I’d like to point out that the only evidence you have presented to say that blacks aren’t better at basketball is that somebody thought Jews were better at basketball in the 30s. Did you have some other evidence?
If action is be taken against bias, first it must be proven that said bias actually exists. That is all I ask. I don’t think there is a bias problem in our country on a systemic level. I recommend that we do nothing. If someone thinks otherwise, they need to prove that bias exists. And that includes proving that any disparities can be explained only through bias and that means disproving other explanations. Barring that, it’s irresponsible to take action against bias that might not exist.
I am going with the theory of the mob shooting Kennedy. They would be the few people with the balls and resources to even consider it, and after the brother reneged on his promise to back off if the mob delivered the union vote, there was plenty of motive to do it.
I’m sorry, but you’re mixing apples and oranges here. “Nation-building” is a code word for invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot be compared to relationships with NATO allies. Afghanistan and Iraq have been a colossal waste of US resources, and as I have argued here before, have been a total fiasco in strategic terms. After billions and billions of dollars and thousands of US lives spent Iraq is under Iranian control and Afghanistan is…well, still Afghanistan.
Yet, the often overlooked point is that NATO allies responded to the US call to arms, and sent their troops to Afghanistan, just because your C-in-C at the time said they should go. My brother did a tour in the ISAF; got into firefights with the Taliban, contracted diarrhea several times, and has seen enough Pashto man-on-man love to last a lifetime. So did thousands of other European soldiers - Danes, Poles, Norwegians, Germans…
While Trump likes to brag about NATO allies not doing their bit by referring to percentage of GDP allocated to defense he’s ignoring how many countries in Eastern Europe are punching well above their weight when it comes to counter terrorism intelligence and prevention, saving untold lives in the process and that all of those countries reconfigured their armed forces to specific tasks according to US requests.
I don’t think @Bismark posts here anymore to explain how important is NATO in terms of global security - he’d be much more eloquent. And global security and the project of power transfers to economic growth and those treasured jobs Trump likes to profess he cares about.
And when it comes to costs, five hundred US in Estonia or a thousand in Poland is not such a colossal drain on US Treasury as five billion to Israel, for that matter.
What war? With the US? You’re again buying into Russian propaganda. Russia cannot fight a war in Syria in Ukraine at the same time, shuttling soldiers from the east of Ukraine to Syria and back. Their only so-called aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is a black smoke belching Soviet relic. Militarily, they can only threaten their neighbors, but their reach is much, much bigger when one takes into account their covert power.
That’s why they’ve invested so much in RT and conspiracy youtube videos you like to watch, projecting the image of a superpower under the supremely wise leader who adroitly navigates the waters of international diplomacy.
So Russia cannot threaten the overwhelming economic and military superiority of the US in anything but a hybrid war - propaganda coupled with unconventional warfare such as the cyber attacks on US power grid, democratic institutions and intelligence services.
And look what they’ve succeeded so far - all without a shot being fired against the US - a President-elect who doesn’t believe his intelligence services and the information they give him, ensuring that a dilettante POTUS and his inexperienced or pro-Russian stooges call the shots.
In contrast, everybody in the Russian government has a intelligence background, they call themselves “chekists” after Cheka, the notorious Lenin’s secret police, predecessor of the KGB.
The only people they fear are their adversaries in other intelligence services. And it the US case, they cut them out of the loop. According to the useful idiot Guiliani, the fucking CIA is “politicized”.
So to conclude, Russia can do whatever they fuck want to harm us interests, from starting up frozen conflicts to peeling of US allies by lavishly funding anti-American far left and far right political forces to supporting terrorist groups and selling arms to whomever they please. And all that because they will get a naive, vain, appeaser in the White House.
I don’t downplay NATO, but when it reaches out to Ukraine, the Baltic states, and the Balkans and E Europe - this is poking the Russian bear in his cave. Bismark also noted the strategic importance Russia feels to these nations that were either within Greater Russia for centuries or in physical proximity (Poland).
You are narrowing Nation building to suit your argument. We rebuilt most of W Europe, Japan, Korea, E Asia in addition to most of the ME. The Golden Goose is near death.
Anyway hope your New Year is prosperous and safe.
About to OD on some football and prime rib.
Whether it’s a full on war or a hybrid war it will still cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars at minimum. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Trump has just been briefed on information that has not been released to the public. You are showing your bias by calling him a “Russian stooge” simply because he’s spoken positively about Putin. We don’t know the gravity of the situation compared to him and he’s not even in office.
Russia is still a nuclear power. Getting into any sort of conflict with another Nuclear Power is a bad idea.
For pete’s sake, I have not been arguing that AAs aren’t better at basketball! It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that, at this point in time, they clearly are. The point of contention is why they are better, and what are the implications of their current superiority. You are arguing that the fact they dominate basketball is prima facie evidence of genetic superiority related to the construct of ‘biological race.’ That is where we part ways.
The whole point of the Jewish example is that you would have been making the exact same argument about Jews 90 years ago.
Just as no one could deny that AAs dominate basketball, so too no one could deny that they are lagging with respect to SES, educational achievement, representation in STEM-related professions, etc. If I’m reading you correctly, you are arguing that these undeniable racial disparities owe not to current or historical discrimination, but rather to the relative genetic inadequacies of AAs with respect to achievement in these areas. Further, given that racial disparities are genetic in origin, attempts to rectify them via policy are misguided (at best), and probably futile. The fact that there is ZERO actual genetic evidence to support this thesis is irrelevant, as you consider current under-representation to be prima facie evidence of genetic inferiority. Finally, as far as you are concerned, and despite the undeniable history of de jure and de facto institutional racism in this country, the onus is on those who disagree to ‘prove’ that achievement is not genetically-based. Is that about right?
Edit: I don’t have access to the entire article. How did the authors define/measure ‘black’ and ‘white’? That is, how was each ‘race’ operationalized for purposes of the study?
I don’t have a membership with the Journal of Applies Physiology, so I am unable to access the full article. But most people view Pubmed as one of the most reputable medical resources we have available. If you want to try to discredit them, I wish you luck.
So does this mean the answers to my questions are:
You don’t have any reason to believe the observed difference is genetic in nature.
You have no idea how the authors defined ‘race,’ so there’s no way of knowing if it had any sort of genetic validity.
Despite these large gaps in your understanding of the study, you have concluded it represents “evidence that black people are genetically superior.” Hmm…
PS PubMed is simply a medical-journal search engine.
This…because most African Americans in America are not 100% African. We have Germans, Native Americans, and Central Africans in my genome…what criteria do you use to define me as Black?
Yup. And in fairness to the authors of the study in question, the abstract makes no claims regarding 1) a genetic basis for the construct of race, and/or 2) a genetic basis for the inter-group difference in LBM density they found.
So ED, do you believe that there are no differences between Caucasiod, Negroid, and Mongoloid?
I know that there is a sociopolitical movement to say that we are all the same, but it’s very clear that humans have developed differently in different parts of the world.
How do you explain these different phenotypes other than to say that something or someone is not what it is?
After being here on T-Nation almost from the start…I would probably start another “genetics” thread. (GREAT discussion…no question. But can we start another thread?)
After the Inauguration; I’ll probably start another "First 100 DAYS AS PRESIDENT (or something like that).
If history is any indication; there will be a HUGE flurry of Legislative Activity at that point (usually of the “Throwing-meat-at-the-Base/Appeasement” type of stuff). We should be seeing a huge amount of activity from this Administration (minus any wall-building, I’m sure).
Anyone know if the Bolshoi Ballet will be performing at the ball? (Probably won’t see the famed Ukrainian Cossack Dancers…but who knows; Putin can be convincing…)
As Phaedrus said, “Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden.”
Certain superficial traits (eg, skin tone, hair texture, and the height of the eyelid crease) tend to cluster, and it is not surprising that we humans impute a great deal of importance to them. But when considered in context, the genetics of these traits do not come close to justifying a claim of distinct races. Put simply, when comparative genetic studies are done, there is vastly more variation within so-called races than there is between them. Note that this is the opposite finding of what would be needed to justify subclassifying humans into genetically distinct races.
It is also worth noting that the most recent iteration of ‘trait clusters’ seems to be about 50-60,000 years old–a blink of an eye, evolutionarily speaking. As for what the ‘races’ looked like before that, no one can say for sure.
When it comes to race and genetics, there’s just no ‘there’ there.
Edit: Just read the call to abandon this derail, which I will honor.
