What is a racist?

[redbeer]

There may be a few black racists, but they are a small minority compared to the latent and often open racism of Trump's Republicans. And his white supremacist followers.

Nothing but lies and reverse racism.

 

[bomberfox]

There's a rumor going around that homosexuals are sexually attracted to members of their own sex. That makes them different from me. :2razz:

In addition, homosexuals seem to be more intelligent, on the average, than heterosexuals. That is my impression, although I have not been able to find confirmation on the internet. My theory about homosexuality is that it is caused by a gene that is dominant for higher intelligence, but recessive for homosexuality. It this is true, homosexuality would be passed down through the generations the way sickle cell anemia is passed. The gene for sickle cell anemia is recessive for sickle cell anemia, but dominant for resistance to malaria.

Confirming you dont understand the concept of dominant and recessive genes lol...

 

[bomberfox]

If you can post the results of reputable tests for intelligence that show that the races are intrinsically equal in average intelligence, please do so.

They are reputable. I just did.

 

[bomberfox]

That link says that blacks have reduced the gap with whites, not that they have eliminated it.

In "The Inequality Taboo" Charles Murray wrote:

"The most important change in the state of knowledge since the mid-1990's lies in our increased understanding of what has happened to the size of the black-white difference over time. Both the task force and The Bell Curve concluded that some narrowing had occurred since the early 197O's. With the advantage of an additional decade of data, we are now able to be more precise: The black-white difference in scores on educational achievement tests has narrowed significantly. The black-white convergence in scores on the most highly "g-loaded" tests—the tests that are the best measures of cognitive ability—has been smaller, and may be unchanged, since the first tests were administered 90 years ago...

"So black and white academic achievement converged significantly in the 197O's and 198O's, typically by more than a third of a standard deviation, and since then has stayed about the same. What about convergence in tests explicitly designed to measure IQ rather than academic achievement? The ambiguities in the data leave two defensible positions. The first is that the IQ difference is about one standard deviation, effectively unchanged since the first black-white comparisons 90 years ago. The second is that harbingers of a narrowing difference are starting to emerge. I cannot
settle the argument here, but I can convey some.

"The case for an unchanged black-white IQ difference is straightforward. If you take all the black-white differences on IQ tests from the first ones in World War I up to the present, there is no statistically significant downward trend."

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

Reducing the gap over a shorter time span than would be necessary for the sort of genetics Murray refers to shows he is missing a lot of things. This also shows you didnt actually read the study as it shows improvement into the 2000s. Remember the brookings institute study includes cognitive tests on par with what Murray uses, not academic achievement tests. The study i linked tackles Murray and Rushton on their own grounds to include studies that are “loaded on g grounds”

When you try to pass off an alt reich radio show host off as reputable, dont talk to me about reputable sources.

 

[Torus34]

Even given the definition(s) of the OED, there is room for discussion about the actual classifications of h. sapiens into specific, well-defined races.

Our English [Ed.: Some might say American,] language is in a constant state of flux. Words change their meanings with time. Meanings may become diluted, may be sharpened and may even be reversed. We are seeing that with 'racism'. Consider its use with regard to 'Hispanics'. Hispanics are, for many, those whose mamaloshen is Spanish or one of its many dialects. 'Nuf said.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[bomberfox]

Furthermore, the closing of the gap within a single generation as even Murray argues kind of shows theres more to the environmental argument than he lets on. Im at a loss as to your explanation beyond correlation behind homosexuality and intelligence.

 

[bomberfox]

Even given the definition(s) of the OED, there is room for discussion about the actual classifications of h. sapiens into specific, well-defined races.

Our English [Ed.: Some might say American,] language is in a constant state of flux. Words change their meanings with time. Meanings may become diluted, may be sharpened and may even be reversed. We are seeing that with 'racism'. Consider its use with regard to 'Hispanics'. Hispanics are, for many, those whose mamaloshen is Spanish or one of its many dialects. 'Nuf said.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Thats the thing, what we have used to classify races has been determined by society and always has, the irish are a good example.

 

[Torus34]

Thats the thing, what we have used to classify races has been determined by society and always has, the irish are a good example.

Hi!

I think you nailed it.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[lwf]

You do not prove that by asserting it. I noticed differences growing up. Everyone I have ever talked to who taught at or attended a multi racial public school noticed differences too.

There are differences between individuals and there are differences between cultures. There are no differences between races. The differences you noticed and misattributed to race are attributable to cultural influences alone. If you grow up in an area where races tend to segregate and develop into different cultures, you will notice different cultures place value on different things. Where one culture might value mathematics, science, and technological progress, another might value faith, religion, and spiritual devotion, while a third might value family, tradition, and community. If you measure intelligence by an understanding of science and mathematics, you are going to find cultures that are "less intelligent." However, those same cultures that measure intelligence by level of faith or devotion to family might examine you and find your culture to be less intelligent.

Which one of you is correct?

 

[bomberfox]

There are differences between individuals and there are differences between cultures. There are no differences between races. The differences you noticed and misattributed to race are attributable to cultural influences alone. If you grow up in an area where races tend to segregate and develop into different cultures, you will notice different cultures place value on different things. Where one culture might value mathematics, science, and technological progress, another might value faith, religion, and spiritual devotion, while a third might value family, tradition, and community. If you measure intelligence by an understanding of science and mathematics, you are going to find cultures that are "less intelligent." However, those same cultures that measure intelligence by level of faith or devotion to family might examine you and find your culture to be less intelligent.

Which one of you is correct?

This also goes towards what he qualifies as being the master race which some are pretty arbitrary at best like the ability to follow the law which he gives absolutely no context to. Rosa parks broke the law yet she challenged segregation, inspired many Americans today as well as in her generation, and more. Slaves that ran away broke the law, yet what they did was incredibly brave. Laws can be pretty damn arbitrary, i dont think the ability to blindly follow the law is a virtue. Should we respect the negative peace of order above justice?

 

[Triton]

All racists are just people are really insecure about their own skin color.

 

[SmartCat]

There's a rumor going around that homosexuals are sexually attracted to members of their own sex. That makes them different from me. :2razz:

In addition, homosexuals seem to be more intelligent, on the average, than heterosexuals. That is my impression, although I have not been able to find confirmation on the internet. My theory about homosexuality is that it is caused by a gene that is dominant for higher intelligence, but recessive for homosexuality. It this is true, homosexuality would be passed down through the generations the way sickle cell anemia is passed. The gene for sickle cell anemia is recessive for sickle cell anemia, but dominant for resistance to malaria.

Confirming you dont understand the concept of dominant and recessive genes lol...

Dominant refers to the relationship between two versions of a gene. Individuals receive two versions of each gene, known as alleles, from each parent. If the alleles of a gene are different, one allele will be expressed; it is the dominant gene. The effect of the other allele, called recessive, is masked.
Dominant

Consider two genes. X is dominant for resistance to malaria and recessive for sickle cell anemia. Y is a gene for something else, but X and Y can occupy the same position on a chromosome. If a person gets the X gene from one parent and the Y gene from the other parent (XY) the person will have resistance to malaria, but not sickle cell anemia. If the person gets an X gene from each parent (XX) the person will have resistance to malaria and sickle cell anemia.

 

[SmartCat]

Reducing the gap over a shorter time span than would be necessary for the sort of genetics Murray refers to shows he is missing a lot of things. This also shows you didnt actually read the study as it shows improvement into the 2000s. Remember the brookings institute study includes cognitive tests on par with what Murray uses, not academic achievement tests. The study i linked tackles Murray and Rushton on their own grounds to include studies that are “loaded on g grounds”

When you try to pass off an alt reich radio show host off as reputable, dont talk to me about reputable sources.

Achievement and ability are two different factors. Charles Murray is saying that black achievement improved during the 1970's and 1980's, but there is no evidence that black ability did.

Consider two teenage boys. One has athletic talent and exercises regularly because he is on the school football team. The second does not exercise regularly and lacks athletic talent. If the second boy begins an exercise program his physical conditioning will improve, but he will still not make the football team. Genes place limits on achievements.

There is too much evidence of too many kinds to conclude that blacks and whites are intrinsically equal in intellectual talent.

The effect of intellectual environment on intellectual achievement is for one generation only. The fact that one's ancestors were not allowed to achieve does not prevent one from achieving if one has the talent to do so. For decades blacks were not allowed to compete with whites in many sports. As soon as they were allowed they excelled and usually performed better. This did not happen when blacks were allowed to compete with whites academically. This is because blacks are more likely than whites to be gifted athletically, and less likely than whites to be gifted academically.

 

[SmartCat]

There are differences between individuals and there are differences between cultures. There are no differences between races. The differences you noticed and misattributed to race are attributable to cultural influences alone. If you grow up in an area where races tend to segregate and develop into different cultures, you will notice different cultures place value on different things. Where one culture might value mathematics, science, and technological progress, another might value faith, religion, and spiritual devotion, while a third might value family, tradition, and community. If you measure intelligence by an understanding of science and mathematics, you are going to find cultures that are "less intelligent." However, those same cultures that measure intelligence by level of faith or devotion to family might examine you and find your culture to be less intelligent.

Which one of you is correct?

People value what they are good at. When blacks and whites go to the same high school they are told to value academic achievement more than athletic achievement. Nevertheless, good athletes have more social prestige with other students than good students. Blacks discover that they have athletic talent, so they go out for school sports. Whites who do not make the teams console themselves on the debate club.

 

[SmartCat]

This also goes towards what he qualifies as being the master race which some are pretty arbitrary at best like the ability to follow the law which he gives absolutely no context to. Rosa parks broke the law yet she challenged segregation, inspired many Americans today as well as in her generation, and more. Slaves that ran away broke the law, yet what they did was incredibly brave. Laws can be pretty damn arbitrary, i dont think the ability to blindly follow the law is a virtue. Should we respect the negative peace of order above justice?

Laws against murder are valuable, and more likely to be obeyed by whites and Orientals than by Negroes. The same can be said of laws against robbery and rape.

 

[Guyzilla]

rac·ist
/ˈrāsəst/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

"the comments have led to her being called a racist"

That is an important OR. Which seems to say that a bigot is equal to a racist.

 

[SmartCat]

Thats the thing, what we have used to classify races has been determined by society and always has, the irish are a good example.

In "The Inequality Taboo" Charles Murray wrote:

"The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

"Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong. Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or
ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self identified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary."

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

Putting this in my own words I will say that a person's race can usually be determined by appearance and always by DNA analysis.

 

[lwf]

People value what they are good at. When blacks and whites go to the same high school they are told to value academic achievement more than athletic achievement. Nevertheless, good athletes have more social prestige with other students than good students. Blacks discover that they have athletic talent, so they go out for school sports. Whites who do not make the teams console themselves on the debate club.

Or maybe, like whites, blacks devote themselves to athletic pursuits because they see other people who look and act like they do find success there? Perhaps they don't see as many people who look like them succeed elsewhere, and so on some level assume that such success is out of their reach? Maybe while growing up other older people who looked like they do and whom they looked up to told them that such success was out of their reach because within those people's lifetimes it absolutely was?

It is the cultural aftershocks of systemic American racism that causes many black students to under-perform in America. Their intellectual capacity is identical to the intellectual capacity of white students. It is their intrinsic belief in a fair and just system, personal motivation, and self-esteem that too often differ significantly. And it is the interplay between cultures that fosters this difference. If people from one culture often have to work twice as hard to get to the same place as people from another just to prove they're capable of getting there, you're going to find fewer representatives from the former culture in that place, and more of them are just going to give up and eke out a living however they can. This is not due to differing capacities for intelligence, this is due to an over-arching umbrella of American cultures that all have been forced to tolerate racism from a dominant culture since their inception. This is what people refer to when they refer to systemic racism.

 

[bomberfox]

Those racial labels and self identification are a part of social construction. I can trace my lineage back through irish ancestry yet in the early 19th century and 1800s i would be considered mixed race. Ill add social construction to the list of things Murray doesnt understand. Money is a social construct. As for explaining in gour own rules, we already know you are pretty damn slippery with your own rules so lets not be pretentious shall we?

 

[bomberfox]

Laws against murder are valuable, and more likely to be obeyed by whites and Orientals than by Negroes. The same can be said of laws against robbery and rape.

You made no clarification bub. You dont get to worm your way around what you said. Are we going to start using negroid and caucasoid again?

 

[bomberfox]

People value what they are good at. When blacks and whites go to the same high school they are told to value academic achievement more than athletic achievement. Nevertheless, good athletes have more social prestige with other students than good students. Blacks discover that they have athletic talent, so they go out for school sports. Whites who do not make the teams console themselves on the debate club.

Black people are also part of debate teams and scientific fields. I noticed you neglected the fact that equally qualified applications are more likely to be thrown out because of black sounding names. When jewish people were ghettoized they didnt exactly lay down and follow the law.

 

[bomberfox]

Achievement and ability are two different factors. Charles Murray is saying that black achievement improved during the 1970's and 1980's, but there is no evidence that black ability did.

Consider two teenage boys. One has athletic talent and exercises regularly because he is on the school football team. The second does not exercise regularly and lacks athletic talent. If the second boy begins an exercise program his physical conditioning will improve, but he will still not make the football team. Genes place limits on achievements.

There is too much evidence of too many kinds to conclude that blacks and whites are intrinsically equal in intellectual talent.

The effect of intellectual environment on intellectual achievement is for one generation only. The fact that one's ancestors were not allowed to achieve does not prevent one from achieving if one has the talent to do so. For decades blacks were not allowed to compete with whites in many sports. As soon as they were allowed they excelled and usually performed better. This did not happen when blacks were allowed to compete with whites academically. This is because blacks are more likely than whites to be gifted athletically, and less likely than whites to be gifted academically.

These were not achievement tests. What i was addressing is you thought the study only went as far as Murray’s did but i showed otherwise. As i said, the brookings institute study Tackles rushton and murray on the grounds of iq and cognitive tests. If you actually read the study, you would know that.

 

[bomberfox]

Dominant refers to the relationship between two versions of a gene. Individuals receive two versions of each gene, known as alleles, from each parent. If the alleles of a gene are different, one allele will be expressed; it is the dominant gene. The effect of the other allele, called recessive, is masked.
Dominant

Consider two genes. X is dominant for resistance to malaria and recessive for sickle cell anemia. Y is a gene for something else, but X and Y can occupy the same position on a chromosome. If a person gets the X gene from one parent and the Y gene from the other parent (XY) the person will have resistance to malaria, but not sickle cell anemia. If the person gets an X gene from each parent (XX) the person will have resistance to malaria and sickle cell anemia.

This doesnt apply to the heritability argument which is what you are arguing for. I guess now we are supposed to start measuring dick sizes for who is most intelligent now? Since correlations are plenty enough for you as indicated by your argument on the intelligence of homosexual people?

 

[bomberfox]

Can i find an ashkenazi jew to answer this question for me? Since apparently it is right and natural to toss applications just because they have black sounding names on them?

 

[grainbelt]

The definition of "racist" I grew up with is that racists have two characteristics. First, racists believe that their race is superior to all the other races. Second, racists dislike or even hate members of other races, regardless of the individual characteristics of those members.

Is that definition sufficient, or do you believe that racists have additional characteristics?

Would you say that Charles Murray is a racist?

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

Is Jared Taylor a racist?

Race Differences in Intelligence - American Renaissance

Is J. Philippe Rushton a racist?

Race, Evolution, and Behavior:

No it's not a good definition of racism or why racism is a problem. The issue is not what people think in their head about themself and others. We'd find most people will have biases and prob some light racism if we took that definition. For instance, I feel very comfortable and blessed as white in America. I would not want to be a different race. I dont have many non white people in my circle. I dont think white is superior, it's just that context and circumstance bare that out.

The discussion on racism has to extend to include context and action. Light racism wouldnt be that bad if there was no or very minimal action taken on it. Take the context of America past and present into account and we see that the action taken has historically been atrocious and very very one sided. Because of the one sided and strong action, I dont believe there is an equal comparison between a slightly racist black person and slightly racist white person. Further, if there were equivalent actions associated to both, the sum result still wouldnt be equal, because of the historical context.

Among black Americans, I'd expect an identity would arise of strength and resilience as a coping mechanism to deal with historical and ongoing actions of discrimination. And I would also expect some disdain towards the powers that be when they learn about what has happened and continues to happen.

If it were a blank slate and our races were purple and green with no further context, then sure everything would look a little different.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk