards to schools.    But we get the same bovine excreta story about disadvantaged ethnicities suffering from poor schools in Australia.   Let's look at that and see if "white privilege" stacks up.   

    In 1979, with the election of the Whitlam socialist Labor government, all Australian government schools were almost entirely white.    My own boys only high school had 1000 boys and only two of them were Asian.  (Chinese)   Both of these boys were very high achievers and "straight A students."    In our overwhelmingly white society,  high school achievement was largely based upon suburban class affiliations.  Rich people sent their children to private schools where it was correctly assumed that they would receive a superior education.    These schools received government subsidies to keep school fees affordable, on the basis that private schools saved the taxpayer money by educating students privately, This did not suite the socialist Teachers Federation who constantly demanded that private schools  not receive taxpayer funds at all, even though the people who usually sent their kids to private schools were our societies highest taxpayers.    Demands to withdraw state funding of private schools feel on deaf ears when it was discovered that most of the socialist politicians had their kids in private schools.   Private schools produced the students with the highest marks.    Sending your kid to a private school almost guaranteed university entrance.

    However, it was understood that many kids from lower socio economic backgrounds had talent.    A "talent" is a form of high intelligence, so special public schools were set up to accommodate smart kids who worked hard, and these schools too had rates of university admission comparable to the private schools.  

    With the advent of non white immigration into Australia, interesting things began to happen.      To start with, the "special" public schools became very over represent by Asians, both east Asian and west Asian, while the majority of white kids who represented the rest were mainly Jews.    No white privilege or racism there, there.    Just brains and a work ethic. 

    The suburban schools which were almost exclusively white, and which catered for the not-so- academically minded (read, not so bright) students, largely supplied the trade sector with apprentices, farmers, or housewives.  .  In fact, some schools were uniquely set up as "trade schools" or "farming schools", and home science" classes taught girls how to cook and be mothers.    These schools were not bastions of educational enlightenment, because they did not need to be.  They just took it for granted that it was no use trying to educate students to a university level who were most commonly not smart enough to even want to go to university. 

    With the immigration of dysfunctional minorities, many notorious government schools in formerly white areas became dangerous places.    In six notorious government high schools in Sydney, security guards gad to be hired full time to protect teachers and students from violent students.    Teachers were even assaulted by the parents of these ethnic kids for discipling their children in the classroom.    Students attacked teachers cars parked in school car parks.,      Teachers were followed home from work and had their windows of their homes smashed by ethnic (usually Arab or Lebanese) students.      The Australian people were outraged.  High school students had never acted this way before.

    The socialist Teachers Union had a scam running where it assigned its own politically correct mates to the whitest and leafiest suburbs, away from the ethnicities they championed, but whom they preferred to kep at arms length.      New teachers straight out of teachers colleges were usually assigned to the now almost exclusively ethnic schools resulting in unacceptably high resignation rates from new teachers.  Relief teachers working for employment agencies flatly refused to go to schools in the "troubled" areas of cities with high infestations of dysfunctional and violent ethnic children.   It was also found that parents in the wokest suburbs were more inclined to send their kids to a private school to get away from the ethnic kids who were so disruptive and violent, than any other parental demographic.      Virtue signaling about the sanctity of racial equality was very important to the woke middle class, but not when it came to caring for their own children.    Reality bites.  







         
  • Are races equal?

    Yes, when handicap.

    The question to ask is why handicap a race? In America civil rights was used to set a political agenda downplaying incompetence.  Several generations of highly educated people establish imperfection and failed in the creation of states in union made with established  justice as a United States Constitutional Right. The effort was to kill two birds with one stone the problem is the stone only ever applies to one of the three birds

    The three birds are constitutional female voting, a constitutional female Presadera / Executive officer, and discrimination.


  • PepsiguyPepsiguy 81 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Yes all races are equal

    There is only 1 race, the human race. Sure some people have darker skin than others but we all part of 1 species, there are no subspecies. The only way to defeat racism is to acknowledge this.

    "Worse, the only explanation that this demographic could come up with to explain why certain ethnicities were always a crime and welfare problem in every western country they inhabited, was it was "all the white guys fault.""

    Well I have a better explanation: It's because these ethnicities have built up bad cultural institutions. An Example would include:

    These are not inherent. We can change the lives of blacks(and all people) by incentivizing good cultural institutions like school choice, nuclear family, etc. 
    jackJohn_C_87
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @Pepsiguy

    Pepsiguy wrote 

     There is only 1 race, the human race. Sure some people have darker skin than others but we all part of 1 species, there are no subspecies.

     That is completely wrong, Pepsiguy.     All human races are of the species homo sapien sapien, but the different ethnicities (or races) which make up the human race equate exactly to the term "sub species" (or breeds) in the animal world. 

      Species evolve from one to another.    But they do not jump from one species to another in a few hundred years.    It can take a very long time for one species to evolve into another species, as different environmental factors cause species to gradually change in shape and temperament to conform with wildly differing environmental factors.      African buffaloes are a species.    They are all capable of breeding with each other and producing fertile offspring.    Within that species are four sub species which look identifiably different to each other.    They are all dangerous, but one sub species, the Cape Buffalo, is extremely dangerous owing to it's inclination to attack other animals without any seeming provocation.  The Cape Buffalo is so dangerous it is part of the 'Big Five" of dangerous game.       Which just goes to show that genetic variability within species can affect behaviour as well as physical resemblance.   

     

    Pepsiguy wrote    The only way to defeat racism is to acknowledge this.

     Then we can not acknowledge this as your premise is demonstrably incorect.  


    Pepsiguy wrote

    Well I have a better explanation: It's because these ethnicities have built up bad cultural institutions. An Example would include:     We incentivizing single motherhood among blacks. The best way a child(of any background) can be raised is with a caring mother and father in a stable relationship. Too many black children are raised without a stable nuclear familyhttp://https//afro.com/census-bureau-higher-percentage-black-children-live-single-mothers/. This has caused black people to commit half of all murders in this country. Their victims are usually other blacks.

     These are not inherent. We can change the lives of blacks(and all people) by incentivizing good cultural institutions like school choice, nuclear family, etc. 

     Who is "we"?     Your "better explanation" looks like just another variation of "it's all the white guys fault."    In what way do "we" specifically "incentivize" black women to have children out of wedlock, and not white or Asian women?       

  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 439 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Not The Same

    @Bogan
    "different ethnicities (or races)"

    Your assumption that ethnicity and race are the same is very wrong.

    Ethnicity and race are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. Ethnicity refers to shared cultural characteristics such as language, ancestry, customs, and traditions. Race, on the other hand, is a social construct that has been used to categorize people based on physical characteristics such as skin color, facial features, and other traits.

    The concept of race is not based on any scientific evidence and has no biological basis. It has been used to justify discrimination, oppression, and social and economic inequality. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is a cultural concept that can be a source of pride and identity for individuals and groups. It is important to recognize and respect the cultural differences among people and to challenge any beliefs or actions that perpetuate racism or discrimination.

    jackJohn_C_87Dreamer
  • jackjack 135 Pts   -   edited January 4
    Bogan said:

    Are races Equal?

    Hello B:

    In what terms?  Physiologically, sociologically, culturally?   Based on those factors, of course they're equal.

    Hello again,

    I wasn't being glib.  The discussion points in this thread, such as IQ, affirmative action, slavery, money, where you live, and who your parents are, etc, ALL fall under the sociological banner.    And ALL of them stem from an intervention of some sort by people and/or government.  Absent that, can anybody say there's a difference between us?

    Surprisingly, Dreamer is the ONLY one who brought up systemic racism.  Smart girl.  I suggest that when systemic racism is lumped in with all the red lining, the KKK, Brown v Board of Education, slavery, Jim Crow, etc, it becomes clear that systemic racism is the underlying REASON that explains all of it.

    It's my guess that very few of the debaters here even know what systemic racism IS..  Most of you think it's a typo for systematic racism.  Amirit?

    excon



    Dreamer
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4891 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:

    To Maycaesar.  

     Oh, wow!    After 12 or more months of shunning me and giving me The Silent Treatment, you now want to contribute on this topic?       What's the matter?    Are you fed up of "debating" with mor-ons like Barnadot, Dee, Piloteer, and jack/excon?   Have you finally realised that I am a genuine and well informed debater who treats my opponents with respect if they do the same to me?     

     Look, Maycaesar, I don't think it is really worth my while engaging in debate with you, because I have previously criticised your debating style on this topic before, and you refused to lift your game.     Your position was, that it is taken as a given that races are equal, so that this is nothing that you need to support with a reasoned argument.   Your position then became, that I must support my premise with reasoned arguments which you always poo poohed,  while you never need do the same.    I find that unacceptable.   It is a dishonest debating tactic that I have experienced before, and I well aware of the futility of "debating" against an opponent who uses such tactics.

     So if you wish to contribute on this subject, submit a reasoned argument supporting your BELIEF that races are equal.   Or, keep giving me the silent treatment and go and "debate" with the trolls.

    If you debate fairly then I will be happy to address the reasonable positions that you have supplied in your last post.  

    You greatly overestimate your impact on my life, my friend. "Shunning you"? I do not even know who you are. I just see your comments all over the website with the same set of claims repeated over and over: I tried addressing them, but you did not bother to understand my arguments. Having made no progress, I did not want to waste any more time on this. Even here, you are still making the same mistake, despite countless evidence against the claim: that my position is "that it is taken as a given that races are equal".

    What is the point talking to someone who does not listen to you? The very first comment I addressed to you on this website literally started with the explanation that "equality" is contextual, and that the statement that "races are equal" dot is incoherent. 

    My comment here was addressed to those who want to know how to properly respond to this kind of questions. I did not have an actual expectation that you would suddenly change your mind and decide, for once, to actually understand someone's answer to your argument - and I was right not to have one, apparently.

    Let me make it clear once again, in case it still has not come through: I do not "believe that races are equal". In fact, they cannot be equal metaphysically: two absolutely equal entities, by definition, are the same entity - in this case, races being equal would imply that only one race exists, which is false. As I said somewhere else, I am exclusively attracted to Asian women, which would be impossible if all races were equal and, thus, women would not be differentiated by race in a meaningful way.

    All this said and done, any claim on the specific differences between races and their consequences must be backed up by sound arguments and experimental evidence. This is the missing link that I have been pointing out and elaborating on. For some reason you consider pointing out flaws in your arguments to be a dishonest form of debating. To me, that is all a debate is about: if the mistakes are not pointed out, then it is not a debate, but two lecturers talking past each other.
    jack
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @JulesKorngold

    JulesKorngold wrote    Your assumption that ethnicity and race are the same is very wrong.

     Hi Jules, I would dispute that premise.

     

    JulesKorngold wrote     Ethnicity and race are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing.

     Grammatically you are only partially correct.   If the terms race and ethnicity are used interchangeably by people who speak the English language, then most English speaking people regard them as either the same thing, or almost identical concepts.    It is like saying a ship is a boat.   Broadly, "race" refers to the four identifiably different skin colours which largely make up the human race.   "Ethnicity" is a more specific term which relates to sub groups within those four broad categories. 

     

    JulesKorngold wrote     Ethnicity refers to shared cultural characteristics such as language, ancestry, customs, and traditions. Race, on the other hand, is a social construct that has been used to categorize people based on physical characteristics such as skin color, facial features, and other traits.

     You are correct.    But that does not invalidate the fact that most English speaking people use the terms interchangeably.    I think that your premise is nit picking.     And I love it when my opponents claim that "race is a social construct".    Put your thinking cap on and think about that.    If race is a social construct, so is the concept that aces do not exist is a social construct.    Every category of thought invented by the human mind is a social construct.    Human beings categorise everything, and we look for differences in the categories to determine qualities about these concepts, so that we can understand what makes them different, and make predictions about them.      We categorise rocks, volcanoes, stars, fish, lizards, soil, vegetation, and everything else.    Historically, we have long categorized types of people.    Racial identification and profiling is not a new concept.    You can read Plutarch making racial assumptions about Celts and "Asians" in Anatolia in his book, 2000 years ago.

     

    JulesKorngold wrote    The concept of race is not based on any scientific evidence and has no biological basis.

     That is completely false.   I have heard that one before so many times, and it makes me laugh when my debating opponents say it.    You obviously do not know your science.    This is simply a slogan that you heard somewhere before, and since you wanted to believe it, you accepted it without question, and thought it must be true.     It is because you wanted to believe it, that you did not bother to turn on your critical analysis circuit to see if it made sense.      If you want to be smart, think smart.    Don't just accept everything you want to believe in without question. 

      Anthropologists are scientists who are involved in the study of the human race.    Often their work includes digging up old graves all over the planet.  They are intensely interested in the races of the people found in those graves.    Because sometimes, long dead people of different races turn up in places that nobody ever expected them to be in.    This gives them historical riddles to solve.     Recently, the desiccated bodies of red haired Celtic people were found preserved in dry sand graves in western China.  Figure that one out?

     Similarly, forensic biologists examine the skeletal remains of presumed murder victims, and they need to identify the identity of the victim.    One of the first things they determine is the victims race.    They do not say to police investigators, "We are scientists, we don't recognise the concept of race."    Of course they recognise race.    Racial characteristics in skeletons are so obvious that scientists can even tell if a person is of mixed race. 

     

    JulesKorngold wrote    It has been used to justify discrimination, oppression, and social and economic inequality.

     Science has been used for all sorts of evil purposes.    That does not mean that people should believe in humanitarian ideological fantasies, instead of hard facts, just because telling the unbiased the truth hurts their ears.    May the truth be told, though the heavens may fall.

     

    JulesKorngold    Ethnicity, on the other hand, is a cultural concept that can be a source of pride and identity for individuals and groups.

     Oh, I agree.    The problem is, my race, the white race, the race that invented the modern world and which created functioning societies that every other race (or ethnicity) either emulates or wishes to barge into, keeps getting blamed for the dysfunctions of every dysfunctional race (or ethnicity.)    I recognise that as racism against white people.    My people.    And if you are a white, then stop virtue signaling and recognise it too.      This anti white racism  is now even being taught in western schools to our kids as CRT.      So, since I will not accept completely unjustified racism to wards my people, I will endeavour to find out what is really the problem?     And if you really do think that you are a far seeing liberal, stop swimming with the tide of moral posturing, and start thinking straight.    That is what smart people have done throughout the ages, even though it never made them popular.

     JulesKorngold wrote    It is important to recognize and respect the cultural differences among people and to challenge any beliefs or actions that perpetuate racism or discrimination.

     I recognise CRT as plainly racism towards white people.   How come you can't see it?     Respect for cultural differences is the job of anthropologists, not the rest of us.    Unless you equate modern western civilisation with cannibalism, human sacrifice, misogyny, thugeeism, slavery, kleptocracies, and suttee?


  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Jack/excon wrote    Hello again,     I wasn't being glib. 

     Well, I will take that with a grain of salt.     My perception is, that you want to contribute to this topic, but you have realised that just chucking insults at me, and sneery one liners will just have me ignoring you.    My prediction is, that you are pretending to post in a reasonable way, but this is in the hope that you will get a reasonable response from me.    Then you will revert to type, and start chucking sneery one liners and insults at me again.  

    But okay, I will play along.   Prove me wrong.

     

    jack/excon wrote   The discussion points in this thread, such as IQ, affirmative action, slavery, money, where you live, and who your parents are, etc, ALL fall under the sociological banner I spoke about above. 

     IQ is largely hereditary, smart parents usually have smart kids.    Du-mb people almost always have dumb kids.     Smart people are usually successful people, and they live in wealthy suburbs.   They value education, are good parents, are productive, and mainly law abiding.  .  Du-mb people stay at the bottom of western society and abuse drugs, cigarettes, and alcohol, gamble too much, are bad parents, involve themselves in serious criminal behaviour, don't value education, eat too much fatty food, don't clean their teeth, refuse to work entry level jobs, and prefer to live on intergenerational welfare forever.    They also seek to blame everybody else for their circumstances.    Smart people of sound limb from even the lowest strata in society are upwardly mobile.     Your socialist programmers have taken a concept which is easy to understand, and put an entirely different perspective upon it, which conforms to their ideological position.   That position is a fantasy spread to gain electoral support from the ever growing lowest level of society.     This is not going to end well.


     jack/excon wrote    And ALL of them stem from an intervention of some sort by people and/or government.  Absent that, can anybody say there's a difference between us?

     People who find themselves at the lowest strata of society through injury, sickness, personnel tragedy, inherited mental problems, or other understandable concepts, are worthy of sympathy and societal help.    Often, because some of them are smart, they can overcome their poor start in life, and western society is probably better at producing that outcome than any other.       My own family is an example of that.    But too many people in the lowest caste just want a free ride.     Recently, Australians were outraged to discover that the New Zealand authorities were actually giving their most useless and crime prone members of New Zealand society free airline tickets to Australia, to get rid of them, and allow them to avail themselves of Australian welfare.    Unsurprisingly, welfare dependence and serious crime in Australia keeps rising.    This is not going to end well.

     

    jack/excon quote     Surprisingly, Dreamer is the ONLY one who brought up systemic racism.  Smart girl.  I suggest that when systemic racism is lumped in with all the red lining, the KKK, Brown v Board of Education, slavery, Jim Crow, etc, it becomes clear that systemic racism is the underlying REASON that explains all of it.

     I disagree.    I have pointed out to Dreamer that if systemic white racism is the cause of dysfunction among those ethnicities who are always dysfunctional, no matter in which western country they abide in, why does this not apply to Asians, who do even better than whites in western society?    It is a fantasy.    Blaming a "ghost in the machine" for minority dysfunction is only popular among those who believe in ghosts.

     In addition, "aboriginality" in Australia gives people who "identify" as "aboriginal" (even those with blond hair and blue eyes) massive benefits denied those of every other ethnicity.   That looks like "systemic black racism" to me.  This has hardly alleviated aboriginal dysfunction, but it has certainly enriched those with 1/64 aboriginal ancestry with plum government jobs, free legal aid, free university admissions, free university living allowances, and so many other benefits that white Australian girls in depressed rural areas see marrying an aboriginal man as the key to living comfortably on welfare forever.     This usually does not end well.   Aboriginal men have traditionally been, and still are, very violent toward their spouses.    Spouses of aboriginal men are 15 times more likely to be murdered than any other spouses.  How do you blame "white systemic racism" for that?


     jack/excon wuote    It's my guess that very few of the debaters here even know what systemic racism IS..  Most of you think it's a typo for systematic racism.  Amirit?

     Read back through you own statement, it does not make any sense.    "Systemic racism" is another word for CRT.    CRT is "blame the white guy for everything."    That is racism directed at white people.  I thought you were against racism?


    Dreamer
  • jackjack 135 Pts   -  
    Bogan said:

    I disagree.    I have pointed out to Dreamer that if systemic white racism is the cause of dysfunction

    Hello again, B:

    You're not an honorable opponent.  You can't/don't quote me correctly..  Your version of what I wrote, is WHITE people are the bad guys.  That's the OPPOSITE of what I said.  Here's what I DID say:

    " it becomes clear that systemic racism is the underlying REASON that explains all of it"   In case you missed it, I said it again.

    Can't debate someone who changes words..  You're just too slithery for me..

    excon



    Dreamer
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @jack

    Thank you for proving me right about you.   Please go and play the troll somewhere else.    
    Dreamer
  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Excellent points JulesKorngold


    Thank you JulesKorngold. I want to take the time to point out the excellent points you made. I find it easy to get so caught up in an argument that I forget to read other poster's comments and praise the best parts.

    Correct, ethnicity and race are not the same. I still have a lot of trouble disentangling the two in my mind. Yes, race is a social construct.

    "Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority."


    I agree, race is based upon religion and scientific racism pseudo-science. Again, awesome post thank you JulesKorngold. :)




  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Laught a lot, Bogan calling someone a troll.


    Why is it that the people with the highest amounts of troll behavior call others trolls? You are clearly race baiting. Then, when people dare to get upset your tone police them.

    "Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out "
    By Megan Gannon


    ""Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes.""


    Of course, Bogan believes in Qanon and sees themselves as a member of the army of light, fighting against the cabal, and protecting the sheeple. Therefore, I accept arguing will probably only push Bogan deeper into conspiracy thinking.

    " Spouses of aboriginal men are 15 times more likely to be murdered than any other spouses." Bogan

    Hmmm, disturbing I don't know the source, so I do not know if this is true. First, I would ask who was the murderer? Sounds redundant but if white people are killing the spouses of aboriginal men your argument falls apart. I know in America, Canada, United States, and Mexico that Indigenous Peoples and First Nations Peoples were terribly mistreated by European settlers.


  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  

    Dreamer wrote    Why is it that the people with the highest amounts of troll behaviour call others trolls?      

     Your accusation is without foundation.     I debate fairly.  I answer polite questions in full.    I submit premises, and give lengthy reasoned arguments to support my premises.  Something you have not bothered to do.       You are still trying to "debate" by simply posting links.      

     

    Dreamer wrote    You are clearly race baiting.

     Claiming that the white race is responsible for the unacceptable behaviour of certain notorious ethnic groups, or races, or whatever, is the race baiting of white people.    I do not understand why you would be surprised when we reject this anti white racism and shoot back?

     

    Dreamer wrote     Then, when people dare to get upset your tone police them.

     That is not true.   If people debate fairly and politely, then I respond the same way

     

    Dreamer wrote

     "Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out "

     By Megan Gannon

     https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

     ""Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes.""

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_society

     

    I will not debate against links.   I did it once for you because you were a new member, but I explained to you the three reasons why I will not do that.   If you agree with what your link says, read it, summarise it's salient points, and present it as your own premise.

     

    Dreamer wrote     Of course, Bogan believes in Qanon and sees themselves as a member of the army of light, fighting against the cabal, and protecting the sheeple. Therefore, I accept arguing will probably only push Bogan deeper into conspiracy thinking.

     

    I have heard references to this qanon somewhere, but I have no idea who or what they are?     One day, I may feel interested enough to find out what qanon is.

     

    Dreamer wrote

     " Spouses of aboriginal men are 15 times more likely to be murdered than any other spouses." Bogan

     Hmmm, disturbing I don't know the source, so I do not know if this is true. First, I would ask who was the murderer? Sounds redundant but if white people are killing the spouses of aboriginal men your argument falls apart. I know in America, Canada, United States, and Mexico that Indigenous Peoples and First Nations Peoples were terribly mistreated by European settlers.

     

    You seem to live in an alternate reality where wishful thinking replaces hard facts.     Aboriginal male violence towards aboriginal females was known from the time of the First Fleet.     As recounted by Lieutenant Watkins Tench in his book, "1788", which gave his account of early British settlement at Sydney Cove, Governor Phillip himself personally intervened to stop an aboriginal man from beating to death a young aboriginal woman.    According to Tench, the colonists were simply amazed at the level of violence that aboriginal men directed at aboriginal women.   Lieutenant Tench recounted his own meeting with a young aboriginal woman who he had never previously seen, but whom others had claimed was quite pretty..    He met her by chance near his own lodgings, and they both tried to converse with each other.    He touched the top of her head to check if there were lumps on her head from beatings with a club, and he was not surprised when he felt them.    The girl realised what he was doing, and she showed him the scar on her body where she had once been speared.    

     When I say that aboriginal women are 15 times more likely to be murdered, I mean by aboriginal men.    I know you young lefties want to believe that primitive people lived hobbit like existences, communing with nature, respecting the LGBTI rights, and agreeing to male and female equality, but you are living in dreamland.

  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Liberals can be racist too.


    "When I say that aboriginal women are 15 times more likely to be murdered, I mean by aboriginal men.    I know you young lefties want to believe that primitive people lived hobbit like existences, communing with nature, respecting the LGBTI rights, and agreeing to male and female equality, but you are living in dreamland." Bogan

    Some liberals do and what you described is the racist myth and stereotype of the noble savage. A good example of liberals being racist is the 1970's Earth day poster. Ironically, the poster was also racist because it used red face by an actor named Espera de Corti — an Italian-American.

    In summary, conservatives tend to be racist explicitly while liberals tend to be racist implicitly. Conservatives tend to use the ruthless savage warrior stereotype while liberals use the noble savage stereotype. Both are racist and bad.
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  

    Dreamer wrote     Some liberals do and what you described is the racist myth and stereotype of the noble savage.

     Thank you for confirming that liberals can be racist, while at the same time both virtue signalling and engaging in moral posturing, while claiming that they are vehemently anti racist.

     

    Dreamer wrote    A good example of liberals being racist is the 1970's Earth day poster. Ironically, the poster was also racist because it used red face by an actor named Espera de Corti — an Italian-American.

     I don't see anything wrong with actors playing a different race, unless the visual differences in the racial characteristics are glaring.        Mexican ethnicity actor Anthony Quinn famously played Zorba the Greek and people loved the movie and the character he played.    Quinn also played the famous Saudi warrior Abu Dey in "Lawrence of Arabia" so well, that when he turned up on the set with a false nose, Arab extras on the set went out of their minds with joy because they thought that Quinn really was Abu Dey.   That is what actors do, they act.   It is very much like saying that only actors who are accountants can play an accountant.     Or American actress Meryle Streep should never have played an Australian.

     What grates is when actors play an ethnicity which is either historically inaccurate, or they play roles in which the makeup is insufficient to hide their true racial identity.    Are you also opposed to male actors playing women?    And women actresses playing men?   I will bet you are not, as liberals like your good self regard transgenderism as something normal which should be extolled by tinsel town.     Or women playing ultra violent roles much more suited to near psychopathic men?    Which is the sort of behaviour that very few women would consider "feminine" behaviour"    This is one reason why Hollywood is going broke.  The selection of actors based solely upon their race, or female empowerment movies made by Hervey Weinstein,  is what is turning off audiences.      Go woke, go broke. 

     

    Dreamer wrote    In summary, conservatives tend to be racist explicitly while liberals tend to be racist implicitly.

     I haven't heard that one before.  That could be another way of saying that conservatives are much more honest and open, while liberals are much more devious and sly.      I suppose liberals are racist towards white people by implication only, on the principle of "always imply, but when challenged, deny."

     

    Dreamer wrote    Conservatives tend to use the ruthless savage warrior stereotype while liberals use the noble savage stereotype.    Both are racist and bad.

     If you admit that both liberals and conservatives are racist, then racism looks pretty normal to me.   Racism can be simply loyalty to ones own group, which I always thought was usually a virtue?     Racism can also be a form of a stranger danger attitude, which every parent teaches it's child to be aware of.     Racism can also be an impartial examination of known facts, in which a neutral observer notes that generally speaking, darker races make better runners, poorer swimmers, are more evolved to cope with hot sunny climates, but are less academically gifted, than lighter skinned people.     Racism is also the blaming of one race or ethnicity for the dysfunctions of the traditionally dysfunctional ethnicities, which liberals think is perfectly okay.    Affirmative action is also racism, do you disapprove of that?   

     In short, racism is simply a manifestation of in group - out group aggression, which just happens to be a normal part of the group psychology of everyone.     It is not so much automatically wrong, because everybody does it.      It is more a matter of degree or context, and whether the in group - out group hostility, usually fuelled by the competition for resources by two competing group, or how much one group is aggressive towards another, is justified by one group or the other.  Two groups of people who do not like each other will always think up nasty names for each other.   That too can be racism, but once again, if everybody does it, it is hardly a Cardinal sin.  

     My perception is, that liberals consider racism as the root of all evil , and nothing less that the total elimination of racism will see the world rise into the sunlit uplands of enlightenment, where everyone of every race will dance round the low carbon emitting fire singing "Kumbaya."     Eliminating all forms of racism is just like eliminating all forms of sin.  It ain't gonna happen.   But that will never stop the evangelicals for thinking that they can do it.

  • DreamerDreamer 61 Pts   -   edited January 6
    Argument Topic: Performative activism a difficult and emotional topic for me.

    Hi Bogan,

    Rant alert, this post is longer than usual. Your ad hominem accusing me of virtue signaling hit upon a sore spot. Over a year ago I got publicly shamed and cancelled for being a performative activist troll. I tried my best to defend my self and say I was genuinely anti-racist, and failed to convince the liberal woke mob.


    I am still sad and angry at the events that took place. There is nothing I can do to regain their trust. Any action I take only reinforces that I am virtue signaling.

    If I say I read this anti-racist book, White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo and declared I read the book. The liberal woke mob just says that's intellectualizing, virtue signaling, wanting the social capital for being anti-racist without making any real effort, and therefore racist trolling. Furthermore, they would say I was making it all about me by talking about myself and how I read the book White Fragility. Finally, when I tried to defend myself they would say that is White Fragility the fact that I am arguing with them and cannot realize how racist I am being is ironically classic white fragility.

    The point is being an anti-racist ally is really difficult. I am terrible at it. I come off as a moral posturing sea lion. Liberals often accuse me of not doing the bare minimum amount of research before engaging in social justice issues. That the links to feminist frequency for example are very basic and therefore the entire website of feminist frequency is just sea lion virtue signaling.

     This is not just on race either. For example if I say "gender is on a spectrum." I can be accused of making a token effort. Wanting the social capital without doing any work by members of the LGBTQIA+ community.

    I think it is the black sheep effect why liberals are so mean to other liberals. This is why I won't post on liberal websites, I am too afraid of liberals. On some level I am afraid to say anything in front of a group of liberals, anything I say can be seen as racist. I have had some liberals get very personal and accuse me of having only white friends and therefore I am racist.

     On the other hand virtue signaling and token effort does exist. A good example is recycling as a token effort. Some environmentalist claim recycling was invented by companies to put the environmental burden on customers. Recycling one can with a flourish is just a distraction from global warming.

      Some celebrities really do exploit the murder of George Floyd to boost their brand. The declaration of independence said everyone would be equal, yet they excluded females, Blacks, Indians, middle-class, and poor people. In other words only rich white men could vote. A great example of words, but lack of follow through until the voting rights act of 1965.

       In America we have a habit of not following through. The reconstruction is a good example, if reconstruction worked we would have never had Jim Crow.

        The frustrating part about accusations of virtue signaling is there really is performative allyship. An ad hominem attack that is easy to accuse someone of and nigh impossible to defend against. The nightmare of trying to convince people that you are anti-racist, and the harder you try the more they think you are racist and the angrier and nastier the responses.

       Each apology being seen as an insincere strategic move and trolling. The fact that even apologizing can backfire and make the woke mob seethe. The point is you may simply be correct Bogan. That every post I have made here on debateisland about race may be simply a token effort and thus virtue signaling.

      In my defense, which by the way defending yourself against an accusation of virtue signaling is white fragility and therefore racist. Arguing against an accusation of racism always equals white fragility.

       Anyways, I will do the best I can. I sincerely believe that racism is damaging to everyone. Prejudice has been used a a method of social control.

       "There’s a perception that whiteness is working for white people. It’s not. Whiteness is one of the biggest and most long-running scams ever perpetrated." Quinn Norton


       That anti-racism helps other social causes like ending classism, the pandemic, and climate change. I am anti-racist because I benefit from anti-racism. The social capital if any, since being anti-racist has backfired on me and often only revealed my own unconscious biases, is just bonus. Racism is how we end up in disastrous wars like Iraq.

      I also realize that some people across the political spectrum will only see this post as yet another racist white fragility rant, despite my best efforts to be anti-racist. I know I am not the most knowledgeable, or intelligent, but I am doing the best I can.

        


    jack
  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  

    Hi Bogan,   Rant alert, this post is longer than usual. Your ad hominem accusing me of virtue signaling hit upon a sore spot. Over a year ago I got publicly shamed and cancelled for being a performative activist troll. I tried my best to defend my self and say I was genuinely anti-racist, and failed to convince the liberal woke mob.

     Hahaha.    Hi Dreamer.  You and I might be closer in life experiences than you think.     This might be a unique opportunity for me to turn you away from The Dark Side.    In the words of singer Cat Stevens, "I was once like you are now", a committed anti racist young lefty, but I had a "falling off  the donkey on the road to Damascus" moment which forced me to look at the entire leftist worldview, and question it's entire basis.

     That was, I as a young tradesmen from the lowest "underpriveleged" class found myself through circumstances associating with a crowd of university activist types who were very politically active.     I think that they only barely tolerated me because I was a genuine member of the working class, a class that they claimed to champion, but who I began to realise they really despised.      The same university types who today we would call the woke crowd, the very same ones who never stopped banging on about racism and inequality, were the biggest snobs around.   They looked down their noses at anyone who did not own ( or who was not studying for) a degree.    

     I began to see leftism among the usually well off university caste as simply class affiliation and class identity.    It is a political fashion, as essential to left leaning university educated people as the clothes in their clothing catalogues.    As a matter of fact, you may have even noticed that they neither wear working class attire or clothes more appropriate to the upper classes?   Since they need to demonstrate their unique class difference, they have their own fashions (often from adventure, mountain climbing, camping, or upper scale outdoor clothing stores) and even their own hairstyles. (man buns for males).    The fashion is sort of funky prole.

     In 1900, university educated people comprised around 5% of any western population, and most of them were part of the Establishment.     Artz degrees types had always existed, and they had always been left wing.    But their numbers were small and they were usually dismissed by people as "eggheads".

     But today, university educated people comprise about 40% of western populations and they have become a significant voting demographic.     Convinced that they are smarter than the deplorable" working class  proles that they detest, and more virtuous than the crass business class (who are usually their parents), they have a conviction that their class, and only their class, know much better than anyone, how everything should be done.

     This leads a lot of them vulnerable to the idea that all they need do to show their social separation from the other classes and to display their virtue and supposedly superior intelligence, is to adopt the causes manufactured for them by the leftist leaders of this new caste of  moral and intellectual superiors.   This is the Brahmin caste they so desperately wish to be seen as being a part of.      Thank you for telling me of your experiences of not being accepted as one of the real activist class, it is the first time I have known about social superiority and snobbery actually within university activist class itself.    Knowing leftism from the inside, I am not surprised.     And having a life experience similar to your own, I know that the arch elitists really know how to talk down to their inferiors. 

     To be accepted as a member of the socialite socialists and the Gucci greenies, a university degree and a conviction in the belief in traditionally holy leftist causes is mandatory.     They can froth at the mouth over a dozen leftist causes, but the one which really revs them up is racism.     To not believe in human racial equality among leftists is like Catholics not believing in The Resurrection. And if you are a Catholic and you don't believe in the Resurrection, then you had better keep your mouth shut.    They don't burn you at the stake anymore, but I am sure that they would if they could.     And leftists today admire that sort of  forceful commitment to ideological conformity. 

     I began to see the connection between extreme religious beliefs and extreme social beliefs.    In both cases, group members (whether sought or unsought) need to display their constant devotions to the mandatory belief system which is a part of their group identity.    Among all social groups, there are those who appear to have a compulsive psychological need to display that they are the most holy or politically correct than the other (lower) members of their religious or political group.  Hierarchies are everywhere. 

     I think your experience reflected your inability to be considered by your snobby peers as being a part of the upper members of the social group of intellectual and moral superiors you aspire so desperately to be a part of.

     

    Dreamer wrote    I am still sad and angry at the events that took place. There is nothing I can do to regain their trust. Any action I take only reinforces that I am virtue signaling.

     Then there is another route to self respect.    Start thinking straight and realise that almost everything they have convinced you of as the font of all wisdom and virtue, is simply an exercise in mind control.

    It also allows them to delegate your social position in the social strata of their social hierarchy    It is based upon the deep psychological need that human beings have for acceptance within their own social group.     Stop associating with pseudo intellectuals and look at the lives of real intellectuals.

      Voltaire once wrote that the reason he was a radical was because conservative people were so ignorant, snobby, intolerant, and humour free, while anti establishment types were intelligent, fun loving, and full of humour.    Correct me if I am wrong, but leftism today is the new conservatism.    And "conservatives" are the new punk.    It is leftists today who are intolerant, without humour, demanders of a social conformity of their own invention, and possessing a lack of intelligence,

    which the Greeks called "Hubris".    That is, stupidity caused by arrogance.   They think that everything they support or oppose must be correct, not by an impartial examination of the facts, but because their elevated social position means that they can never be wrong.     Aristocrats used to think like that.  These guys are the new pseudo aristocrats.    

     The British army lost almost every battle it was in for 200 years because it was full of university or staff college trained id-ots who thought like that.    And often they lost battles to barely literate Boer farmers or illiterate tribesmen who knew how to think straight.    German General Luderdorff once quipped that "The British soldier fights like a lion, but is led by donkeys."  The Boer generals once made it a crime, punishable by death, for any Boer soldier to shoot a British General.   Upper class

    British generals were so stu-pid that they were winning the war for the Boers.

     

    Dreamer wrote    If I say I read this anti-racist book, White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo and declared I read the book. The liberal woke mob just says that's intellectualizing, virtue signaling, wanting the social capital for being anti-racist without making any real effort, and therefore racist trolling. Furthermore, they would say I was making it all about me by talking about myself and how I read the book White Fragility. Finally, when I tried to defend myself they would say that is White Fragility the fact that I am arguing with them and cannot realize how racist I am being is ironically classic white fragility.

     Yup.   You are not as holy as they are because you are not evangelising enough.     So they regard you as their social inferior.    And this from a crowd who never stop banging on about equality and equity.

     

    Dreamer wrote    The point is being an anti-racist ally is really difficult. I am terrible at it.

     Perhaps it is time to re examine the position of your opponents?      Perhaps the reason you are "terrible" at promoting the causes manufactured for you by your supposed social superiors is because their causes are morally and intellectually bankrupt?       They don't pass the scratch, sniff, and taste test.    

     

    Dreamer wrote    I come off as a moral posturing sea lion. Liberals often accuse me of not doing the bare minimum amount of research before engaging in social justice issues. That the links to feminist frequency for example are very basic and therefore the entire website of feminist frequency is just sea lion virtue signaling.

     You come off to me as a genuine person who really does believe in what I would consider a false narrative.     You are not like the trolls  Dee, Barnadot, Piloteer, or jack/excon.     You really do believe in your causes and you wish to test your convictions fairly in free debate.    Therefore, I judge you to have above average intelligence, and a person worthy of debating with.  I enjoy our exchanges.

     

    Dreamer wrote     This is not just on race either. For example if I say "gender is on a spectrum." I can be accused of making a token effort. Wanting the social capital without doing any work by members of the LGBTQIA+ community.    I think it is the black sheep effect why liberals are so mean to other liberals.

     Oh, lefties are very intolerant of anyone expressing the most tangential doubt in the sanctity and Absolute Truth in their holy scriptures.    That gives them an excuse to display their natural intolerance and grade their devotees within the social strata, according to the adherence to the holy writ of the Party line.

     

    Dreamer wrote    This is why I won't post on liberal websites, I am too afraid of liberals.

     Well, I am not afraid of them at all, because I know that they are either bullies with their own self aggrandising agenda, or doe eyed young converts sprouting the Party line.     I love putting the fox among the chickens and watching them go berserk.    Naturally, I don't last long on liberal websites.    They always chuck me off because they can not debate rationally, and they don't want a heretic like me making sense to their doe eyed young converts.

       That should be your biggest clue as to which side is mostly right and which side is mostly wrong.    People who do not really believe in their own causes are frightened of free debate.    They know that in free debate, they will be asked to justify their opinions, and nearly all of them can not do that.   Although, I can tell you that I have met opponents who know debating tricks which can frustrate people new to debate.    Maycaesar has tried one on me.   But they won't work on me anymore. 

     The opinions of many young leftists have been culturally conditioned into them and all they have to go on are slogans, which are a substitute for reasoned thought.    Since I have heard all of these slogans before, and I know it is because they have never taken an unbiased view and done their homework,     it is easy for me to counter them.

     

    Dreamer wrote   On some level I am afraid to say anything in front of a group of liberals, anything I say can be seen as racist.

     Hahaha.  I will bet it is.     If you associate with people who are that intolerant, then I think it is time you stopped admiring them, started pitying them, and got more intelligent friends.    As afar as I can see, there are a lot of very intelligent social bloggers who think a lot like me, and some of them might even be considered traditional rational leftists.   Dan Bongino, Charlie Kirk, Candice Owen, Anne Marie Waters, Mark Steyn, Brenden O'Neill, Douglas Murray.  Milo Yianopoulas.  Ben Shapiro, Trey Gowdy, Dinesh D'souza, Steven Crowder, and John Stossel to name just a few.

     

    Dreamer wrote    I have had some liberals get very personal and accuse me of having only white friends and therefore I am racist.

     There is nothing wrong with preferring your own race, or even from people within your own social position.   It is a cultural universal that people wish to be among those who they feel akin to, whom they feel safe among, and who they feel have the same values and attitudes as they have.    That is not racism or classism, it is the human condition.   That is why social layering, even among one race, always occurs.    In countries cursed by multiculturalism, it is self evident reality that ethnic ghettoes and ethnic clustering will always appear.   I have yet to hear of a suburb where Jews and Muslims exist at all, much less in perfect social harmony.    They prefer to keep as far away from each other as they can.

     

    Dreamer wrote    On the other virtue signalling and token effort does exist. A good example is recycling as a token effort. Some environmentalist claim recycling was invented by companies to put the environmental burden on customers. Recycling one can with a flourish is just a distraction from global warming.

     Don't get me started on global warming.     You and I will be on opposing sides again, at the moment I think I can getting you to think straight.   My aim is to get you to a "tipping point."

     

    Dreamer wrote    Some celebrities really do exploit the murder of George Floyd to boost their brand.

     Celebrities are crucial to selling leftist policies to young people.   The leftist leadership know that the numerous fans of role model celebrities will buy any product associated with their celebrity heroes.   This is because the fans have a deep psychological need to be just like the role model heroes they idolise.    This can be exploited by clever people who use this fact to sell products, and to get the fans to adopt their idol's social and political views.   

      So, supporting celebrities who toe the Woke party line and cancelling those who are heretical, is important in Spreading The Word of Wokism.    It is so effective, that pop stars and movie stars can travel around the world in their private jets and associate with the filthy rich on their gas guzzling mega yachts, while banging on about climate change.     The fact that the fans are indeed brainwashed (conditioned) is evidenced by the fact that the fans can not recognise this pure hypocrisy by their own idols.   Psychologists call this condition "cognitive dissonance."

     

    Dreamer wrote    The declaration of independence said everyone would be equal, yet they excluded females, Blacks, Indians, middle-class, and poor people. In other words only rich white men could vote. A great example of words, but lack of follow through until the voting rights act of 1965.

     Yeah.    The middle class males who claimed that everybody was equal, were slave owners and did not tolerate the thought that women in Congress.  They proposed a moral principle, and championed it like it was the basis of all truth, and they did not believe a word of it themselves.     Now compare that to today's virtue signallers.    They bang on about equality and equity, as if it is the font of all truth.    But the way they treated you and me, displays that they do not believe a word of it themselves.      I began to look askance at the real motivations of leftists and started drawing my own conclusions.    You are displaying to me the intellect that you can do the same.

     

    Dreamer wrote    In America we have a habit of not following through. The reconstruction is a good example, if reconstruction worked we would have never had Jim Crow.

     Well, I am sure you will disgree with my own opinions there, but here goes.      Every human civilisation, and even within primitive tribes, practiced slavery.     So it was already long ingrained in the human condition as acceptable.   Even slavery within races.      The existence of a race of people whom other races considered of low intelligence simply reinforced the idea that there was an hierarchy of races, with blacks being at the bottom.       It was the real intellectuals of the western world who, to their undying credit, first challenged this long held social belief.     But as usual, when the pendulum swung, it swung too far in the opposite direction, and they went from one extreme position to the other.    Today, pseudo intellectuals think that races must be equal in every way, except skin solar protection, and they would probably dispute that too if they could.

     "Jim Crow" was probably resulted from those Southern white people who knew the African blacks better than the supposedly more morally superior northerners.     They wrongly thought that they were all of low intelligence and that they were all extremely violent.   They knew that that unless African blacks were not kept down, then they would eventually destroy white US civilisation because it was impossible to integrate such violent and low IQ people into a white western society    To give them equality, and not keep them down by force, would eventually see the cities of the USA decaying and burning.     Sad to say, given the situation in black dominated cities today, I think they had a partial  point.    Although I disagree with their idea that all blacks are of low intelligence.    And I think that most white southerners are not as racist as they once were, because long experience with Africans has also shown that some Africans are intelligent and can be their social equals.     Probably every racist white American knows at least one African he or she likes or even admires.

     

    Dreamer wrote    Each apology being seen as an insincere strategic move and trolling. The fact that even apologizing can backfire and make the woke mob seethe. The point is you may simply be correct Bogan. That every post I have made here on debateisland about race may be simply a token effort and thus virtue signaling.

     I think you are trying too hard to display your class affiliations instead of using your head and thinking for yourself.    To conform to your class aspirations, it is mandatory to virtue signal.    Then you get caught in the trap of a virtue signalling hierarchy, where you are judged upon whether your proselytising efforts are enough for social acceptance.   

     

    Dreamer wrote.  In my defense, which by the way defending yourself against an accusation of virtue signaling is white fragility and therefore racist. Arguing against an accusation of racism always equals white fragility.

     The accusation of "White fragility" is just racism directed at white people.    I can see that, so I just laugh it off.   My hope is that I can make you see it too?    It is an accusation thrown at white people to put us on the defensive, and to make the accuser think that they are morally superior.    It is not an argument which even examines whether races are equal or not.   It presupposes that those who believe in racial equality are strong, smart, and virtuous, while those disgusting and inferior white people are weak and fragile. 

     

    Dreamer wrote     Anyways, I will do the best I can. I sincerely believe that racism is damaging to everyone.

     While what I am trying to get through to you, is that your belief has been culturally conditioned into your head.    It has no basis in fact.    It is exactly like believing in an earth centred universe.    To not believe in an earth centred universe was once considered heretical, because it caste doubt upon the idea that the earth and it's Christian human inhabitants were unique.     You have been conditioned to believe that racism is the font of all evil.    So you and the snobs you seem to want to join, go around trying to explain away every failure of every social program based upon this noble humanitarian ideology, to ever work.     But you can not do that without engaging in a bit of racism, yourself.    Which should give a smart girl like you a clue that something is fundamentally wrong with the underlying reasoning which justifies your own social belief.

     If you have a problem which your cultural conditioning can not solve, then history tells us that smart people go somewhere they can think.    They divest themselves of all of their cultural preconditioning and they just look at the data, which they then examine with an impartial mind.    They switch on their critical analysis circuit and use logic to draw rational conclusions.     Often this puts them in direct conflict with the politically or religiously correct of the day.     I would like you to be one of those smart people and think for yourself, instead of just blindly following a political fashion, which just happens to be based upon a fundamental untruth.   An untruth propagated by social snobs who think that you are their inferior.    Or people who see a profit for themselves in propagating endless social programs based upon the false claim that all races are equal, which will supposedly end in a utopia where everybody is equal.

     Two thirds of the Australian Northern Territory education budget is wasted trying to educate one third of indigenous students for a 90% failure rate in NAPLAN testing.    The solution according to the activists?  "More money, more money, more money", to "close the gap" which can never close.   But there are a lot of people making money out of that.  

     

    Dreamer wrote.    Prejudice has been used a method of social control.   

     So has the demand for intellectual and moral conformity to a rationally insupportable ideal, and a lot of other things.    Everybody prejudges because it is part of the human condition.    The snobs who told you that prejudging is a means of social control, prejudged you.      If you agree with their premise, were they not excising social control over you?

     

    Dreamer woted

       "There’s a perception that whiteness is working for white people. It’s not. Whiteness is one of the biggest and most long-running scams ever perpetrated." Quinn Norton

       https://medium.com/message/how-white-people-got-made-6eeb076ade42

     

    C'mon gal.    Look at what was written, turn on your critical analysis circuit, and recognise the above statement as self evidently racism directed towards white people.  It is denigrating an entire race using skin colour as the determinant of their supposedly socially unacceptable attitudes.    This obvious racial hypocrisy was probably written by a white person who thinks that he or she is displaying their superior holy devotion to moral superiority, by being a white self flagellant.    Perhaps if you self flagellate, you too may yet be accepted by the social snobs you aspire to join?

     

    Dreamer wote    That anti-racism helps other social causes like ending classism, the pandemic, and climate change. I am anti-racist because I benefit from anti-racism.

     You are not benefitting from anti racism if the anti white racists you aspire to be a part of reject your membership to their elitist caste, because they claim you are not a holy as they are.   You just got shunned, girl.    You better buy yourself a cat-of-nine-tails if you still aspire for membership.

     

    Dreamer wrote   The social capital if any, since being anti-racist has backfired on me and often only revealed my own unconscious biases, is just bonus. Racism is how we end up in disastrous wars like Iraq.

     Uh oh, I think I will leave that one alone before we go off on a tangent.      I think I might be beginning to get you to think straight, so I would like to concentrate more on what we can agree on, rather than what might divide us. 

     

    Dreamer wrote    I also realize that some people across the political spectrum will only see this post as yet another racist white fragility rant, despite my best efforts to be anti-racist. I know I am not the most knowledgeable, or intelligent, but I am doing the best I can.

     I see this as the post of an intelligent and decent young woman with high ideals, who obviously possess a functioning brain, and who has the drive to explore and test her opinions against a person who holds opposing views.    Views she may even believe are so wrong that they constitute real evil.   That is smart.  And she can do that without getting angry, another clear indicator to high intelligence.   My task is to delete from that fine brain all of the false programming which is causing it to give false readouts, and substitute a program which she may find may make better sense of the world that she seeks to understand.

  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    First off, i wish to apologise for not responding to your post earlier, I simply missed it in responding to another contributor.

     

    Nomeclature wrote    I think that's a laughable way to begin a post, since the only reason for doing so is to justify a racist point of view.

     I find it laughable that you consider a racist point of view not worthy of intellectual exploration.    If nobody had ever dared explore contentious hot issues, nobody would have explored concepts like an earth centred universe, a flat earth, or the origin of species.     People like you would have shouted them down.  Nice one, Nommie.

     

    Nomeclature wrote     Your claim that "university activist types" had no better answer than blaming whites for black crime is similarly ridiculous.

     Ever heard of CRT?      I was once a committed anti racist like yourself, but unlike you, I grew up.     What changed my mind was that long ago, I had the intellect to realise that those who claim to be the most ardent anti racists, were very racist towards white people, my people.     Surprise, surprise, this attitude which was once implicit, is now explicit.    CRT, which is simply anti white racism, is now being taught as a subject in western schools to our children.   

     My race, the white race, is now the subject of racist attacks.    And you think it is wrong for white people to shoot back?     Please turn on brain before engaging keyboard.

     

    Nomeclature wrote     Only a racist would divide crime along racial lines in the first place, so it's circular reasoning.

     First of all, you just stereotyped racists, which just goes to show that everybody stereotypes.    And it is hardly "circular reasoning" to point out that certain ethnicities are very disproportionately represented in serious crime. 

     

    Nomeclature wrote     Only a racist would reference racial crime statistics without bothering to check for a correlation to racial poverty statistics. 

     First of all, you are using the term "racist" as a conversation stopper.    You are implying that racists are people completely beyond the pale in terms of the social acceptance of their views.   Denigrating people's opinions based solely upon their group associations is called "bigotry."

     Second, criminologists no longer use the excuse of poverty as the reason for crime.   It may have been valid in pre welfare societies where very poor people had to steal to eat and survive.       But not in western societies today where "the poor" make a lifestyle choice to be on intergenerational welfare, rather than trouble themselves doing entry level jobs, which usually have pay scales the same as welfare recipients.    Meanwhile, millions of really poor people from outside that country will do anything to enter that country to avail themselves of entry level jobs that they see a an opportunity for either themselves to get ahead, or at least their children.


    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @Bogan
     I find it laughable that you consider a racist point of view not worthy of intellectual exploration

    If you truly felt that way then you wouldn't feel the need to apologise for your own views by beginning with the statement, "I was once a staunch anti-racist". You'd simply intellectualise your existing views. You're already being disingenuous in your first sentence, and I'm quite sure this is only going to get worse as you progress.

    If nobody had ever dared explore contentious hot issues, nobody would have explored concepts like an earth centred universe, a flat earth, or the origin of species.  

    You are turning history and logic upside down. Most people had racist views in the past. We moved beyond them once we got smarter and explored those issues. I say "we", but of course not all of us are smart enough to understand that race is an arbitrary concept in the first place. There's no scientific basis for it, so you're doing a remarkable job of presenting a completely unscientific point of view as a scientific one.

    CRT, which is simply anti white racism, is now being taught as a subject in western schools to our children.

    Do me a favour and put a sock in it. Your neo-Nazi ideology is annoying. Poor Aryans, perpetual victims, we must stand up for ourselves against the blacks and the Jews, yada, yada, yada. I've heard it all before buddy when I was studying the rise of the Nazis aged 13. It's dumb.

     First of all, you just stereotyped racists, which just goes to show that everybody stereotypes.

    What are you even talking about? This is your debate and you are the one talking about race. Are you actually mad?

    First of all, you are using the term "racist" as a conversation stopper.

    Then how have you managed to continue a conversation which I've apparently stopped? You're writing utterly nonsense and are very clearly an ultra far right political wingnut.

    You've written a massive reply and nowhere in that reply have you produced any intellectual basis for racism, so you might as well stop wasting everybody's time and zip it.


  • just_sayinjust_sayin 90 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    CRT, which is simply anti white racism, is now being taught as a subject in western schools to our children.

    Do me a favour and put a sock in it. Your neo-Nazi ideology is annoying. Poor Aryans, perpetual victims, we must stand up for ourselves against the blacks and the Jews, yada, yada, yada. I've heard it all before buddy when I was studying the rise of the Nazis aged 13. It's dumb.

    Surely you aren't rationalizing racism?  No one should be discriminated against because of her race.  Now I'm sure some think their racism is good racism because it is well intentioned.  But the problem with well intentioned racism is, well, its still RACISM!!!  States who wrote bills to prevent kids from affirming CRT principles have identified several racist beliefs that kids have been asked to affirm.  

    • That one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
    • An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive;
    • An individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of his or her race or sex;
    • A meritocracy is inherently racist or sexist;
    • Particular character traits, values, moral or ethical codes, privileges, or beliefs should be ascribed to a race or sex, or to an individual because of the individual's race or sex
    CRT is indeed being taught in schools.  Some school superintendents didn't get the memo to pretend that it is not true.  The superintendent of Detroit public school has proudly bragged that his district is teaching CRT.
    “Our curriculum is deeply using critical race theory especially in social studies, but you’ll find it in English language arts and the other disciplines,” said Superintendent Nikolai Vitti

    Tell me which of the beliefs mentioned above do you think kids should be made to affirm?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin
    Surely you aren't rationalizing racism?  No one should be discriminated against because of her race

    It was overt sarcasm. Accusing people of being racist against Aryans was how the Nazis justified their own racism. The ideology of abuse is when you blame other people for your own actions. 

    States who wrote bills to prevent kids from affirming CRT principles have identified several racist beliefs that kids have been asked to affirm

    The principle concept of CRT is that race is a social construct, which is scientifically correct. There is no scientific basis for race, so if you're dividing anything along racial lines then you're likely a racist.

    CRT is indeed being taught in schools.

    As it should be. It's scientifically accurate. Education should concern those things which are true, not those things you want to believe because of personal bias.

  • BoganBogan 266 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Nommie wrote     If you truly felt that way then you wouldn't feel the need to apologise for your own views by beginning with the statement, "I was once a staunch anti-racist". You'd simply intellectualise your existing views.

     I am hardly "apologizing" if I simply state that I was once like you are now.

     

    Nommie wrote     You'd simply intellectualise your existing views.

     I don't have any trouble doing that.    You seem to be struggling, though.

     

    Nommie wrote     You're already being disingenuous in your first sentence, and I'm quite sure this is only going to get worse as you progress.

     My premise was, I was once like you are now, but I grew up.    I examined impartially my once passionately held beliefs and realised that they were intellectually unsupportable.    Please explain how that is somehow being "disingenuous"?


    Nommie wrote    You are turning history and logic upside down. Most people had racist views in the past

    Well, I think I am turning the black armband view of history the right side up.    So, I can make the same accusation towards you.

     

    Nommie wrote We moved beyond them once we got smarter and explored those issues.

     I think we are getting to the nitty gritty.    If I asked you to explain to us how you know that races are equal, you would not have a clue about how to explain it.    It is a culturally conditioned response, a mental barrier inserted into your head which you have been programmed to never think past.   One aspect of your social conditioning (brainwashing) is that you really do think that "smart" people are anti racist, and that du-mb people are racists.     This reinforces the barrier in your head which stops you from thinking rationally.

     

    Nommie wrote      I say "we", but of course not all of us are smart enough to understand that race is an arbitrary concept in the first place.

     Once again we see that your convictions are based upon your own self esteem.   You support what you have been programmed to think is the "smart" way to think.   This puts a complete block on your ability to think on this issue.  Firstly,  It is difficult for me to reason against that because by opposing the idea that races are equal, I am in effect attacking one of the thought processes which underpins your own sense of self worth.     Secondly, I would be happy you debate with you  that the concept of race has no validity in reality.

     

    Nommie wrote    There's no scientific basis for it, so you're doing a remarkable job of presenting a completely unscientific point of view as a scientific one.

     Scientists recognise race.   Do you want me to give examples?     Could I make a point here?    Some fo-ol told you that science does not recognise race, and instead of thinking about it, doing some research,  and realising it was an untruth, you thought "Oh that's a good argument."       And so you base your opinion on an easily disprovable fact that you did not bother to verify.  

     

    Nommie wrote    Do me a favour and put a sock in it.

     Hahaha.   Some far seeing, intelligent, liberal social progressive you are.     I have no idea what you are doing on a debate site if you demand that your debating opponents just sh-ut up.   Obviously, you have pinned your self esteem to this topic and you are uncomfortable engaging in a debate with an opponent you know is well informed.      You are frightened that I will make a fool of you.    Well, I will if you keep up the sneery one liners, and the moral and intellectual posturing, instead of debating reasonably.   I enjoy putting a pin in inflated egos.

     

    Nommie wrote    Your neo-Nazi ideology is annoying. Poor Aryans, perpetual victims, we must stand up for ourselves against the blacks and the Jews, yada, yada, yada. I've heard it all before buddy when I was studying the rise of the Nazis aged 13. It's dumb.

    You should have studied harder.     When i was 13 I learned that Hitler blaming the woes of the German race on another race, is racism.    So when I see other races blaming my race for their woes on my race, I recognise it as racism.    Did you get an "F" in history?       CRT is anti white racism.    If you are against racism, then I am not sure how you justify opposing white people defending their race against a monstrous racist social theory, which depicts them as histories bad guys?  

     

    Nommie wrote    What are you even talking about? This is your debate and you are the one talking about race. Are you actually mad?

    I am talking about race because that part of the topic heading.    I am not insane or angry.    On the contrary, it is you who is displaying the clear signs of anger.    If I am getting such a negative emotional response from you, it is because you realise that your rational mind can not cope with countering my calmly submitted position.    "Anger" becomes your substitute for reasoned thought.  

     

    Nommie wrote     Then how have you managed to continue a conversation which I've apparently stopped?

     Because such tactics will never work on me.     But they are very effective in stopping conversation about race among people who are not as well informed as I am.

     

    Nommie wrote    You're writing utterly nonsense and are very clearly an ultra far right political wingnut.

    Okay, let's look at that.    If I am just a stu-pid wingnut, then a far seeing intelligent liberal like yourself should have no trouble at all using reasoned arguments to put me back in my box.    But that is something you are incapable of doing, and you know it.  Hence the anger.    Hence the insults.  And, you are stereotyping again.   So once again, you are using bigotry instead of a reasoned argument.   This is to put me on the defensive by calling me names you hope will silence me.   But it just won't work with me.

     

    Nommie wrote     You've written a massive reply and nowhere in that reply have you produced any intellectual basis for racism, so you might as well stop wasting everybody's time and zip it.

     That is what this topic is about.   So, if you think that races are equal, submit a reasoned argument supporting your position, and I will submit a reasoned argument supporting mine.    Both of us will critique each others replies, and ask reasonable questions, and try to paint each other into a logical corner that they can not escape from.    That is called "debating".    If you can not handle it, what on earth are you doing on a debate site?        For your information, you are not debating at all, so far.   You are merely heckling.   And telling your opponent to "zip it" is like saying "I know I can't handle this, so please go away."


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch