END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. COLLAPSE OF EMPIRE. GLOBAL WARMING. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE. and its all too late. So i’m definitely not gonna bitch in any more of these politics threads.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. COLLAPSE OF EMPIRE. GLOBAL WARMING. ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE. and its all too late. So i’m definitely not gonna bitch in any more of these politics threads.
[/quote]
amen. I’m out too. This shit is getting ridiculous.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< you think black people have a negative characteristic, and those two opinions are linked in your mind. (In fact, if I understand you correctly, you think the redistribution causes the negative characteristic.)
The data shows, and you yourself only further indicate, that these two types of opinions are linked.[/quote]
I think PEOPLE have a negative characteristic, maybe myself included. A very significant % will take other people’s stuff if they don’t have to go to prison to do it. An even larger % will take it if it’s flat out handed to them. It won’t take long for them to develop the illusion that that stuff really is theirs.
If they’re born into a culture where that’s all they’ve known the disastrous effects of the handout mentality become downright apocalyptic. Blacks in this country were a ready made perfectly suited target for this and they are suffering the consequences. So is the rest of the nation. Their black skin is only relevant because largely white liberal politicians have made it thus in so targeting them.
So fair enough, yes, I make that connection. I make that connection while asserting that far from racism, it is in fact my position that treats all men equal. I live 2 blocks from Detroit and my heart weeps for my black neighbors whose identity, dignity and in some cases very humanity has been reduced to slavery 2.0 under the thumb of far away mansion dwelling nanny state politicians.
Print this post and give it to any conservatives you know. Take it to a Chicago tea party and hand it out. Give it to some black conservatives if you know any.You will get 99% of the people who read it giving themselves whiplash nodding up and down. YEP, YEP, YEP, that is the conservative and even the libertarian position regarding blacks and redistribution.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Well, we’re working with different definitions here. Sounds like you think racism means making generalizations about races. I’m not sure these days what racism means. I think it’s more useful to talk about negative opinions of groups.
[/quote]
Yes, that is exactly what it is. “Positive” generalizations are every bit as racist as negative ones, and equally as untrue.
I’ve never understood why people who profess such a distaste for racism believe so strongly in “positive” racist stereotypes. A positive for one is a negative for another. Period. Racism is really classically belief in a racial superiority. There are 2 ways to go about this belief. 1) believe that certain races or aspects of a race are below another 2) believe that certain races or aspects of a race are above another.
There is no philosophical difference between believing blacks are inherently dumb, and whites are inherently smart. Can you not see that?
Say you believe that Asians are good at math. Sounds like a harmless non-racist “positive” belief. Well, what if meet two engineers, one black and one Asian. If that “positive” bias causes you to hire the Asian over the black, it’s no different that hiring the Asian because you assumed the black was bad at math.
It is racism, plain and simple. Period. Unequivocally. Proof positive. 100%. Answering those questions is racist.
Why is you are okay with believing blacks are hard working, but not that blacks are not hard working? This makes no sense.
DoubleDuce you are such a racist. 
I guess we all dont know what the word means anymore because it is used in the wrong context by Civil Rights Activists. My answer to that word is to laugh and tell that person they are Gay.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Well, we’re working with different definitions here. Sounds like you think racism means making generalizations about races. I’m not sure these days what racism means. I think it’s more useful to talk about negative opinions of groups.
[/quote]
Yes, that is exactly what it is. “Positive” generalizations are every bit as racist as negative ones, and equally as untrue.
I’ve never understood why people who profess such a distaste for racism believe so strongly in “positive” racist stereotypes. A positive for one is a negative for another. Period. Racism is really classically belief in a racial superiority. There are 2 ways to go about this belief. 1) believe that certain races or aspects of a race are below another 2) believe that certain races or aspects of a race are above another.
There is no philosophical difference between believing blacks are inherently dumb, and whites are inherently smart. Can you not see that?
Say you believe that Asians are good at math. Sounds like a harmless non-racist “positive” belief. Well, what if meet two engineers, one black and one Asian. If that “positive” bias causes you to hire the Asian over the black, it’s no different that hiring the Asian because you assumed the black was bad at math.
It is racism, plain and simple. Period. Unequivocally. Proof positive. 100%. Answering those questions is racist.
Why is you are okay with believing blacks are hard working, but not that blacks are not hard working? This makes no sense.[/quote]
There is some evidence that differing anthropological strains display average strengths and weaknesses in various areas. I don’t see recognizing that as racism in the negative sense that it is used today. When someone says in the vernacular “___________ is a racist” they mean that that person has some lower view of the subject based solely upon their ethnicity.
We can discuss etymologically correct usage of the word, but that is the common meaning on the street today.
Also, let’s face it. Most stereotypes have some varying degrees of basis in reality. That’s how they get started. The bottom line to me is that everybody needs to lighten up. Every single last reference to race, which happens to be a fact of life BTW, doesn’t have to be an insult worthy of the hangman’s noose.
I see all human beings, regardless of where their from or the color of their skin, of equal intrinsic dignity and worth, race bearing no moral component in itself whatsoever. Individuals are taken on a specimen by specimen basis.
That said, even locally polled blacks say that they are much more likely to be suspicious of another black person on the street than they are a white person. That ain’t racism friend, that’s just facing reality when your own ass is on the line. Violent crime in this welfare city is 10-1 committed by blacks.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Well, we’re working with different definitions here. Sounds like you think racism means making generalizations about races. I’m not sure these days what racism means. I think it’s more useful to talk about negative opinions of groups.
[/quote]
Yes, that is exactly what it is. “Positive” generalizations are every bit as racist as negative ones, and equally as untrue.
I’ve never understood why people who profess such a distaste for racism believe so strongly in “positive” racist stereotypes. A positive for one is a negative for another. Period. Racism is really classically belief in a racial superiority. There are 2 ways to go about this belief. 1) believe that certain races or aspects of a race are below another 2) believe that certain races or aspects of a race are above another.
There is no philosophical difference between believing blacks are inherently dumb, and whites are inherently smart. Can you not see that?
Say you believe that Asians are good at math. Sounds like a harmless non-racist “positive” belief. Well, what if meet two engineers, one black and one Asian. If that “positive” bias causes you to hire the Asian over the black, it’s no different that hiring the Asian because you assumed the black was bad at math.
It is racism, plain and simple. Period. Unequivocally. Proof positive. 100%. Answering those questions is racist.
Why is you are okay with believing blacks are hard working, but not that blacks are not hard working? This makes no sense.[/quote]
There is some evidence that differing anthropological strains display average strengths and weaknesses in various areas. I don’t see recognizing that as racism in the negative sense that it is used today. When someone says in the vernacular “___________ is a racist” they mean that that person has some lower view of the subject based solely upon their ethnicity.
We can discuss etymologically correct usage of the word, but that is the common meaning on the street today.
Also, let’s face it. Most stereotypes have some varying degrees of basis in reality. That’s how they get started. The bottom line to me is that everybody needs to lighten up. Every single last reference to race, which happens to be a fact of life BTW, doesn’t have to be an insult worthy of the hangman’s noose.
I see all human beings, regardless of where their from or the color of their skin, of equal intrinsic dignity and worth, race bearing no moral component in itself whatsoever. Individuals are taken on a specimen by specimen basis.
That said, even locally polled blacks say that they are much more likely to be suspicious of another black person on the street than they are a white person. That ain’t racism friend, that’s just facing reality when your own ass is on the line. Violent crime in this welfare city is 10-1 committed by blacks.[/quote]
I agree with your evaluation. I was strongly hinting that everyone does it to a degree. I’d also point out that I never personally made moral judgments on the right or wrong of beliefs, only that by comparison one is no more right than the other. I was only illuminating inherent hypocrisy in the “un-racist” among us.
My personal views sound pretty close to your own.
Why is it people have no problem basing law on the fact that black people are more likely poor, but not that black people commit more crime? If you believe in the “social justice” of giving handouts to historically wronged social groups, why not reward historically lawful groups, or punish historically violent ones?
Let’s try this one.
A guy showed up here a while back saying that the rape of white women by black men is 15000, yes thousand, times as prevalent as the rape of black women by white men. I was all over the guy demanding proof for such an outrageous assertion. I was made the fool. He pointed me to the FBI stats and they do indeed demonstrate that for the last compiled year at the time, I believe 07, there were 15000 rapes/sexual assaults reported as having been committed by black men against white women and like 3 the other way around.
The quick and dirty conclusion is that black men are sexual predators and some already inclined to believe that way are handed a big club with this undeniable statistic. It could also be VERY persuasive to others who are trying to figure out exactly what they think about race relations in this nation.
Whatever happens, simply ignoring this fact or yelling racist at anybody who mentions it gets us nowhere. I’m not addressing you personally with this, but am making a point.
We either conclude that black males ARE in fact very much more genetically inclined to criminally sexual behavior or we take the time to think through other possible explanations. Either way no progress is possible while we are forbidden from even citing the statistic for fear of being labeled racists.
Well, that’s why I don’t think “racist” is a very productive term. And obviously when you start calling people racists it shuts down discourse.
The way I see the issue is this. White Republicans – and even more so, white Tea Partiers – tend to have negative opinions of blacks (compared to non-whites, and compared to white Democrats.) Also, blacks and whites poll differently on political issues; for example, blacks were more likely than whites to support the current health reform bill. (http://cbs4.com/local/obama.polling.policy.2.1500982.html) There’s a consistent race gap in polling on economic issues, and when we restrict the comparison to blacks vs. conservative whites, the gap widens even more.
That tells me that blacks and Tea Partiers are opponents in the public and political sphere.
The point is, if you are the average black person, you are quite right in believing that the average Tea Partier is likelier to think badly of you, and likelier to oppose your political aims, than the average Democrat.
Racism, again, isn’t a productive term, because it’s inherently pejorative. Racism basically means unfounded prejudice, and to your perspective, your opinions are well-founded. So let’s not talk about racism. Let’s talk about antagonism and opposition instead. If you think that Asians are smart, for example, you may be a racist (I’d say you are) but, all else being equal, you’re pro-Asian. An Asian would be reasonable in expecting you to be an ally. I think this way of looking at things explains some of your questions. Most blacks, with some exceptions, do not think that conservatives are their allies, and the evidence shows that this is a reasonable opinion to hold.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Well, that’s why I don’t think “racist” is a very productive term. And obviously when you start calling people racists it shuts down discourse.
The way I see the issue is this. White Republicans – and even more so, white Tea Partiers – tend to have negative opinions of blacks (compared to non-whites, and compared to white Democrats. [/quote] I’ve already shown that having a positive opinion of a race is just as racist[quote] ) Also, blacks and whites poll differently on political issues; for example, blacks were more likely than whites to support the current health reform bill. (http://cbs4.com/local/obama.polling.policy.2.1500982.html) There’s a consistent race gap in polling on economic issues, and when we restrict the comparison to blacks vs. conservative whites, the gap widens even more.
[/quote]
And if you look at conservative blacks versus conservative whites, Iâ??m sure the gap substantially narrows. That proves exactly as much as your statement, nothing.
This is the worst bit of extrapolation from data Iâ??ve seen in a while. If a black has conservative beliefs, they are a t-party allie, if they have liberal beliefs, they are an opponent. The context of opponent is defined entirely outside of the sphere of race. Your polls have absolutlely no reflection on if an individual is a friend or foe of the movement. NONE. Zero.
Besides that, there are many more important factors than race in the equation. Period.
Unless of course that black person has conservative beliefs right? This is dumb. And walking down the street the average white female is quite right in believing the average black guy is likelier to rape you than the average white guy. There, I applied your reasoning verbatim to an eerily similar situation.
So, do you avoid black people?
[quote]
Racism, again, isn’t a productive term, because it’s inherently pejorative. Racism basically means unfounded prejudice, and to your perspective, your opinions are well-founded. So let’s not talk about racism. Let’s talk about antagonism and opposition instead. If you think that Asians are smart, for example, you may be a racist (I’d say you are) but, all else being equal, you’re pro-Asian. An Asian would be reasonable in expecting you to be an ally. I think this way of looking at things explains some of your questions. Most blacks, with some exceptions, do not think that conservatives are their allies, and the evidence shows that this is a reasonable opinion to hold.[/quote]
IT IS ONLY REASONABLE TO ASSUME THEY ARE POLITICAL OPPONENTS IF THEIR POLITICAL GOALS DIFFER. It is not reasonable to assume that because of my race a political group is my opponent.
What you are saying is no more reasonable that me voting for McCain over Obama because statistically white people tend to agree with my views more. So I can not vote for Obama because he belongs to a social group that tends to disagree with me?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Let’s try this one.
A guy showed up here a while back saying that the rape of white women by black men is 15000, yes thousand, times as prevalent as the rape of black women by white men. I was all over the guy demanding proof for such an outrageous assertion. I was made the fool. He pointed me to the FBI stats and they do indeed demonstrate that for the last compiled year at the time, I believe 07, there were 15000 rapes/sexual assaults reported as having been committed by black men against white women and like 3 the other way around.
The quick and dirty conclusion is that black men are sexual predators and some already inclined to believe that way are handed a big club with this undeniable statistic. It could also be VERY persuasive to others who are trying to figure out exactly what they think about race relations in this nation.
Whatever happens, simply ignoring this fact or yelling racist at anybody who mentions it gets us nowhere. I’m not addressing you personally with this, but am making a point.
We either conclude that black males ARE in fact very much more genetically inclined to criminally sexual behavior or we take the time to think through other possible explanations. Either way no progress is possible while we are forbidden from even citing the statistic for fear of being labeled racists.[/quote]
Using this evidence might make black males more racially motivated sexual preditors than a White male, but not a more sexual preditor. We need to look at the statistics of White on White rape and Black on Black rape to see which makes a race more a sexual preditor than the other. The above statistic is eye opening though.
Okay.
I’ve always been extremely wary of what I deem “volatile” statistics, mainly for a few reasons: (And before someone says “numbers don’t lie”; they would be correct. However, how people extrapolate and/or interpret those numbers is often “skewed”).
My reasons are:
- As stated, they seem to always be “skewed” in some way to “say” something they really don’t say.
Let’s take the rape statistics. The vast majority of reported rapes are by acquaintances/spouses/dates/someone whom the victim knows and/or is familiar with. Those in the know about violent crimes against women (including domestic violence and rape) will tell you…again statistically…that a white women is much more likely to be raped by a white man; a black women a black man; a Chinese American Woman a Chinese American Man, etc. (again…statistics tend to bear this out).
It’s much like people lamenting about “all these black guys dating white women” based on what they see in the media or in their own little circles…when in fact, the vast majority of Americans date AND marry pretty much within their own race…and thats a fact.
-
As we’ve learned in many walks of our lives (especially with Politics)…you can have two different groups looking at the SAME statistics…and come to completely different conclusions.
-
I call these “volatile” stats simply because they are seldom used to open up reasonable discussion on anything; but are too often used as ammunition to serve an agenda.
I would have to study the statistics on rape more (include knowing the numbers of white women raped by white men…which is pretty hard to find based on a search…you get more “SEE! I TOLD you so!” links about black male/white female rape by far…much more than anything else. Check it out for yourself. The Duke Lacrosse Team case seems to come up a lot in searches, which I found interesting…).
Rape is a horrendous crime that often leaves lifelong scars. I simply think that what drives a person to commit such a crime goes a lot more than skin deep.
Mufasa
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
<<< Let’s talk about antagonism and opposition instead. >>>[/quote]
How bout we talk about what made this nation the most powerful, prosperous, safe and secure in all of human history in the blink of an historical eye.
If we really believe that all men are created equal then what made this the case for white people can also make it the case for black people… or any other people, right?
The founders greatest failing was slavery. They left us a situation with no good solutions. Of all the courses possible for attempting to produce a relatively harmonious and integrated society the one we chose was the very worst. How can taking white people’s money and giving it to black people be expected to produce anything other than resentment and condescension on one side and irresponsibility and squalor on the other? The fact that it promotes sides at all is testimony to it’s failure.
I am not an opponent of black Americans. I bear no antagonism toward anybody because of their race. I oppose and hold enormous antagonism toward centrally orchestrated nanny state social engineering because it is an evil trap. It cultivates and feeds the worst in human nature on all sides in the guise of compassion. We now have third and fourth generation serfs in the United States of America who have never seen what a hard working faithful loving father looks like. Their every experience is saturated in promiscuity and violence all financed by guess who? The very white people they are continually taught to hate and blame for their hopeless situation.
Antagonism? Opposition? You have to be kidding me. This is a tragic and catastrophic assault on a group of people based entirely on race and is in fact the real racism in this country. I do not believe black people are any more inclined to crime, sloth and depravity than white people. You see now, I believe all people are inclined that way. We started with a society that effectively restrained that inclination in the preponderance of it’s citizens and then denied the same to blacks by actively, indeed aggressively, enabling in them the very things this nation’s original trajectory found abhorrent. It’s not just a difference of opinion to me. It is evil in every sense of the word.
It won’t be solved in a classroom, a boardroom or a capital building. It will be solved, if at all, in the personal morality of individuals centering on faithful productive families. Everything else is a symptom.
…Their every experience is saturated in promiscuity and violence all financed by guess who? The very white people they are continually taught to hate and blame for their hopeless situation…
You lost me here, Tiribulus.
-
There are plenty of hard-working, productive, tax-paying, not-on-the-dole non-whites.
-
There are also a fair number of not only single-parent whites…but also whites on the dole.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
<<< a reasonable post >>>[/quote]
http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/appz/fedstats05.pdf
I saved the pdf file. It was actually the stats for 05. If you figure the percentages in light of percentages of population etc. the conclusions are tough to escape. The precise nature of the stats is incidental anyway. Blacks make up a far far smaller percentage of the population than their representation in the crime stats. That’s what matters and please read the rest of my posts before jumping to conclusions, though I think you know my views by now.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Their every experience is saturated in promiscuity and violence all financed by guess who? The very white people they are continually taught to hate and blame for their hopeless situation…
You lost me here, Tiribulus.
-
There are plenty of hard-working, productive, tax-paying, not-on-the-dole non-whites.
-
There are also a fair number of not only single-parent whites…but also whites on the dole.
Mufasa[/quote]
Of course, but it’s time for legs. I’ll clarify later if nobody else has by then.
Okay, I think I’ve been misunderstood.
Tiribulus, I think it’s quite clear from your posts that you bear no ill will to black people because of their race. Personal accusations aren’t my bag anyhow.
DoubleDuce, I was making a statistical argument. About people in the aggregate. I know there’s a population of black conservatives, and a few in the Tea Party. But on average there is an ideological difference. When you have two groups that statistically are highly opposed on political questions, would you call those groups political allies or political antagonists?
I don’t think there’s any one answer as to why there aren’t many black conservatives, but it’s worth considering the possibility that the right has a bad history that isn’t entirely gone. (Here’s my friend, a better writer than me, on this issue: Private Site )
The other point I was trying to get across is that IF you are an ethnocentrist, you are more likely to oppose redistribution in the form of welfare, but not for social security and Medicare. ( http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/03/ethnocentrism-and-small-government-hypocrisy.php ). I couldn’t see how they defined ethnocentrism here, but I assume it’s some reasonable set of survey questions. This is sensible – if you like your own race best you are especially keen to avoid redistributing to other races, but you don’t mind something like Social Security so much. We should expect ethnocentric whites to oppose means-tested redistribution.
Maybe everybody around here is a principled libertarian or conservative, without the merest tinge of racial animus; I’m happy to make that assumption. The data I cited is quite consistent with the existence of such people. The point is, if a.) ethnocentrists exist in significant numbers, and b.) ethnocentrists tend to be economically right-wing, then the right bears a noticeable influence from ethnocentrists. (It’s a Bayesian thing.) To contradict that argument, you’d have to claim that either a.) there aren’t really that many ethnocentrists at all, or b.) they’re equally common on the right and left.
Which one is it?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Their every experience is saturated in promiscuity and violence all financed by guess who? The very white people they are continually taught to hate and blame for their hopeless situation…
You lost me here, Tiribulus.
-
There are plenty of hard-working, productive, tax-paying, not-on-the-dole non-whites.
-
There are also a fair number of not only single-parent whites…but also whites on the dole.
Mufasa[/quote]
Percentages are what matters. Last time I checked blacks were 13% of the population and 49% of the welfare rolls with a much muCH MUCH higher % of their overall numbers taking public “assistance”. If you have a country of 100 whites and 13 blacks with 7 of the blacks and 21 of the whites being subsidized, you have 3 times as many whites as blacks but a much higher % of the blacks. An only loosely accurate and obviously oversimplified example.
In the Detroit area a heeyooj % of blacks are on every variety of public redistribution imaginable. An intact faithful family is believe me quite the exception and they are eating each other alive. Some of these children will make your skin crawl seeing the ease with which they can torture and kill a fellow BLACK child.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Percentages are what matters. Last time I checked blacks were 13% of the population and 49% of the welfare rolls with a much muCH MUCH higher % of their overall numbers taking public “assistance”. If you have a country of 100 whites and 13 blacks with 7 of the blacks and 21 of the whites being subsidized, you have 3 times as many whites as blacks but a much higher % of the blacks. An only loosely accurate and obviously oversimplified example.
In the Detroit area a heeyooj % of blacks are on every variety of public redistribution imaginable. An intact faithful family is believe me quite the exception and they are eating each other alive. Some of these children will make your skin crawl seeing the ease with which they can torture and kill a fellow BLACK child. [/quote]
Does “blackness” cause that, or is it merely coincidental, and a bunch of other factors (that coincidentally impact black folks more) cause it?
I don’t think anything about skin pigmentation causes any of that, therefor, statistics on the skin-pigmentation are useless, unless it can be shown that racism is really at work, and forcing blacks into that position. Is that what’s happening?
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Okay, I think I’ve been misunderstood.
Tiribulus, I think it’s quite clear from your posts that you bear no ill will to black people because of their race. Personal accusations aren’t my bag anyhow.
[/quote]
Maybe I’m the one not being clear. I didn’t take you as accusing me of even unconscious ill will toward black people. What I did take you as doing, which you seem to have an irresistible propensity toward, was reducing the discussion to a clinical academic level. “How bout if we call it this instead of that”. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve grown somewhat fond of you and I’m not jumping down your throat, but who cares what we call anything anymore? Whole sub segments of society, largely minority, are destroying themselves and those around them while we pay them to do it.
As for your articles:
I disagree with Derbyshire as far as criminality. That’s maybe even an intentional oversimplification. I don’t know much about the guy. However there is some evidence that blacks AVERAGE lower than other groups in overall intelligence and Asians average highest. That doesn’t mean blacks are imbeciles and Asians are geniuses. It does mean that out of a thousand of each group Asians will average higher. What if that’s true?
This:[quote]The â??tea partyâ?? movement â?? heralded by Republicans and conservative leaders â?? is bursting with racial resentment and ugly prejudice. Indeed, the de facto spokesmen of the Right, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, spend most of their time stoking racial paranoia among their followers.[/quote]
sent all credibility out the window for the rest of the article. I happen to absolutely know better in all three cases. Someone would have to be either dishonest or uninformed to say that which calls into question motivation or level of research or both.
As for the other one? I absolutely agree as far as many people decrying one government program while taking from another. It is hypocrisy. I hate all of em. SS, medicare, medicaid, pick one. I see them all as horrendous gateway drugs into the rest. On a societal level, not an individual one. There is one difference having said that though. Most of these tea party people have actually paid into them. Don’t even try it with me, I see people every single day who are clearly not old enough to have paid into anything using somebody else’s money right before my eyes.