Racist Bullshit

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Alright, so obvious racism is obvious, but what about all the stupid little things people say that gets under your skin?

At what point does a statement go from an innocuous observation to a racial epithet?

How much truth, in your opinion, is there to the distinctions we point out among the races? If you can immediately think of a dozen exceptions, does it really qualify as a racial characteristic?

Why do people think that you can only be racist in favor of your own race, or in opposition to others?

How much of a role does racism play in the way we raise our children? In the way our children raise each other? (you parents know what I mean)

How much of all this is just complete and total bullshit that we impose on ourselves and each other? I say damn near all of it.
[/quote]

I once wrote on here that Tiki Barber was very ‘articulate’. After 350 posts wherein I was equated with David Duke, it was decided that black people are FAR TOO SENSITIVE.

If you say to a black man: “Nice haircut, bro!”, it secretly means that all black people want to look like wild animals and getting a haircut is unusual and to be lauded.

If you say to a black woman: “That’s a very nice outfit! Looks good on you!”, it secretly means that you think all black people are bums and hobos and are shocked they have nice clothes.

So I gave up. I rarely talk to black people anymore because…afterall, I’m David Fucking Duke. Jesus…
[/quote]All this will change when you come to church with me. =]
[/quote]

Gave up on Christian bashing after seeing the movie ‘Promethius’. You should see it.

If I compliment a Christian lady, such as saying I like her new hairdo, does that mean that I am shocked that Christian women get their hair styled and I think they actually all want to look like ragged sluts?

42

Nope.
But this obsession for other people’s hair is a little disturbing.

43

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Race is a thing. 200,000 years of evolution has changed more than just our skin.
[/quote]
So, if you were to take 10 different children from all over the world and raise them all in the same household with the same parents, what would the differences be when they all turned 18?[/quote]

Virtually the same difference you see when they don’t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study[/quote]
That study pointed more toward the parents than the children, and in no way answered my question.

Parents raise children differently. Unless you compare children raised by the same set of parents, the data will always be skewed.

44

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
So what do you think about internalized racism? I have some experience in it because of dealing with my younger sister. She was convinced during her teenage years that white people are physically inferior and therefore are racist out of jealousy and spite (at least, that’s what I get from talking to her). She has told us repeatedly that she feels God made a mistake, and she was supposed to be black.

Talk about a slap in the face.[/quote]

Well, compared to blacks, whites are physically inferior in many ways.

The rest of what she’s saying is nonsense, though. [/quote]

This is total bullshit. There’s no such thing as “blacks” or “whites”. There’s just heavier or lighter skin pigmentation depending on the breeding preference of each individual’s ancestors related to their cumulative adaptation to sun exposure.

A 1/3 percent dna difference between races is meaningless because any finite set of characteristics that you choose to differentiate between “races” will have a larger number a differentiating characteristics between individuals within the race. You can never have a set of data large enough to make an accurate representation of the whole human population. You can only come close by getting data from billions of people at any given point in time. Of course that would be impossible to accomplish before hundreds of millions more are born.

So a waste of time on top of being meaningless.[/quote]

Yeah, and humans and chimps have more variation within their species than between them too (Only 2% difference remember). Are chimps human now? No? Then I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.

There is NOT more variation within a race then between them. That’s a myth. It only looks like there’s more internal variation because when you’re only looking at one race you’ve shrunken the scope of the human genome. Any two given black men will be more related to each other than either one to any given white man, even if the genetic distance between these two black men is larger than the internal norm.

Don’t quote me on this, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that is you have a mulatto cousin (maybe it was second cousin), you are actually more related to any other random white person than you are to your mulatto cousin.

45

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
So what do you think about internalized racism? I have some experience in it because of dealing with my younger sister. She was convinced during her teenage years that white people are physically inferior and therefore are racist out of jealousy and spite (at least, that’s what I get from talking to her). She has told us repeatedly that she feels God made a mistake, and she was supposed to be black.

Talk about a slap in the face.[/quote]

Well, compared to blacks, whites are physically inferior in many ways.

The rest of what she’s saying is nonsense, though. [/quote]

This is total bullshit. There’s no such thing as “blacks” or “whites”. There’s just heavier or lighter skin pigmentation depending on the breeding preference of each individual’s ancestors related to their cumulative adaptation to sun exposure.

A 1/3 percent dna difference between races is meaningless because any finite set of characteristics that you choose to differentiate between “races” will have a larger number a differentiating characteristics between individuals within the race. You can never have a set of data large enough to make an accurate representation of the whole human population. You can only come close by getting data from billions of people at any given point in time. Of course that would be impossible to accomplish before hundreds of millions more are born.

So a waste of time on top of being meaningless.[/quote]
I realize that there are many measurable differences. But then, look at farm-raised kids vs city kids.

Kids whose parents think that jumping around is bad for the joints are going to have less bone density than kids who are allowed to jump around and act crazy.

Kids who are into backyard sports are going to be more athletic than kids who just decide to try out for football on a whim. This one speaks to how our kids raise each other, in many aspects. If you are in a neighborhood where pickup b-ball is the thing, your kids will get better at that. Backyard football every day? Chess? Tennis?

So a lot of these differences could be attributed to nurture rather than nature.

I don’t believe children’s capabilities are limited by their race. By their family, friends, and other outside influences? Yes, but not by the color of their skin.

46

[quote]kamui wrote:
Nope.
But this obsession for other people’s hair is a little disturbing.[/quote]
That’s just a product of Id. People will always favor what someone else has over what they have.

Chicks with straight hair want it curly. Curly wants it straight. Blondie wants to be brunette…

Perfectly normal.

47

[quote]
Yeah, and humans and chimps have more variation within their species than between them too (Only 2% difference remember). Are chimps human now? No? Then I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

Are you implying that we could find two human beings with more than a 2% difference between them ?
Because that’s absolutely untrue. The maximal genetic difference between two human being is probably less than 0.3 percent.
a 2% difference, when we speak about genetic, is huge, actually.

48

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Perfectly normal.[/quote]

Except i was speaking about an HH’s obsession.

49

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Part of the perpetuation of racist nonsense is the idea people are of differing races. We are all the same race. People are simply reacting to differences in pigmentation, eye shape, culture, etc. All pretty silly if you ask me. [/quote]

The largest genetic gap between any two races is about 1/3 of a percent. If that sounds underwhelming to you, keep in mind we are only about 2% short of being chimps.

Race is a thing. 200,000 years of evolution has changed more than just our skin.

Your comment is an example of the cultural pendulum swinging way too far on too the other side. You don’t have to deny race to not be racist.[/quote]

human-race is a political term with political implications. Its believed that the term became popular under the colonial era as a means to explain why it was okay for europeens to control other peoples lands. From there its been used in many different situations as an legitimation for cruel actions against different groups. Ergo you honor that tradition if you try to upphold that term.

[/quote]

Uuuh no. Humans have recognized races for the entirety of our existence. It’s not euro-centric. [/quote]

But it is.

50

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
Race is a thing. 200,000 years of evolution has changed more than just our skin.
[/quote]
So, if you were to take 10 different children from all over the world and raise them all in the same household with the same parents, what would the differences be when they all turned 18?[/quote]

Virtually the same difference you see when they don’t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study[/quote]
That study pointed more toward the parents than the children, and in no way answered my question.

Parents raise children differently. Unless you compare children raised by the same set of parents, the data will always be skewed.[/quote]

I meant to also send you information on this study ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/250/4978/223.abstract )
Both are from Minnesota.

What you have here is evidence showing that genetically different children put into different socio-economic and racial background homes will still end up with virtually the same cognitive function as those raised on par with the rest of their race.

This second study is of monozygotic twins reared apart. By the end of the study, they showed no more IQ variation then monozygotic twins raised together. Again, suggesting a genetic causation (pretty much proving, actually).

I’ll also refer you to the Abecedarian Project ( Abecedarian Early Intervention Project - Wikipedia ), an early intervention project that attempted to raise the intelligence of its subjects through rigorous education with the highest quality teachers and equipment available. What they found was, initially there was a large difference in intelligence between the children with the advanced education and the control group, but as the children aged the gap shrank until it was virtually non-existent. In fact one of the researchers admitted that the best indicator of the child’s final intelligence level was the parental level, suggesting a strong genetic causation once again.

Yes, the children ended up going farther in life than their peers, but all this proves is that if you give a person more to work with and push them enough, they’ll go farther, not that race doesn’t exist.

51

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Yeah, and humans and chimps have more variation within their species than between them too (Only 2% difference remember). Are chimps human now? No? Then I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.

There is NOT more variation within a race then between them. That’s a myth. It only looks like there’s more internal variation because when you’re only looking at one race you’ve shrunken the scope of the human genome. Any two given black men will be more related to each other than either one to any given white man, even if the genetic distance between these two black men is larger than the internal norm.

Don’t quote me on this, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that is you have a mulatto cousin (maybe it was second cousin), you are actually more related to any other random white person than you are to your mulatto cousin. [/quote]
Oh, please. Number of genes that are different does not equate to percentage of genetic difference. Here, let me show you:

A) 1000000000002000000000030000000000004
B) 1000000000002000000000030000000236544
C) 2000000000002000000000030000000000004

There is only one digit that is different between A and C (2.7%). There are 5 digits different between A and B (13.5%). So C is closer to A than B?

52

[quote]kamui wrote:

That’s the absurdity I’m pointing out as being a flaw in his argument.
If you read the rest of my post, you’ll see I explain this apparent wider internal gap because you’ve changed the scope of the human genome. To explain further, when considering the variation across the species, total variation is set to 1.0 and genetic variation between races is determined by comparing one races “1.0” to another’s. When you only look at one race, the total variation is still set to 1.0, but now it’s relative to whatever individual you’re measuring from. Let’s say this race’s total internal variation is 0.03% (it’s different depending on which race you’re talking about).

This means, if you found two white people with a genetic distance of 0.015%, you’ve found two people with 50% of the total genetic variation (0.5)! That’s much bigger than 0.3% (0.03), therefore race doesn’t exist! Well, not so fast, because you’ve limited your total genetic variation to 1/10 the scale of the total human genome. That 50% only contains 1/20 the variation of that 0.3%. It only looks bigger because the data has been shifted to make it look as such.

53

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
Part of the perpetuation of racist nonsense is the idea people are of differing races. We are all the same race. People are simply reacting to differences in pigmentation, eye shape, culture, etc. All pretty silly if you ask me. [/quote]

The largest genetic gap between any two races is about 1/3 of a percent. If that sounds underwhelming to you, keep in mind we are only about 2% short of being chimps.

Race is a thing. 200,000 years of evolution has changed more than just our skin.

Your comment is an example of the cultural pendulum swinging way too far on too the other side. You don’t have to deny race to not be racist.[/quote]

human-race is a political term with political implications. Its believed that the term became popular under the colonial era as a means to explain why it was okay for europeens to control other peoples lands. From there its been used in many different situations as an legitimation for cruel actions against different groups. Ergo you honor that tradition if you try to upphold that term.

[/quote]

Uuuh no. Humans have recognized races for the entirety of our existence. It’s not euro-centric. [/quote]

But it is.
[/quote]

Oh, shit. I never considered that. I guess you’re right…

54

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Yeah, and humans and chimps have more variation within their species than between them too (Only 2% difference remember). Are chimps human now? No? Then I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.

There is NOT more variation within a race then between them. That’s a myth. It only looks like there’s more internal variation because when you’re only looking at one race you’ve shrunken the scope of the human genome. Any two given black men will be more related to each other than either one to any given white man, even if the genetic distance between these two black men is larger than the internal norm.

Don’t quote me on this, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that is you have a mulatto cousin (maybe it was second cousin), you are actually more related to any other random white person than you are to your mulatto cousin. [/quote]
Oh, please. Number of genes that are different does not equate to percentage of genetic difference. Here, let me show you:

A) 1000000000002000000000030000000000004
B) 1000000000002000000000030000000236544
C) 2000000000002000000000030000000000004

There is only one digit that is different between A and C (2.7%). There are 5 digits different between A and B (13.5%). So C is closer to A than B?[/quote]

I don’t think you’ve understood what I’m saying. Look at my response to Kamui for a more detailed explanation.

Edit: I just re-read your comment and… it’s bad. The number of different genes is literally the definition of genetic variation, which is what we’re talking about when we say (… % variation). Also, YES. C is more related to A than to B, because their genes are more similar. That’s the definition of ‘related’.

Good God.

55

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Yeah, and humans and chimps have more variation within their species than between them too (Only 2% difference remember). Are chimps human now? No? Then I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.

There is NOT more variation within a race then between them. That’s a myth. It only looks like there’s more internal variation because when you’re only looking at one race you’ve shrunken the scope of the human genome. Any two given black men will be more related to each other than either one to any given white man, even if the genetic distance between these two black men is larger than the internal norm.

Don’t quote me on this, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that is you have a mulatto cousin (maybe it was second cousin), you are actually more related to any other random white person than you are to your mulatto cousin. [/quote]
Oh, please. Number of genes that are different does not equate to percentage of genetic difference. Here, let me show you:

A) 1000000000002000000000030000000000004
B) 1000000000002000000000030000000236544
C) 2000000000002000000000030000000000004

There is only one digit that is different between A and C (2.7%). There are 5 digits different between A and B (13.5%). So C is closer to A than B?[/quote]

I don’t think you’ve understood what I’m saying. Look at my response to Kamui for a more detailed explanation.

Edit: I just re-read your comment and… it’s bad. The number of different genes is literally the definition of genetic variation, which is what we’re talking about when we say (… % variation). Also, YES. C is more related to A than to B, because their genes are more similar. That’s the definition of ‘related’.

Good God. [/quote]
So, in scientific terms, the gene for blue eyes is just as ‘valuable’ as the gene for a four-chambered heart? Or fur-covered skin?

I find that very hard to believe.

56

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I meant to also send you information on this study ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/250/4978/223.abstract )
Both are from Minnesota.

What you have here is evidence showing that genetically different children put into different socio-economic and racial background homes will still end up with virtually the same cognitive function as those raised on par with the rest of their race.

This second study is of monozygotic twins reared apart. By the end of the study, they showed no more IQ variation then monozygotic twins raised together. Again, suggesting a genetic causation (pretty much proving, actually).

I’ll also refer you to the Abecedarian Project ( Abecedarian Early Intervention Project - Wikipedia ), an early intervention project that attempted to raise the intelligence of its subjects through rigorous education with the highest quality teachers and equipment available. What they found was, initially there was a large difference in intelligence between the children with the advanced education and the control group, but as the children aged the gap shrank until it was virtually non-existent. In fact one of the researchers admitted that the best indicator of the child’s final intelligence level was the parental level, suggesting a strong genetic causation once again.

Yes, the children ended up going farther in life than their peers, but all this proves is that if you give a person more to work with and push them enough, they’ll go farther, not that race doesn’t exist.[/quote]
Again, that doesn’t satisfy the criteria of my question: Different races, same circumstances. I fully realize that some kids are born smarter and others are born more athletic, but I see nothing that supports the notion that it has anything to do with race.

Besides that, the modest increase in IQ is irrelevant to me. Here’s what matters:

[quote]Statistically significant outcomes at age 30:

Four times more likely to have graduated from a four-year college (23 percent vs. 6 percent)
More likely to have been employed consistently over the previous two years (74 percent vs. 53 percent)
Five times less likely to have used public assistance in the previous seven years (4 percent vs. 20 percent)
Delayed becoming parents by average of almost two years[/quote]

I look for real world results, not ‘scientific criteria’.

57

I teach mathematics. For the purpose of creativity, I would rank the students as follows:

(1) Caucasians. My students have a ‘creative spark’ that no others have.

(2) Asians, mostly Chinese. Great ‘clockworks’, good engineers, low creativity

(3) Blacks. No focus, no creativity, thinks that proofs are ‘dumb’. I had one student in all these years that had any ability at all.

Based upon my limited observations, Asians are more efficient, Caucasians are more creative, and Blacks should only be employed above a certain level if they prove that they are an exception and not the rule.

I know this sounds terribly racist but it is not intended that way. I am merely stating facts of my experience.

Sidenote: Ashkanazim are pure gold btw. :slight_smile:

58

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Yeah, and humans and chimps have more variation within their species than between them too (Only 2% difference remember). Are chimps human now? No? Then I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.

There is NOT more variation within a race then between them. That’s a myth. It only looks like there’s more internal variation because when you’re only looking at one race you’ve shrunken the scope of the human genome. Any two given black men will be more related to each other than either one to any given white man, even if the genetic distance between these two black men is larger than the internal norm.

Don’t quote me on this, but I vaguely remember reading somewhere that is you have a mulatto cousin (maybe it was second cousin), you are actually more related to any other random white person than you are to your mulatto cousin. [/quote]
Oh, please. Number of genes that are different does not equate to percentage of genetic difference. Here, let me show you:

A) 1000000000002000000000030000000000004
B) 1000000000002000000000030000000236544
C) 2000000000002000000000030000000000004

There is only one digit that is different between A and C (2.7%). There are 5 digits different between A and B (13.5%). So C is closer to A than B?[/quote]

I don’t think you’ve understood what I’m saying. Look at my response to Kamui for a more detailed explanation.

Edit: I just re-read your comment and… it’s bad. The number of different genes is literally the definition of genetic variation, which is what we’re talking about when we say (… % variation). Also, YES. C is more related to A than to B, because their genes are more similar. That’s the definition of ‘related’.

Good God. [/quote]
So, in scientific terms, the gene for blue eyes is just as ‘valuable’ as the gene for a four-chambered heart? Or fur-covered skin?

I find that very hard to believe.[/quote]

Non-sequitur.

Besides, I’m pretty sure more genes go into your heart shape than your eye colour.

59

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

I meant to also send you information on this study ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/250/4978/223.abstract )
Both are from Minnesota.

What you have here is evidence showing that genetically different children put into different socio-economic and racial background homes will still end up with virtually the same cognitive function as those raised on par with the rest of their race.

This second study is of monozygotic twins reared apart. By the end of the study, they showed no more IQ variation then monozygotic twins raised together. Again, suggesting a genetic causation (pretty much proving, actually).

I’ll also refer you to the Abecedarian Project ( Abecedarian Early Intervention Project - Wikipedia ), an early intervention project that attempted to raise the intelligence of its subjects through rigorous education with the highest quality teachers and equipment available. What they found was, initially there was a large difference in intelligence between the children with the advanced education and the control group, but as the children aged the gap shrank until it was virtually non-existent. In fact one of the researchers admitted that the best indicator of the child’s final intelligence level was the parental level, suggesting a strong genetic causation once again.

Yes, the children ended up going farther in life than their peers, but all this proves is that if you give a person more to work with and push them enough, they’ll go farther, not that race doesn’t exist.[/quote]
Again, that doesn’t satisfy the criteria of my question: Different races, same circumstances. I fully realize that some kids are born smarter and others are born more athletic, but I see nothing that supports the notion that it has anything to do with race.

Besides that, the modest increase in IQ is irrelevant to me. Here’s what matters:

[quote]Statistically significant outcomes at age 30:

Four times more likely to have graduated from a four-year college (23 percent vs. 6 percent)
More likely to have been employed consistently over the previous two years (74 percent vs. 53 percent)
Five times less likely to have used public assistance in the previous seven years (4 percent vs. 20 percent)
Delayed becoming parents by average of almost two years[/quote]

I look for real world results, not ‘scientific criteria’.
[/quote]

I thought you would get this on your own, but I guess I have to point this out to you. Same circumstances for different children is impossible because we don’t have time-travel. Luckily the inverse (same kids, different circumstances) is not impossible thanks to identical twins. This means we can still infer genetic causation without needing to replicate identical childhoods.

Also, the results you posted look nice on paper, but when you do the same experiment with whites or asians, the gap returns to normal, making these results completely meaningless unless you’re advocating a radical (and that’s an understatement if there’s ever been one) redistribution of wealth based on race.

60

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

Non-sequitur.

Besides, I’m pretty sure more genes go into your heart shape than your eye colour. [/quote]

I was using the heart as an example.

So you’re saying that every gene carries the same weight? That doesn’t make logical sense, evidenced by your quote about a random white person being more related to me than a mixed-race cousin.