• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should hereditarians and race realists be allowed to express their opinions? (1 Viewer)

OP has the right to express his racist ass nonsense.

I have the right to laugh in his bigoted, stupid ****ing face.

And we have a right to know what Department smartcat heads in the Trump administration. Is this Betsy DeVos or Ben Carson? Mick Mulvaney? Steve Miller?
 
Racists are against words over two syllables. Words over four syllables are considered "liberal university brainwashing". I don't believe for one minute that racists would embrace the term "hereditarianism". The mere sight of such a long word would send most racists into violent fury.

Can't be real.
 
Racists are against words over two syllables. Words over four syllables are considered "liberal university brainwashing". I don't believe for one minute that racists would embrace the term "hereditarianism". The mere sight of such a long word would send most racists into violent fury.

Can't be real.

Anti racists find my erudition and articulate prose, and my calm demeanor irritating. I do not conform to their stereotype of the white racist. They think I should be a high school dropout who barely remembers how to read and write. They frequently do conform to my image of them as sanctimonious Virtue Signalers who believe incorrectly that insults and name calling compensate for the rational arguments they are unable to compose. :cool:
 
And we have a right to know what Department smartcat heads in the Trump administration. Is this Betsy DeVos or Ben Carson? Mick Mulvaney? Steve Miller?

During the 2016 primary I voted for Bernie Sanders. In the 2016 general election I voted for Hillary Clinton. In the 2020 primary I intend to vote for Joe Biden.

I was a charter member of the Democratic Socialists Organizing Committee. That later became Democratic Socialists of America.
 
Hereditarianism is the belief that genes, or more specifically gene alleles, are more important than anything else in determining ability - most importantly intelligence - and behavior - most importantly criminal behavior - than any other factor.

Race realism is the belief that race is an important biological classification for humans - similar to sub species among other animals - that the races differ significantly in average intelligence, criminal and sexual behavior, and that these differences are the result of evolving in response to different population pressures for thousands of years.

Hereditarianism and race realism are often considered to be racist, and for that reason unworthy of discussion, and meriting censorship.

I will begin this discussion by stating that I believe in hereditarianism and race realism. I believe that these have legitimate policy implications, and that policies that are based on assumptions about the human species that are incorrect are likely to have harmful results.

It is clear to me that agriculture and civilization have different population pressures than hunting and gathering, and that races that have practiced agriculture and civilization the longest are better suited to create and maintain successful civilizations than races that have been, comparatively speaking, more recently introduced.

I am defining a civilization as a city based society where the government has the effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. I believe that during most of history civilizations have selected biologically for intelligence, and against criminal behavior, while tribal societies have selected biologically for characteristics that are often disruptive for civilizations.

From a government/legal perspective, absolutely!

Should you get shielded from social ramifications due to such a vapid position, absolutely not!

Should private institutions be forced to carry your message? Nope

Should publicly funded private institutions be forced to carry your message? That is a matter of debate within society it seems. I veer towards yes provided there is no call to commit any crimes as a general principal.
 
Anti racists find my erudition and articulate prose, and my calm demeanor irritating. I do not conform to their stereotype of the white racist. They think I should be a high school dropout who barely remembers how to read and write. They frequently do conform to my image of them as sanctimonious Virtue Signalers who believe incorrectly that insults and name calling compensate for the rational arguments they are unable to compose. :cool:

What rational arguments? Where is your links to scientific data?

You have less than young Earth creationists, flat earthers, and climate change deniers. I bet you think ancient aliens made the pyramids too. But you will claim it all with a dignified air of calm and erudition, I am sure.:lamo
 
Last edited:
From a government/legal perspective, absolutely!

Should you get shielded from social ramifications due to such a vapid position, absolutely not!

Should private institutions be forced to carry your message? Nope

Should publicly funded private institutions be forced to carry your message? That is a matter of debate within society it seems. I veer towards yes provided there is no call to commit any crimes as a general principal.

When I was a child growing up in the South it was dangerous for me to say anything good about blacks, but I did anyway. Now it is dangerous for me to say anything critical of blacks, but I do anyway.
 
Appalachia is safe to walk through after dark, unlike black ghettos.

The two world wars, the bloodiest wars ever fought in all human history, were started on the European continent. The largest mass rapes ever recorded were perpetrated by victorious Russian troops going through Germany. Why?
 
When I was a child growing up in the South it was dangerous for me to say anything good about blacks, but I did anyway. Now it is dangerous for me to say anything critical of blacks, but I do anyway.

Your whole categories are in your head. You might as well be making blanket statements about bald people, short people, or those with freckles.
 
Last edited:
When I was a child growing up in the South it was dangerous for me to say anything good about blacks, but I did anyway. Now it is dangerous for me to say anything critical of blacks, but I do anyway.

I just say what I think most of the time, but I tend not to be blunt about it (because creative language is fun), so usually the more stupid racist types don't pick up on it.

I also lived in Georgia for a long time. I was in an 800 person town too and worked in a textile mill. I had black friends that whole time and nobody cared.
 
Read through my comments. You will find them.

They are rejected by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. The fact that you still tout them says more about what you really want to be true than what is. Go say it on Fox News. You might get more encouragement there.
 
A candid investigation of the relationship between genes, intelligence, crime and race, does not interfere with equal treatment under law. It does discredit arguments for affirmative action and racial reparations. Affirmative action and racial reparations themselves violate equal treatment under law.

No they do not. They seek to address long-standing racial prejudice and introduce some sort of social and educational parity with white people. Frankly your point of view verges on the sort of pointless race profiling the Nazis were fond of in their futile attempts at 'proving' their alleged racial, 'Aryan', superiority. The only thing they proved beyond any doubt was how stupid they were.
 
Last edited:
The two world wars, the bloodiest wars ever fought in all human history, were started on the European continent. The largest mass rapes ever recorded were perpetrated by victorious Russian troops going through Germany. Why?

If black run countries had the organizational skills of white and Oriental countries I am confident they would be at least as collectively lethal as white and Oriental countries have been on occasion. Think about what happened in Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi. Nevertheless, white and Oriental countries are safe to live in. Black run countries are not.
 
[Full disclosure. I'm a retired scientist.]

While philosophers find pleasure in coming up with theoretical ways to get around causality, it remains a firm foundation in science. Given the assertions in the OP, it's reasonable to ask for proof. What, specifically, causes the observed differences? What, specifically, is the mechanism involved?

Until this is established, we would do well to suspend judgment on the arguments presented. It's best to categorize them as beliefs.
 
Proof that malignant racism has not yet died out. HOW do you explain the advanced Muslim and African civilizations that existed when people in what is now Europe were raiding nomads?

Indeed; Arabs gave us mathematics (Al jabr), the Indian subcontinent first conceived the concept of 'zero' and many of our western 'inventions' originated in the far and middle east.

Science in the medieval Islamic world - Wikipedia

History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent - Wikipedia

These were advanced, established civilisations while western man was running around in animal skins, hunting and gathering and living in caves.
 
Last edited:
If black run countries had the organizational skills of white and Oriental countries I am confident they would be at least as collectively lethal as white and Oriental countries have been on occasion. Think about what happened in Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi. Nevertheless, white and Oriental countries are safe to live in. Black run countries are not.

A broader look at the sweep of history suggests otherwise. Your limited view is like that of someone looking at the horizon from their rooftop and becoming convinced that the Earth is flat.
 
Anti racists find my erudition and articulate prose, and my calm demeanor irritating. I do not conform to their stereotype of the white racist. They think I should be a high school dropout who barely remembers how to read and write. They frequently do conform to my image of them as sanctimonious Virtue Signalers who believe incorrectly that insults and name calling compensate for the rational arguments they are unable to compose. :cool:

A gentleman would never stoop to bragging about erudition and articulation. The insecure do.
 
Hereditarianism is the belief that genes, or more specifically gene alleles, are more important than anything else in determining ability - most importantly intelligence - and behavior - most importantly criminal behavior - than any other factor.

Race realism is the belief that race is an important biological classification for humans - similar to sub species among other animals - that the races differ significantly in average intelligence, criminal and sexual behavior, and that these differences are the result of evolving in response to different population pressures for thousands of years.

Hereditarianism and race realism are often considered to be racist, and for that reason unworthy of discussion, and meriting censorship.

I will begin this discussion by stating that I believe in hereditarianism and race realism. I believe that these have legitimate policy implications, and that policies that are based on assumptions about the human species that are incorrect are likely to have harmful results.

It is clear to me that agriculture and civilization have different population pressures than hunting and gathering, and that races that have practiced agriculture and civilization the longest are better suited to create and maintain successful civilizations than races that have been, comparatively speaking, more recently introduced.

I am defining a civilization as a city based society where the government has the effective monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. I believe that during most of history civilizations have selected biologically for intelligence, and against criminal behavior, while tribal societies have selected biologically for characteristics that are often disruptive for civilizations.

First, I congratulate you on bringing the race discussion beyond the "n word" and "blackface". These items are akin to discussing the price of tea in China on the Titanic as it's sinking. Whites rioted in the Boston busing crisis of 1974 without the benefit of having a confederate statue nearby to cheer them on. A few months ago the media couldn't stop talking about the stupid statues.

I agree with the spirit of your post with a major caveat and a few additions. I think "breed" would be better used in place of "sub species" to describe the difference between races.

I will have to admit that I believe there is partially a biological reason why I am more threatened by a black man than a Japanese woman. Regardless of whether one believes this is biological or cultural (people like to blame 'poverty' for violence), the social effect is the same: self-segregation and lower standards for the more violent racial segment.

The most murderous countries are in central and South America (we would call these people Hispanic), not Africa. However, blacks in the US are far more murderous than Hispanics, even though their poverty rate is roughly the same. This suggests culture plays a large role.

I disagree with the concept that these differences, caused by a combination of biology and culture, are deserving of policy implications. To do so would be to lower expectations for one race, and by extension, raise the esteem for another race. The media has done great damage already by holding different races to different standards: whites are regarded as superior (for whatever reason) by virtually everyone.

I went on a white supremacist board a few years ago to see how they think. One post struck me: Someone posted that blaming blacks for being 8 times more murderous than whites would be like blaming a pitbull for attacking someone. This is "lower standards" at work. Liberals get there in a different way, but it's lower standards just the same.

I think functionally, no matter the mechanic by which it happens, if we 'expect' more violence, poverty or unemployment from one race over another, we are part and parcel of the core issue.

I don't think many of us here would want our own race to be treated with less regard than other races, therefore I can't recommend that we do policy changes based on race, it will only exacerbate the problem. To sum up, I expect a black man to not attack me in the same way I expect a Japanese woman not to attack me - I hold them to the same standard.
 
1. Being a lifelong coward, I will -- of course -- not comment on the merits or demerits of your views.

2. I will just say two things and immediately stop:

a. You are a very courageous person if you state these opinions at school or work.

b. There are some topics that are so hurtful that most Americans have agreed that for the sake of domestic tranquility NOT to publicly discuss these topics in public, which includes the Internet.
 
1. Being a lifelong coward, I will -- of course -- not comment on the merits or demerits of your views.

2. I will just say two things and immediately stop:

a. You are a very courageous person if you state these opinions at school or work.

b. There are some topics that are so hurtful that most Americans have agreed that for the sake of domestic tranquility NOT to publicly discuss these topics in public, which includes the Internet.

TheParser,

Your comment is well spoken. Political correctness can be seen as lying on behalf on social harmony. An outspoken race realist is similar to a guest at a Georgetown dinner party who tells the person sitting next to him that the hostess worked her way through Vassar as a call girl. Even if everyone knows that this is true, no especially if everyone knows that this is true, that dinner guest is likely to be removed from the invite lists of future dinner parties.

Nevertheless, when the truth hurts, it is sometimes necessary to inflict pain. When topics like immigration, affirmative action, race reparations, and race profiling are broached it becomes necessary to draw attention to the truths underlying race realism in order to prevent political policies that will be harmful.

You should keep in mind that there are environments where it is not only safe but expected to discuss the truths of race realism. For example, in a work situation where blacks are hired by affirmative action many whites and Orientals are likely to resent the fact that more intelligent white and Orientals friends of theirs were not hired. They are likely to resent the fact that they are expected to do those blacks' jobs for them. If there are a large number of blacks who are visibly not performing adequately, and if in addition they are unpleasant to work with, a person who denies the truths of race realism is likely to be ostracized.
 
Last edited:
If black run countries had the organizational skills of white and Oriental countries I am confident they would be at least as collectively lethal as white and Oriental countries have been on occasion. Think about what happened in Rwanda between the Hutu and the Tutsi. Nevertheless, white and Oriental countries are safe to live in. Black run countries are not.

Have you checked your violent crime rate recently? I wouldn't call America safe, not by a long shot.
 
TheParser,

Your comment is well spoken. Political correctness can be seen as lying on behalf on social harmony. An outspoken race realist is similar to a guest at a Georgetown dinner party who tells the person sitting next to him that the hostess worked her way through Vassar as a call girl. Even if everyone knows that this is true, no especially if everyone knows that this is true, that dinner guest is likely to be removed from the invite lists of future dinner parties.

Nevertheless, when the truth hurts, it is sometimes necessary to inflict pain. When topics like immigration, affirmative action, race reparations, and race profiling are broached it becomes necessary to draw attention to the truths underlying race realism in order to prevent political policies that will be harmful.

You should keep in mind that there are environments where it is not only safe but expected to discuss the truths of race realism. For example, in a work situation where blacks are hired by affirmative action many whites and Orientals are likely to resent the fact that more intelligent white and Orientals friends of theirs were not hired. They are likely to resent the fact that they are expected to do those blacks' jobs for them. If there are a large number of blacks who are visibly not performing adequately, and if in addition they are unpleasant to work with, a person who denies the truths of race realism is likely to be ostracized.

You are attempting to intellectualise your obvious racism ("race realism"), with pseudo-scientific nonsense. It isn't working. Back to Stormfront with you.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom