Racism is innate

[ApostateAbe]

Bringing the topic back to your original post, the problem is that racism is more than just the belief that racial differences exist. It involves attributing evil to racial outsiders. And that's precisely what you've shown in your post which attributes evil to Latinos. If you believed that a group has a lower IQ and therefore should be helped, then the motivation would be different. There are lots of people who are advocating for reduced Latino and Black immigration into the United States, but I don't see anyone advocating increased Asian immigration despite the available data reflecting that Asians may have a higher average IQ. This shows that racism is primarily about inciting hatred against other groups of people who can easily be distinguished by their physical features, by those who cannot justify the institutional advantages they enjoy except by demeaning others.

Even if one believes that certain racial groups may have a lower average IQ, it does not automatically follow that it is innate to dislike those races. Case in point - my nephew (this is true) has a lower IQ than the average human as he is intellectually disabled (so presumably he would be at the left tail end of the ethnic Chinese IQ spectrum according to you). He is not a meth head. He is not homeless as his parents are taking care of him. I do not despise him despite his medically certified lower IQ. So why should it be natural that I would attribute evil traits to sub-Saharan Africans even if it were true that they have a lower IQ? Ultimately all of us came from a common ancestor.

There are two issues going on, and they need to be teased apart. First, I agree with you, mostly, that the racist instinct does not care whether other races are less intelligent or more intelligent, more criminal or less criminal; all of us have a distrust of racial outsiders regardless. Suppose, instead of Latinos, America was being overrun by Chinese. White Americans most certainly would not like this either.

The second issue: criminal differences among the races is not a subjective moral judgment of good and evil; but it is a judgment of objective reality. Almost nobody realizes this fact, but criminal behavior is about 50% genetically heritable within groups. That means, even if we are talking about the white race alone, about 50% of the reason why some individuals are more criminal and others are less criminal on average is genetic variation. This is within-group heritability (WGH), and it does not directly translate to between-group heritability (BGH), but it does not matter, because the relationship is strong enough: a large WGH is a big part of what makes a large BGH more plausible on the face. Criminologists tend to learn about the 50% WGH of crime in the introductory undergraduate courses, and then they proceed to ignore it for the remainder of their careers. They think it is useless, racist, or both.

So, recombining those two issues: if we were to choose our conquerors, then some invaders are better than others. The white race does not explicitly discriminate by race; but, they have always discriminated according to the quality of migrants, specifically in favor of those who have absolutely no criminal record, those with a high education, and those with skills in low supply and high demand. This means Chinese applicants are more likely to be granted visas than African, Filipino, Arab, and Latino applicants. If our descendants are to be outnumbered and pushed out, then at least we can have safe and prosperous neighborhoods until then.

 

[ApostateAbe]

To follow-up, I rambled about the genetics of criminal behavior, but that may have been an error, because it is just a tangent to the bolded point. Even if genetic variation had nothing to do with the variation of criminal behavior, then the broad racial differences in actual criminal behavior is still an objective established fact. It is not a subjective moral judgment of good and evil of this race or that race.

 

[walfin]

There are two issues going on, and they need to be teased apart. First, I agree with you, mostly, that the racist instinct does not care whether other races are less intelligent or more intelligent, more criminal or less criminal; all of us have a distrust of racial outsiders regardless. Suppose, instead of Latinos, America was being overrun by Chinese. White Americans most certainly would not like this either.

We may agree on the motivations of racism, but that's where the agreement ends. It is not necessarily natural to have a distrust of racial outsiders. Consider the Clark doll experiment: why did the black girls associate good attributes with white dolls instead of black dolls if racial self-preservation is innate? It is clear that this was due to social conditioning.

I have taken the implicit association test. While my results reflected a preference for Asians, then Blacks, then Hispanics and finally Whites (my wife got Asian, Black, White then Hispanic - the different ordering also suggests that dislike of faces of racial outsiders may not be innate), I do not hate Whites (or Blacks or Hispanics). For that matter, I do not dislike Malays and Indians, the other main races in my country. So even if we have some innate preference for seeing faces which are similar to our own (which may be a very mild preference), this may not amount to distrust of those of a different race.

This suggests that much distrust of racial outsiders arises from external, especially social, influences (things said by parents, in school, among friends, etc.), rather than from our genes. Surely the average modern White American would be less racist than the average White Nazi German, even though they share the same genes - the difference must thus be environmental.

To follow-up, I rambled about the genetics of criminal behavior, but that may have been an error, because it is just a tangent to the bolded point. Even if genetic variation had nothing to do with the variation of criminal behavior, then the broad racial differences in actual criminal behavior is still an objective established fact. It is not a subjective moral judgment of good and evil of this race or that race.

Criminal behaviour is subjective, and depends on how strict (or unreasonable, depending on how you see it) the laws of a country are. For instance, in my country you get a criminal record for negligently causing the death of someone in a car accident - an act which is hardly criminal in terms of motivation (you could face imprisonment if you even cause a fracture to someone else in a car accident). You would also be imprisoned for a very long period of time, or even sentenced to death if the quantity is large enough, for giving or selling Cannabis (something which would not even be illegal in several other countries).

 

[ApostateAbe]

There are two issues going on, and they need to be teased apart. First, I agree with you, mostly, that the racist instinct does not care whether other races are less intelligent or more intelligent, more criminal or less criminal; all of us have a distrust of racial outsiders regardless. Suppose, instead of Latinos, America was being overrun by Chinese. White Americans most certainly would not like this either.

We may agree on the motivations of racism, but that's where the agreement ends. It is not necessarily natural to have a distrust of racial outsiders. Consider the Clark doll experiment: why did the black girls associate good attributes with white dolls instead of black dolls if racial self-preservation is innate? It is clear that this was due to social conditioning.

I have taken the implicit association test. While my results reflected a preference for Asians, then Blacks, then Hispanics and finally Whites (my wife got Asian, Black, White then Hispanic - the different ordering also suggests that dislike of faces of racial outsiders may not be innate), I do not hate Whites (or Blacks or Hispanics). For that matter, I do not dislike Malays and Indians, the other main races in my country. So even if we have some innate preference for seeing faces which are similar to our own (which may be a very mild preference), this may not amount to distrust of those of a different race.

This suggests that much distrust of racial outsiders arises from external, especially social, influences (things said by parents, in school, among friends, etc.), rather than from our genes. Surely the average modern White American would be less racist than the average White Nazi German, even though they share the same genes - the difference must thus be environmental.

To follow-up, I rambled about the genetics of criminal behavior, but that may have been an error, because it is just a tangent to the bolded point. Even if genetic variation had nothing to do with the variation of criminal behavior, then the broad racial differences in actual criminal behavior is still an objective established fact. It is not a subjective moral judgment of good and evil of this race or that race.

Criminal behaviour is subjective, and depends on how strict (or unreasonable, depending on how you see it) the laws of a country are. For instance, in my country you get a criminal record for negligently causing the death of someone in a car accident - an act which is hardly criminal in terms of motivation (you could face imprisonment if you even cause a fracture to someone else in a car accident). You would also be imprisoned for a very long period of time, or even sentenced to death if the quantity is large enough, for giving or selling Cannabis (something which would not even be illegal in several other countries).

You can find a copy of the 1947 paper of the Clark doll experiment here:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/13/doll.study.1947.pdf

The Clark doll experiments have been the tool of a lot of rhetoric ever since, all with the same underlying faulty presumption: all races are objectively the same at a young age.

First, I would like to correct an error concerning "objective" and "subjective." The mixup may also be a problem in the popular culture.

Consider these two statements:

(#1) Higgins is bad.
(#2) Doyle believes Higgins is bad.

Claim #1 is subjective; I expect we can both agree for sure. But, claim #2 is objective; if that assertion seems absurd to you, then it shouldn't. Whatever Doyle believes about Higgins stands as a fact of the universe, and it is either correct or incorrect, independent of any external observer's opinion. If you were to claim that Doyle believes Harry is good, then you would be objectively incorrect.

Similar reasoning if we were talking about beauty instead of morality:

(#1) Charlotte is beautiful.
(#2) Percy believes Charlotte is beautiful.

Claim #2 is not subjective, but it is an objective claim. And to illustrate the we can expand it beyond Percy and to the whole world.

(#2b) Almost all observers of Charlotte believe Charlotte is beautiful.

You have heard that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and this is true, but don't be misled by presuming much randomness and variation among the many beholders of women within the human species. The themes of what constitutes beauty of women and adolescent girls seem to be human universals, crossing nearly all races and tribes: symmetrical body and face, smooth and light skin, long straight hair, narrow nose, big breasts, big buttocks, and narrow waist. If Charlotte has all these things, then almost all men of the world will believe her to be beautiful. Some notable exceptions exist--African men in very poor nations may prefer fatter women, plausibly as a means of survival (fat women would be wealthy). And, some of these claims of beauty come off as downright racist: light skin, straight hair and narrow nose? And yet the claims stand as fact. You know it if you are somewhat familiar with the expanse of cultures all across East Asia. Without exception, they all try to make their skin lighter, for example. They are willing to poison themselves, or else waste money in the vain attempt, to try to make themselves look like Casper the Friendly Ghost. This is true even in Japan, where natives look down upon white Europids much like white Europids look down upon Latinos and blacks; the Japanese still cancerize themselves to whiten their skin. An odd temporary exception was in the nineties among white nations when white men and women cancerized themselves in tanning salons to make their skin darker. This trend passed, and whites now tend to be happy with their white skin. Long straight hair is another interesting human universal of female beauty. African women have curly hair, theoretically to protect their heads from the blistering cancerous sun. Europeans and East Asians have straight hair seemingly for a reason that is not so openly discussed: it seems to have been sexually selected by men. Black women spend thousands of dollars to style their hair, in large part to make it look straighter, because it isn't easy for black hair but black men love it. It is a puzzle, in my opinion, because the sexual psychology theoretically came about only to select for a health advantage, but the curly hair of blacks would be the health advantage for them, and it is not just about protection from the sun. Lice love the circular profile of European hair, because they can crawl through it easily, but they can't so easily crawl through African hair with the oval profile. Lice are about 18 times more common among white children than among black children.

All of that rambling is meant to bring perspective to the Clark doll experiments. Whites tend to be more beautiful than blacks. This is a claim that is directly about what goes on in the minds of observers, not about the objective beauty of those targets of observation (there is no objective beauty). We should not be presuming that children are all blank slates when it comes to perceptions of beauty. Children are programmed before birth to perceive some people as more beautiful, some less. It follows that children are programmed before birth to perceive some races as tending to be more beautiful, some tending to be less.

And it is not just about beauty. It is about racial differences in actual behavior. Black children are much more likely to misbehave compared to white children, even if we are talking about children as young as preschool. Black preschool children are disciplined by their teachers at a much higher rate (here is an activist report with academic citations: https://www.americanprogress.org/is...50-preschoolers-suspended-expelled-every-day/). As you may expect, the only explanation allowed on the table for this phenomenon is: preschool teachers are implicit racists. That is of course delusional. Black children are actually much more likely to misbehave, and therefore other children would rather not play with them. That ought to bring another needed perspective to the Clark doll study.

"Criminal behaviour is subjective..."

I hope by now you see the error of that claim, but, in case you don't, then maybe some prehistorical context would help. Modern republics have a complex set of criminal laws, some of them rarely obeyed, and some of them, as you said, independant of motivations of stereotypical criminals (selfish, hostile, rebellious). But, it was much simpler before modern civilization: the "law" was whatever the tribal chief wanted. Those men who disrespected, disobeyed and rebelled against the will of the often-tyrannical chief were the homologous "criminals." This was the social dynamic for as long the human species has been the human species, before the modern republics. For a tribe with no criminals and with an effective chief, it would have been a big advantage: such a cooperative tribe could efficiently hunt, collect, and produce, and they could easily conquer the competing tribes. But, the existence of criminals within each tribe was no evolutionary accident. The criminals had a power advantage and therefore a sexual advantage that competed with that of the chief. Among modern republics, the rule of law stands in for the tribal chief. The existence of strange laws of our modern republics does not mean that the behavior of obedience or disobedience to law is just a subjective arbitrary chaos bearing no relationship to human nature. We still have men who objectively behave as criminals, and we still have men who objectively behave as Eagle Scouts.

 

[walfin]

You can find a copy of the 1947 paper of the Clark doll experiment here:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/13/doll.study.1947.pdf

The Clark doll experiments have been the tool of a lot of rhetoric ever since, all with the same underlying faulty presumption: all races are objectively the same at a young age.

First, I would like to correct an error concerning "objective" and "subjective." The mixup may also be a problem in the popular culture.

Consider these two statements:

(#1) Higgins is bad.
(#2) Doyle believes Higgins is bad.

Claim #1 is subjective; I expect we can both agree for sure. But, claim #2 is objective; if that assertion seems absurd to you, then it shouldn't. Whatever Doyle believes about Higgins stands as a fact of the universe, and it is either correct or incorrect, independent of any external observer's opinion. If you were to claim that Doyle believes Harry is good, then you would be objectively incorrect.

Similar reasoning if we were talking about beauty instead of morality:

(#1) Charlotte is beautiful.
(#2) Percy believes Charlotte is beautiful.

Claim #2 is not subjective, but it is an objective claim. And to illustrate the we can expand it beyond Percy and to the whole world.

(#2b) Almost all observers of Charlotte believe Charlotte is beautiful.

You have heard that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and this is true, but don't be misled by presuming much randomness and variation among the many beholders of women within the human species. The themes of what constitutes beauty of women and adolescent girls seem to be human universals, crossing nearly all races and tribes: symmetrical body and face, smooth and light skin, long straight hair, narrow nose, big breasts, big buttocks, and narrow waist. If Charlotte has all these things, then almost all men of the world will believe her to be beautiful. Some notable exceptions exist--African men in very poor nations may prefer fatter women, plausibly as a means of survival (fat women would be wealthy). And, some of these claims of beauty come off as downright racist: light skin, straight hair and narrow nose? And yet the claims stand as fact. You know it if you are somewhat familiar with the expanse of cultures all across East Asia. Without exception, they all try to make their skin lighter, for example. They are willing to poison themselves, or else waste money in the vain attempt, to try to make themselves look like Casper the Friendly Ghost. This is true even in Japan, where natives look down upon white Europids much like white Europids look down upon Latinos and blacks; the Japanese still cancerize themselves to whiten their skin. An odd temporary exception was in the nineties among white nations when white men and women cancerized themselves in tanning salons to make their skin darker. This trend passed, and whites now tend to be happy with their white skin. Long straight hair is another interesting human universal of female beauty. African women have curly hair, theoretically to protect their heads from the blistering cancerous sun. Europeans and East Asians have straight hair seemingly for a reason that is not so openly discussed: it seems to have been sexually selected by men. Black women spend thousands of dollars to style their hair, in large part to make it look straighter, because it isn't easy for black hair but black men love it. It is a puzzle, in my opinion, because the sexual psychology theoretically came about only to select for a health advantage, but the curly hair of blacks would be the health advantage for them, and it is not just about protection from the sun. Lice love the circular profile of European hair, because they can crawl through it easily, but they can't so easily crawl through African hair with the oval profile. Lice are about 18 times more common among white children than among black children.

All of that rambling is meant to bring perspective to the Clark doll experiments. Whites tend to be more beautiful than blacks. This is a claim that is directly about what goes on in the minds of observers, not about the objective beauty of those targets of observation (there is no objective beauty). We should not be presuming that children are all blank slates when it comes to perceptions of beauty. Children are programmed before birth to perceive some people as more beautiful, some less. It follows that children are programmed before birth to perceive some races as tending to be more beautiful, some tending to be less.

And it is not just about beauty. It is about racial differences in actual behavior. Black children are much more likely to misbehave compared to white children, even if we are talking about children as young as preschool. Black preschool children are disciplined by their teachers at a much higher rate (here is an activist report with academic citations: https://www.americanprogress.org/is...50-preschoolers-suspended-expelled-every-day/). As you may expect, the only explanation allowed on the table for this phenomenon is: preschool teachers are implicit racists. That is of course delusional. Black children are actually much more likely to misbehave, and therefore other children would rather not play with them. That ought to bring another needed perspective to the Clark doll study.

"Criminal behaviour is subjective..."

I hope by now you see the error of that claim, but, in case you don't, then maybe some prehistorical context would help. Modern republics have a complex set of criminal laws, some of them rarely obeyed, and some of them, as you said, independant of motivations of stereotypical criminals (selfish, hostile, rebellious). But, it was much simpler before modern civilization: the "law" was whatever the tribal chief wanted. Those men who disrespected, disobeyed and rebelled against the will of the often-tyrannical chief were the homologous "criminals." This was the social dynamic for as long the human species has been the human species, before the modern republics. For a tribe with no criminals and with an effective chief, it would have been a big advantage: such a cooperative tribe could efficiently hunt, collect, and produce, and they could easily conquer the competing tribes. But, the existence of criminals within each tribe was no evolutionary accident. The criminals had a power advantage and therefore a sexual advantage that competed with that of the chief. Among modern republics, the rule of law stands in for the tribal chief. The existence of strange laws of our modern republics does not mean that the behavior of obedience or disobedience to law is just a subjective arbitrary chaos bearing no relationship to human nature. We still have men who objectively behave as criminals, and we still have men who objectively behave as Eagle Scouts.

What I gather from your very detailed post is that you seem to have a great dislike for Blacks.

Your post is well written, but the disdain you show for Blacks is truly disturbing. Do you have no Black friends? If you don't, given the large number of Blacks in your country, I should think that is reflective of a real crisis in racial harmony in your country. Or did you have a very bad experience with Blacks in your life?

Even I have 2 African friends (although I don't know any US Blacks) and they're a real rarity in my country. Neither of them seemed to have a low IQ. Not intending to rely on such a small sample as a statistic, of course.

 

[ApostateAbe]

You can find a copy of the 1947 paper of the Clark doll experiment here:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/13/doll.study.1947.pdf

The Clark doll experiments have been the tool of a lot of rhetoric ever since, all with the same underlying faulty presumption: all races are objectively the same at a young age.

First, I would like to correct an error concerning "objective" and "subjective." The mixup may also be a problem in the popular culture.

Consider these two statements:

(#1) Higgins is bad.
(#2) Doyle believes Higgins is bad.

Claim #1 is subjective; I expect we can both agree for sure. But, claim #2 is objective; if that assertion seems absurd to you, then it shouldn't. Whatever Doyle believes about Higgins stands as a fact of the universe, and it is either correct or incorrect, independent of any external observer's opinion. If you were to claim that Doyle believes Harry is good, then you would be objectively incorrect.

Similar reasoning if we were talking about beauty instead of morality:

(#1) Charlotte is beautiful.
(#2) Percy believes Charlotte is beautiful.

Claim #2 is not subjective, but it is an objective claim. And to illustrate the we can expand it beyond Percy and to the whole world.

(#2b) Almost all observers of Charlotte believe Charlotte is beautiful.

You have heard that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and this is true, but don't be misled by presuming much randomness and variation among the many beholders of women within the human species. The themes of what constitutes beauty of women and adolescent girls seem to be human universals, crossing nearly all races and tribes: symmetrical body and face, smooth and light skin, long straight hair, narrow nose, big breasts, big buttocks, and narrow waist. If Charlotte has all these things, then almost all men of the world will believe her to be beautiful. Some notable exceptions exist--African men in very poor nations may prefer fatter women, plausibly as a means of survival (fat women would be wealthy). And, some of these claims of beauty come off as downright racist: light skin, straight hair and narrow nose? And yet the claims stand as fact. You know it if you are somewhat familiar with the expanse of cultures all across East Asia. Without exception, they all try to make their skin lighter, for example. They are willing to poison themselves, or else waste money in the vain attempt, to try to make themselves look like Casper the Friendly Ghost. This is true even in Japan, where natives look down upon white Europids much like white Europids look down upon Latinos and blacks; the Japanese still cancerize themselves to whiten their skin. An odd temporary exception was in the nineties among white nations when white men and women cancerized themselves in tanning salons to make their skin darker. This trend passed, and whites now tend to be happy with their white skin. Long straight hair is another interesting human universal of female beauty. African women have curly hair, theoretically to protect their heads from the blistering cancerous sun. Europeans and East Asians have straight hair seemingly for a reason that is not so openly discussed: it seems to have been sexually selected by men. Black women spend thousands of dollars to style their hair, in large part to make it look straighter, because it isn't easy for black hair but black men love it. It is a puzzle, in my opinion, because the sexual psychology theoretically came about only to select for a health advantage, but the curly hair of blacks would be the health advantage for them, and it is not just about protection from the sun. Lice love the circular profile of European hair, because they can crawl through it easily, but they can't so easily crawl through African hair with the oval profile. Lice are about 18 times more common among white children than among black children.

All of that rambling is meant to bring perspective to the Clark doll experiments. Whites tend to be more beautiful than blacks. This is a claim that is directly about what goes on in the minds of observers, not about the objective beauty of those targets of observation (there is no objective beauty). We should not be presuming that children are all blank slates when it comes to perceptions of beauty. Children are programmed before birth to perceive some people as more beautiful, some less. It follows that children are programmed before birth to perceive some races as tending to be more beautiful, some tending to be less.

And it is not just about beauty. It is about racial differences in actual behavior. Black children are much more likely to misbehave compared to white children, even if we are talking about children as young as preschool. Black preschool children are disciplined by their teachers at a much higher rate (here is an activist report with academic citations: https://www.americanprogress.org/is...50-preschoolers-suspended-expelled-every-day/). As you may expect, the only explanation allowed on the table for this phenomenon is: preschool teachers are implicit racists. That is of course delusional. Black children are actually much more likely to misbehave, and therefore other children would rather not play with them. That ought to bring another needed perspective to the Clark doll study.

"Criminal behaviour is subjective..."

I hope by now you see the error of that claim, but, in case you don't, then maybe some prehistorical context would help. Modern republics have a complex set of criminal laws, some of them rarely obeyed, and some of them, as you said, independant of motivations of stereotypical criminals (selfish, hostile, rebellious). But, it was much simpler before modern civilization: the "law" was whatever the tribal chief wanted. Those men who disrespected, disobeyed and rebelled against the will of the often-tyrannical chief were the homologous "criminals." This was the social dynamic for as long the human species has been the human species, before the modern republics. For a tribe with no criminals and with an effective chief, it would have been a big advantage: such a cooperative tribe could efficiently hunt, collect, and produce, and they could easily conquer the competing tribes. But, the existence of criminals within each tribe was no evolutionary accident. The criminals had a power advantage and therefore a sexual advantage that competed with that of the chief. Among modern republics, the rule of law stands in for the tribal chief. The existence of strange laws of our modern republics does not mean that the behavior of obedience or disobedience to law is just a subjective arbitrary chaos bearing no relationship to human nature. We still have men who objectively behave as criminals, and we still have men who objectively behave as Eagle Scouts.

What I gather from your very detailed post is that you seem to have a great dislike for Blacks.

Your post is well written, but the disdain you show for Blacks is truly disturbing. Do you have no Black friends? If you don't, given the large number of Blacks in your country, I should think that is reflective of a real crisis in racial harmony in your country. Or did you have a very bad experience with Blacks in your life?

Even I have 2 African friends (although I don't know any US Blacks) and they're a real rarity in my country. Neither of them seemed to have a low IQ. Not intending to rely on such a small sample as a statistic, of course.

What I believe about black Americans does not so much follow from my direct experiences in my own personal life. My beliefs merely follow from established statistical facts. Maybe that sounds like bullshit, but it isn't bullshit unless I am fooling myself, which is of course typical. My experiences with black Americans have been a mix of good and bad, but they are my least favorite race. Other wealthy nations have other troubling races, and if I were living in those other nations then other races would have the standing as my least favorite: the Roma of central Europe (hardly more than thieves), the Australian aborigines (with the problems of African Negros but far worse), the "Asians" of the UK (Afghans, Indians and Pakis seemingly adapted to rape), or the native blacks of South Africa (like American blacks but with much less intelligence and much more violence and political power). Your nation has its own problematic underclass races, and they are a problem, but they would be much more of a problem if the masses and institutions of your own race zealously defended them from any sort of rebuke, zealously denounced any claim of established fact that they commit more crimes, and zealously hated any talk that such underclass races are the cause of their own problems. This is what is going in America. If anyone says in the workplace that black Americans are about 2.5 times more likely to murder you than are white Americans, then nearly everyone agrees that such a statement is sufficient cause for you to get fired from your job. Any job. This is not an exaggeration and not a joke. The American zeitgeist is irretrievably trapped in a swamp of delusion, deceit and denial. They don't even recognize it as an ideology.

This may seem strange, but I am more likely to be friends with, or at least more likely to enjoy the company of, black migrants from Africa, not native black Americans. That is because the black migrants from Africa are selected by the USCIS to be among only the best of black Africa: absolutely no criminal record and much more likely to have an IQ high enough to go to graduate school and work professional jobs. A fair sampling of black Africans within Africa, on the other hand, is much worse: an average IQ of only 70 and a frightening tendency toward violence.

Ever since institutional racial segregation was abolished in America, racial segregation happened anyway with the collection of independent individual choices, because racism is innate. All across America, whites prefer to live and work with whites, blacks prefer to live and work with blacks, and Latinos tend to live and work with Latinos. White families would prefer not to live in mostly-black neighborhoods unless they prefer bullet holes in their children, and blacks in turn would prefer not to have whites move into their neighborhoods ("gentrification" they call it). But, the self-segregation is not absolute--a few blacks live in mostly-white neighborhoods, a few blacks go to mostly-white churches, they send their children to mostly-white schools, and a few blacks get employed at mostly-white workplaces. Such blacks tend to be more well-behaved than other blacks, because they can afford to live in mostly-white neighborhoods and so on, and this would tend to be the "black friend" that white people have. Such a "black friend" would justify white people's existing belief that black people really are not as bad as their white racist grandparents believed. If I judged the black race likewise, then I would be merely joining in the common happy systemic delusion.

 

[walfin]

What I believe about black Americans does not so much follow from my direct experiences in my own personal life. My beliefs merely follow from established statistical facts. Maybe that sounds like bullshit, but it isn't bullshit unless I am fooling myself, which is of course typical. My experiences with black Americans have been a mix of good and bad, but they are my least favorite race. Other wealthy nations have other troubling races, and if I were living in those other nations then other races would have the standing as my least favorite: the Roma of central Europe (hardly more than thieves), the Australian aborigines (with the problems of African Negros but far worse), the "Asians" of the UK (Afghans, Indians and Pakis seemingly adapted to rape), or the native blacks of South Africa (like American blacks but with much less intelligence and much more violence and political power). Your nation has its own problematic underclass races, and they are a problem, but they would be much more of a problem if the masses and institutions of your own race zealously defended them from any sort of rebuke, zealously denounced any claim of established fact that they commit more crimes, and zealously hated any talk that such underclass races are the cause of their own problems. This is what is going in America. If anyone says in the workplace that black Americans are about 2.5 times more likely to murder you than are white Americans, then nearly everyone agrees that such a statement is sufficient cause for you to get fired from your job. Any job. This is not an exaggeration and not a joke. The American zeitgeist is irretrievably trapped in a swamp of delusion, deceit and denial. They don't even recognize it as an ideology.

Firstly, I don't really agree that my nation has a problematic underclass race. For a long time, it was believed that Malays were less academically capable, which was a racist belief. Then the Malay community promptly produced 2 top scholars in the Primary School Leaving Examinations in quick succession. That put paid to the racist belief that the Malays are less academically capable than the Chinese or Indians. It was also believed that Malays are more prone to drug consumption. The Malays started a "drugs are haram" (drugs are sinful) campaign to discourage their youth from abusing drugs. I am Chinese but I greatly respect the Malays for facing up to the problems plaguing their community and taking action. I get along with Malays and Indians just fine, have several Indian and Malay friends, and I do not think I hate Indians or Malays, whether innately or otherwise. I credit my non-racism to having had adequate opportunities to mingle with Malays and Indians. I can't say much about other races like Blacks or Whites as I do not have much interaction with them, but there is no reason why increased contact between Blacks and Whites would not decrease racism. There are underclass groups such as Bangladeshis in my country, but they are an underclass primarily due to poor socioeconomic conditions in their home country. I do not have anything against Bangladeshis either.

Another thing is that the penalties for causing racial and religious disharmony in my country are more severe. You don't just lose a job - you could go to prison for making racist comments. Rather than diminishing our GDP, this appears to have had a beneficial effect on our country - by reducing the incidence of racist comments, the probability of race riots is reduced. In your country, the presence of extreme racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and White Nationalists (who are allowed to exist due to free speech protections), who spew poisonous propaganda to incite Whites to hate Blacks, are probably a more proximate cause of racism than any genetic inclination towards racism.

Anyway, consider the fact that there have been Australian aborigines who are believed to be geniuses (such as David Unaipon) and Blacks who have made significant contributions to your country (such as George Washington Carver, the peanut expert). They show that with adequate opportunity, people from groups perceived to have lesser mental ability may produce significant benefits to society. The US would have been far poorer if intelligent blacks were kept as plantation slaves, unable to unleash their full mental capacity.

This may seem strange, but I am more likely to be friends with, or at least more likely to enjoy the company of, black migrants from Africa, not native black Americans. That is because the black migrants from Africa are selected by the USCIS to be among only the best of black Africa: absolutely no criminal record and much more likely to have an IQ high enough to go to graduate school and work professional jobs. A fair sampling of black Africans within Africa, on the other hand, is much worse: an average IQ of only 70 and a frightening tendency toward violence.

Ever since institutional racial segregation was abolished in America, racial segregation happened anyway with the collection of independent individual choices, because racism is innate. All across America, whites prefer to live and work with whites, blacks prefer to live and work with blacks, and Latinos tend to live and work with Latinos. White families would prefer not to live in mostly-black neighborhoods unless they prefer bullet holes in their children, and blacks in turn would prefer not to have whites move into their neighborhoods ("gentrification" they call it). But, the self-segregation is not absolute--a few blacks live in mostly-white neighborhoods, a few blacks go to mostly-white churches, they send their children to mostly-white schools, and a few blacks get employed at mostly-white workplaces. Such blacks tend to be more well-behaved than other blacks, because they can afford to live in mostly-white neighborhoods and so on, and this would tend to be the "black friend" that white people have. Such a "black friend" would justify white people's existing belief that black people really are not as bad as their white racist grandparents believed. If I judged the black race likewise, then I would be merely joining in the common happy systemic delusion.

The real problem then is that Whites and Blacks are not mingling with each other. If Whites and Blacks mingled more with each other, and given that the environment can have a significant impact on IQ (even if there is a genetic component in IQ), it is possible that Black IQs may be boosted with time.

In our country we have laws ensuring that all housing estates have a fair mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians (by reserving some proportion of housing units in each estate for Malays and Indians only). I personally think that if your country had similar laws (although it would probably be a political non-starter), racial harmony would be much improved. Of course, you may make the argument that Malays and Indians have much more similar IQs to the Chinese than Blacks have to Whites, but that ignores the potentially substantial effect that the environment has on IQ as well as the fact that Blacks have historically been marginalised and discriminated against, which may have made it difficult for them to achieve their full potential.

Anyway, one thing puzzles me - where are the Black users of INTPf? Why haven't any of them jumped on you by now? Or do they think engaging in this argument is beneath them?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Firstly, I don't really agree that my nation has a problematic underclass race. For a long time, it was believed that Malays were less academically capable, which was a racist belief. Then the Malay community promptly produced 2 top scholars in the Primary School Leaving Examinations in quick succession. That put paid to the racist belief that the Malays are less academically capable than the Chinese or Indians. It was also believed that Malays are more prone to drug consumption. The Malays started a "drugs are haram" (drugs are sinful) campaign to discourage their youth from abusing drugs. I am Chinese but I greatly respect the Malays for facing up to the problems plaguing their community and taking action. I get along with Malays and Indians just fine, have several Indian and Malay friends, and I do not think I hate Indians or Malays, whether innately or otherwise. I credit my non-racism to having had adequate opportunities to mingle with Malays and Indians. I can't say much about other races like Blacks or Whites as I do not have much interaction with them, but there is no reason why increased contact between Blacks and Whites would not decrease racism. There are underclass groups such as Bangladeshis in my country, but they are an underclass primarily due to poor socioeconomic conditions in their home country. I do not have anything against Bangladeshis either.

Another thing is that the penalties for causing racial and religious disharmony in my country are more severe. You don't just lose a job - you could go to prison for making racist comments. Rather than diminishing our GDP, this appears to have had a beneficial effect on our country - by reducing the incidence of racist comments, the probability of race riots is reduced. In your country, the presence of extreme racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and White Nationalists (who are allowed to exist due to free speech protections), who spew poisonous propaganda to incite Whites to hate Blacks, are probably a more proximate cause of racism than any genetic inclination towards racism.

Anyway, consider the fact that there have been Australian aborigines who are believed to be geniuses (such as David Unaipon) and Blacks who have made significant contributions to your country (such as George Washington Carver, the peanut expert). They show that with adequate opportunity, people from groups perceived to have lesser mental ability may produce significant benefits to society. The US would have been far poorer if intelligent blacks were kept as plantation slaves, unable to unleash their full mental capacity.

This may seem strange, but I am more likely to be friends with, or at least more likely to enjoy the company of, black migrants from Africa, not native black Americans. That is because the black migrants from Africa are selected by the USCIS to be among only the best of black Africa: absolutely no criminal record and much more likely to have an IQ high enough to go to graduate school and work professional jobs. A fair sampling of black Africans within Africa, on the other hand, is much worse: an average IQ of only 70 and a frightening tendency toward violence.

Ever since institutional racial segregation was abolished in America, racial segregation happened anyway with the collection of independent individual choices, because racism is innate. All across America, whites prefer to live and work with whites, blacks prefer to live and work with blacks, and Latinos tend to live and work with Latinos. White families would prefer not to live in mostly-black neighborhoods unless they prefer bullet holes in their children, and blacks in turn would prefer not to have whites move into their neighborhoods ("gentrification" they call it). But, the self-segregation is not absolute--a few blacks live in mostly-white neighborhoods, a few blacks go to mostly-white churches, they send their children to mostly-white schools, and a few blacks get employed at mostly-white workplaces. Such blacks tend to be more well-behaved than other blacks, because they can afford to live in mostly-white neighborhoods and so on, and this would tend to be the "black friend" that white people have. Such a "black friend" would justify white people's existing belief that black people really are not as bad as their white racist grandparents believed. If I judged the black race likewise, then I would be merely joining in the common happy systemic delusion.

The real problem then is that Whites and Blacks are not mingling with each other. If Whites and Blacks mingled more with each other, and given that the environment can have a significant impact on IQ (even if there is a genetic component in IQ), it is possible that Black IQs may be boosted with time.

In our country we have laws ensuring that all housing estates have a fair mix of Chinese, Malays and Indians (by reserving some proportion of housing units in each estate for Malays and Indians only). I personally think that if your country had similar laws (although it would probably be a political non-starter), racial harmony would be much improved. Of course, you may make the argument that Malays and Indians have much more similar IQs to the Chinese than Blacks have to Whites, but that ignores the potentially substantial effect that the environment has on IQ as well as the fact that Blacks have historically been marginalised and discriminated against, which may have made it difficult for them to achieve their full potential.

Anyway, one thing puzzles me - where are the Black users of INTPf? Why haven't any of them jumped on you by now? Or do they think engaging in this argument is beneath them?

Maybe the attached image will help. It comes from the Herrnstein and Murray 1994 book, The Bell Curve, appropriately titled. Years ago, Facebook punished anyone who posted this image, with a progressively-severe suspension (1 to 30 days), though they may have relaxed that rule since then, since it is an established fact beyond reasonable doubt. (Even liberal zealots are troubled by the prohibition of expressions of established facts.) I don't know if it is legal to distribute this image in your country; you will need to consult with a criminal attorney or police authority. The prohibition and the general discouragement of such illustrations compounds the problem, because nobody really knows what racial inequality really means, and basic confusion abounds. As you can see in the image, each bell curve has two tail ends that stretch far in both directions, the left and the right. Each right tail end would contain the more intelligent minority of both the black population and the white population. A few blacks with an IQ above 120 exist. Beyond that, the sliver would be too small to see in this graph, but even a few blacks with IQs above 130, 140, 150 and 160 exist in America. The existence of that sliver does not conflict with the fact that the average black IQ is 15 points lower (to the left) of the average white IQ. There is such a sliver for every normal distribution, and the relative smallness of the black sliver follows from the lower average.

I am sorry if you know this already. I expect you know it, but you wrote as though the existence of two top scholars in the primary school exams should be enough to strike down the racist belief that Malays are less academically capable than Chinese--but this racist belief is another established fact, albeit less established than the IQ gap between whites and blacks. The IQ gap between Chinese and Malays (about ten points) is observed within each of many nations of southeast Asia, not just within Malaysia. The existence of the two top scholars is not at conflict with the racist bell curves, but they are part of the racist bell curves. Same problem with the one highly-intelligent Australian aborigine and the one American black peanut expert. I expect you do not always think that outlier data points strike down claims of averages, but the fallacious thinking is reserved to fight racism. You are fighting the good fight using the sharpest and strongest sword you have on hand. The blade is dull and brittle.

 

[sushi]

glad there are no aliens (first contact )or mutants, or deformed humans offshoot due some scientific disaster fuck up/underground ogres or we start throwing rocks at them.

total homogenuity is boring.

race is genetic deviance due to seperation and climate, and moving to a new location.

 

[ApostateAbe]

glad there are no aliens we have contact or mutants, or deformed humans/underground ogres or we start throwing rocks at them.

total homogenuity is boring.

race is genetic deviance due to seperation and climate, and moving to a new location.

Yes, I agree. It is racist to accept obvious facts of human biological diversity, but acceptance of the obvious facts does not mean we need to hate anyone, nor join the Ku Klux Klan, nor anything like that. Facts are just the facts, and we need those facts to help us achieve social ends of any sort. The facts can be used for the betterment of all races, as we are living in an age when genetic inequality is malleable much like environmental inequality.

 

[walfin]

Maybe the attached image will help. It comes from the Herrnstein and Murray 1994 book, The Bell Curve, appropriately titled. Years ago, Facebook punished anyone who posted this image, with a progressively-severe suspension (1 to 30 days), though they may have relaxed that rule since then, since it is an established fact beyond reasonable doubt. (Even liberal zealots are troubled by the prohibition of expressions of established facts.) I don't know if it is legal to distribute this image in your country; you will need to consult with a criminal attorney or police authority. The prohibition and the general discouragement of such illustrations compounds the problem, because nobody really knows what racial inequality really means, and basic confusion abounds. As you can see in the image, each bell curve has two tail ends that stretch far in both directions, the left and the right. Each right tail end would contain the more intelligent minority of both the black population and the white population. A few blacks with an IQ above 120 exist. Beyond that, the sliver would be too small to see in this graph, but even a few blacks with IQs above 130, 140, 150 and 160 exist in America. The existence of that sliver does not conflict with the fact that the average black IQ is 15 points lower (to the left) of the average white IQ. There is such a sliver for every normal distribution, and the relative smallness of the black sliver follows from the lower average.

I am sorry if you know this already. I expect you know it, but you wrote as though the existence of two top scholars in the primary school exams should be enough to strike down the racist belief that Malays are less academically capable than Chinese--but this racist belief is another established fact, albeit less established than the IQ gap between whites and blacks. The IQ gap between Chinese and Malays (about ten points) is observed within each of many nations of southeast Asia, not just within Malaysia. The existence of the two top scholars is not at conflict with the racist bell curves, but they are part of the racist bell curves. Same problem with the one highly-intelligent Australian aborigine and the one American black peanut expert. I expect you do not always think that outlier data points strike down claims of averages, but the fallacious thinking is reserved to fight racism. You are fighting the good fight using the sharpest and strongest sword you have on hand. The blade is dull and brittle.

Certainly, I thank you for being exceedingly polite. I don't think the image is illegal in my country (I am a criminal defence lawyer. I'm certainly no authoritative source on banned pictures, but The Bell Curve is not banned in my country as far as I know). Frankly, I may have overstated the likelihood of prosecution for racism in my country (the laws exist, yes, but the founding prime minister of our country, Lee Kuan Yew, you may have heard of him, was known to be somewhat racist himself).

But the problem I have is with regarding the races as less than equal because they have a lower average IQ (if it were true). If we always had an underlying belief that each Black person we meet (for instance) was likely to have a lower IQ, our society would be in real danger of being unable to spot, appreciate, and develop Black and Aboriginal talents who are at the right end of the bell curve. Assuming Blacks are more prone to criminality would also result in injustice where innocent blacks are sometimes wrongly arrested, and even treated brutally, by police (e.g. https://www.theroot.com/black-swim-team-member-suing-police-for-putting-gun-to-1841717462). And our societies would be much poorer for that. To avoid that risk, treating each race as though they were equal even if they were not remains the best policy.

Yes, I agree. It is racist to accept obvious facts of human biological diversity, but acceptance of the obvious facts does not mean we need to hate anyone, nor join the Ku Klux Klan, nor anything like that. Facts are just the facts, and we need those facts to help us achieve social ends of any sort. The facts can be used for the betterment of all races, as we are living in an age when genetic inequality is malleable much like environmental inequality.

Yes, I agree that even if some races had lower average IQs, it does not follow that those with higher average IQs need to hate them. However, what disturbed me was your view that the Blacks were your least favourite race (I believe it was in no small part due to your belief that they have a lower average IQ). My belief is that if some race is less cognitively endowed, they deserve help all the more because of their disability. If there were a means of improving their intelligence, be it environmental or otherwise, it should be pursued with vigour.

But I'm interested to hear - what is your proposed solution for the betterment of all races? I hope you won't say segregation, because we know that it was certainly horrible to Blacks and other races who were historically discriminated against (which included Chinese as well).

Edit - saw your post in the other thread. Well, I guess your solution is gene editing for embryos (particularly Black ones) then.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Maybe the attached image will help. It comes from the Herrnstein and Murray 1994 book, The Bell Curve, appropriately titled. Years ago, Facebook punished anyone who posted this image, with a progressively-severe suspension (1 to 30 days), though they may have relaxed that rule since then, since it is an established fact beyond reasonable doubt. (Even liberal zealots are troubled by the prohibition of expressions of established facts.) I don't know if it is legal to distribute this image in your country; you will need to consult with a criminal attorney or police authority. The prohibition and the general discouragement of such illustrations compounds the problem, because nobody really knows what racial inequality really means, and basic confusion abounds. As you can see in the image, each bell curve has two tail ends that stretch far in both directions, the left and the right. Each right tail end would contain the more intelligent minority of both the black population and the white population. A few blacks with an IQ above 120 exist. Beyond that, the sliver would be too small to see in this graph, but even a few blacks with IQs above 130, 140, 150 and 160 exist in America. The existence of that sliver does not conflict with the fact that the average black IQ is 15 points lower (to the left) of the average white IQ. There is such a sliver for every normal distribution, and the relative smallness of the black sliver follows from the lower average.

I am sorry if you know this already. I expect you know it, but you wrote as though the existence of two top scholars in the primary school exams should be enough to strike down the racist belief that Malays are less academically capable than Chinese--but this racist belief is another established fact, albeit less established than the IQ gap between whites and blacks. The IQ gap between Chinese and Malays (about ten points) is observed within each of many nations of southeast Asia, not just within Malaysia. The existence of the two top scholars is not at conflict with the racist bell curves, but they are part of the racist bell curves. Same problem with the one highly-intelligent Australian aborigine and the one American black peanut expert. I expect you do not always think that outlier data points strike down claims of averages, but the fallacious thinking is reserved to fight racism. You are fighting the good fight using the sharpest and strongest sword you have on hand. The blade is dull and brittle.

Certainly, I thank you for being exceedingly polite. I don't think the image is illegal in my country (I am a criminal defence lawyer. I'm certainly no authoritative source on banned pictures, but The Bell Curve is not banned in my country as far as I know). Frankly, I may have overstated the likelihood of prosecution for racism in my country (the laws exist, yes, but the founding prime minister of our country, Lee Kuan Yew, you may have heard of him, was known to be somewhat racist himself).

But the problem I have is with regarding the races as less than equal because they have a lower average IQ (if it were true). If we always had an underlying belief that each Black person we meet (for instance) was likely to have a lower IQ, our society would be in real danger of being unable to spot, appreciate, and develop Black and Aboriginal talents who are at the right end of the bell curve. Assuming Blacks are more prone to criminality would also result in injustice where innocent blacks are sometimes wrongly arrested, and even treated brutally, by police (e.g. https://www.theroot.com/black-swim-team-member-suing-police-for-putting-gun-to-1841717462). And our societies would be much poorer for that. To avoid that risk, treating each race as though they were equal even if they were not remains the best policy.

Policing is dangerous work. Armchair policing, however, is the easiest job in the world. Not to disrespect you so much. You make a living criticizing the police, which is not the lowbrow Twitter social justice warriorism, but something to be feared. I sometimes call blacks a race of criminals. That is because they are far more criminal than they should be, even after controlling for IQ and/or income. They are much more criminal than even equally poor and stupid whites. Despite being only 13% of the USA, about 50% of all cop killers (and murderers in general) are black. How easy it is to expect police to be blind to that reality, like they shouldn't do anything to protect themselves around the race of criminals because innocent members of the race of criminals may need therapy. Young adult whites are far more criminal than old whites--should cops likewise be blind to age, because a few young white men are mistakenly arrested? We really need to get to the root of the problem. It will not be solved by lengthening our horse blinders. We need to lose the horse blinders.

Yes, I agree. It is racist to accept obvious facts of human biological diversity, but acceptance of the obvious facts does not mean we need to hate anyone, nor join the Ku Klux Klan, nor anything like that. Facts are just the facts, and we need those facts to help us achieve social ends of any sort. The facts can be used for the betterment of all races, as we are living in an age when genetic inequality is malleable much like environmental inequality.

Yes, I agree that even if some races had lower average IQs, it does not follow that those with higher average IQs need to hate them. However, what disturbed me was your view that the Blacks were your least favourite race (I believe it was in no small part due to your belief that they have a lower average IQ). My belief is that if some race is less cognitively endowed, they deserve help all the more because of their disability. If there were a means of improving their intelligence, be it environmental or otherwise, it should be pursued with vigour.

But I'm interested to hear - what is your proposed solution for the betterment of all races? I hope you won't say segregation, because we know that it was certainly horrible to Blacks and other races who were historically discriminated against (which included Chinese as well).

Edit - saw your post in the other thread. Well, I guess your solution is gene editing for embryos (particularly Black ones) then.

I will expand on that, because the suggestion to genetically edit the lower classes out of poverty is more ad hoc. For me, objective truth comes first, and solving problems comes next. We can only begin to judge ideas after we know the objective truth. There is a chicken-and-egg problem, when we are systemically, thoroughly and willfully self-deceived about external realities. The dogmas trained us to believe that a heresy seems unlikely, so, supposing it is somehow correct, what good would it do for us or for the world if we all accept the heresy? What good is it knowing that the Earth goes around the Sun? It is hard to know the benefit until you actually give up the dogmas. To me, it seems abundantly obvious that we can't even begin to effectively solve social problems if we can't even get an accurate picture of the way our own species is socially structured. The genetic realities reach deeply into almost everything.

To give an example, you may have heard about how American conservatives love guns. They strongly defend the constitutional right to bear arms. For whites, it is worth it. For American blacks, however, every black neighborhood is plagued by murder with bullets. White conservative zealots would like to solve the problem of black gun violence by dumping more guns into their neighborhoods, under the principle that they need to defend themselves. To me, that is like when a chimpanzee in a zoo gets a gun, he shoots other chimps, and zookeepers solve the problem by dumping more guns into the enclosure.

That's racist, and therefore it is an absurd comparison, because no racist thing can ever be a good idea. We judge objective reality according to our ideological dogmas. We are trying to find our way through a dark maze with booby traps, and we think it is somehow better to wear glasses that turn the world upside down.

 

[walfin]

Policing is dangerous work. Armchair policing, however, is the easiest job in the world. Not to disrespect you so much. You make a living criticizing the police, which is not the lowbrow Twitter social justice warriorism, but something to be feared. I sometimes call blacks a race of criminals. That is because they are far more criminal than they should be, even after controlling for IQ and/or income. They are much more criminal than even equally poor and stupid whites. Despite being only 13% of the USA, about 50% of all cop killers (and murderers in general) are black. How easy it is to expect police to be blind to that reality, like they shouldn't do anything to protect themselves around the race of criminals because innocent members of the race of criminals may need therapy. Young adult whites are far more criminal than old whites--should cops likewise be blind to age, because a few young white men are mistakenly arrested? We really need to get to the root of the problem. It will not be solved by lengthening our horse blinders. We need to lose the horse blinders.

Even if most criminals are blacks, most blacks may not be criminals. Overall, criminals are likely to be a minority of society. If they weren't, no society could function as everybody would be in jail.

I will expand on that, because the suggestion to genetically edit the lower classes out of poverty is more ad hoc. For me, objective truth comes first, and solving problems comes next. We can only begin to judge ideas after we know the objective truth. There is a chicken-and-egg problem, when we are systemically, thoroughly and willfully self-deceived about external realities. The dogmas trained us to believe that a heresy seems unlikely, so, supposing it is somehow correct, what good would it do for us or for the world if we all accept the heresy? What good is it knowing that the Earth goes around the Sun? It is hard to know the benefit until you actually give up the dogmas. To me, it seems abundantly obvious that we can't even begin to effectively solve social problems if we can't even get an accurate picture of the way our own species is socially structured. The genetic realities reach deeply into almost everything.

To give an example, you may have heard about how American conservatives love guns. They strongly defend the constitutional right to bear arms. For whites, it is worth it. For American blacks, however, every black neighborhood is plagued by murder with bullets. White conservative zealots would like to solve the problem of black gun violence by dumping more guns into their neighborhoods, under the principle that they need to defend themselves. To me, that is like when a chimpanzee in a zoo gets a gun, he shoots other chimps, and zookeepers solve the problem by dumping more guns into the enclosure.

That's racist, and therefore it is an absurd comparison, because no racist thing can ever be a good idea. We judge objective reality according to our ideological dogmas. We are trying to find our way through a dark maze with booby traps, and we think it is somehow better to wear glasses that turn the world upside down.

That's a separate question, and I think it's stupid that the US won't ban guns for civilians. Australia managed to do it despite having, at one time, a large number of gun owners.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Gun freedom works for white people as a check against excessive government tyranny. When the people are armed, government stands back. But, for black people in America, gun freedom would be like suicide. It is a racial dynamic that just doesn't register with white American conservatives, because white American conservatives are almost as anti-racist as white American liberals, and they believe in the racial blank slate: every race in the world is born with brains identical to white people's brains. Liberals argue against gun freedom, handicapped by their own dogmas. Why can't black people arm themselves, much like white gun owners, without gunning down everyone else? Nobody knows. Liberals can't argue from plausible explanatory theory but only raw statistical fact: guns are a big problem in black neighborhoods.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"Even if most criminals are blacks, most blacks may not be criminals."

I agree, mostly--most members of every race are at least low-level criminals. Blacks have earned my title as the "race of criminals" just because (1) hard habitual violent criminals are vastly overrepresented among them, and (2) the majority of them blame white people for it. Most of them are not hard habitual violent criminals, but they hide and defend the hard habitual violent criminals among them, they are anti-police, they make police work more difficult.

 

[walfin]

Gun freedom works for white people as a check against excessive government tyranny. When the people are armed, government stands back. But, for black people in America, gun freedom would be like suicide. It is a racial dynamic that just doesn't register with white American conservatives, because white American conservatives are almost as anti-racist as white American liberals, and they believe in the racial blank slate: every race in the world is born with brains identical to white people's brains. Liberals argue against gun freedom, handicapped by their own dogmas. Why can't black people arm themselves, much like white gun owners, without gunning down everyone else? Nobody knows. Liberals can't argue from plausible explanatory theory but only raw statistical fact: guns are a big problem in black neighborhoods.

That ignores the fact that there are white school shooters too, for instance. Australia is a federal democracy like the US, the citizens do not need guns, the police use guns less too. It's largely White too, and hasn't turned into a tyranny. Why can't the US follow its example?

"Even if most criminals are blacks, most blacks may not be criminals."

I agree, mostly--most members of every race are at least low-level criminals. Blacks have earned my title as the "race of criminals" just because (1) hard habitual violent criminals are vastly overrepresented among them, and (2) the majority of them blame white people for it. Most of them are not hard habitual violent criminals, but they hide and defend the hard habitual violent criminals among them, they are anti-police, they make police work more difficult.

The anti-police mindset might arise from some white police officers having anti-Black tendencies in the first place. They even shoot Black police officers (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/24/us/st-louis-race-police.html) and security guards (https://www.vox.com/identities/2018...rson-police-shooting-illinois-ian-covey-video). Again, even if there are more Black violent criminals, it is best for the police to target the violent criminals, regardless of race, and not Blacks, especially not Blacks who are on their own side.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yeah, blacks in America tend to think a lot like you do. Even with violent crime vastly overrepresented among them, targeting other blacks, cops, and everyone else, it is not their fault. They are not the race of criminals. No, they are the victims, and it is the RACIST POLICE who need to change. Just put the police under a higher-magnification microscope, and that is how we will solve the problem.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"That ignores the fact that there are white school shooters too, for instance. Australia is a federal democracy like the US, the citizens do not need guns, the police use guns less too. It's largely White too, and hasn't turned into a tyranny. Why can't the US follow its example?"

Some white nations have fallen into tyrannies, but I don't defend gun rights so much, because I expect the best position ought to be a mixed bag--gun rights only for those races who can appropriately handle such rights, much like the way the set of local laws in the USA is structured right now. Before we can decide on the best political positions, we need to know how the human species actually works, and part of that is the obvious reality that not all races are psychologically the same. The delusions need to be exposed and abandoned.

 

[walfin]

"That ignores the fact that there are white school shooters too, for instance. Australia is a federal democracy like the US, the citizens do not need guns, the police use guns less too. It's largely White too, and hasn't turned into a tyranny. Why can't the US follow its example?"

Some white nations have fallen into tyrannies, but I don't defend gun rights so much, because I expect the best position ought to be a mixed bag--gun rights only for those races who can appropriately handle such rights, much like the way the set of local laws in the USA is structured right now. Before we can decide on the best political positions, we need to know how the human species actually works, and part of that is the obvious reality that not all races are psychologically the same. The delusions need to be exposed and abandoned.

You're ignoring the fact that Blacks are discriminated against even after controlling for criminality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/

They are already (rather unfairly) treated by the police as though they are not the same. What you are proposing are racist laws that will discriminate against them even further. That is essentially Jim Crow, which is a horrible thing.

 

[ApostateAbe]

"That ignores the fact that there are white school shooters too, for instance. Australia is a federal democracy like the US, the citizens do not need guns, the police use guns less too. It's largely White too, and hasn't turned into a tyranny. Why can't the US follow its example?"

Some white nations have fallen into tyrannies, but I don't defend gun rights so much, because I expect the best position ought to be a mixed bag--gun rights only for those races who can appropriately handle such rights, much like the way the set of local laws in the USA is structured right now. Before we can decide on the best political positions, we need to know how the human species actually works, and part of that is the obvious reality that not all races are psychologically the same. The delusions need to be exposed and abandoned.

You're ignoring the fact that Blacks are discriminated against even after controlling for criminality: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/

They are already (rather unfairly) treated by the police as though they are not the same.

I ignore it only because it lacks relevance. Young adults are victims of discrimination by the police, relative to older adults. Some innocent young adults are victimized by the police. Nobody thinks of that as a national tragedy, nor should they. Men are victims of discrimination by the police, relative to women. Some innocent men are therefore victimized by the police. But, that isn't a national tragedy. Nobody thinks of that as a national tragedy, nor should they. Blacks are victims of discrimination by the police, relative to older non-blacks. Some innocent blacks are therefore victimized by the police. And, the whole American media complex therefore claims that it is a national tragedy. The moment that we realize the established fact that blacks are vastly overrepresented among criminals of almost every sort, a fact that the media complex actively suppresses, that should bring a revolutionary perspective to the fact that the police discriminate against them. No shit the police behave as though blacks are far more likely to commit crimes? No shit?

What you are proposing are racist laws that will discriminate against them even further. That is essentially Jim Crow, which is a horrible thing.

Jim Crow is what whites imposed on blacks, but what I propose is the existing diversity of local laws that each race has chosen for themselves. We need to be real about racial differences, because they really do mean that no single law manual works for every race.

 

[reasondeep]

Good question. By "racism," I mean prejudice in favor of one's own race, not just any group. I don't mean it as a slur. It is a much broader definition than is typical, and that is what I intend.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

There is one thought, that if thought about deeply enough, completely obliterates racism while at the same time taking you to a higher level of functioning. That thought is: Do not use and abuse your own race. That is what racism is at its core. I've discussed this concept at length with my nonphysical friends (I connected to the nonphysical realms a few years ago, a big deal indeed) and each one finds it to be something of monumental importance. I wish I could explain this concept in a very public way to get rid of racism once and for all.

When this concept is truly understood, what emerges from it is truly a celebration of diversity. This has been checked and confirmed in many ways. My nonphysical friends are intelligent in a different way and they have their own way of being able to look at things from different angles and seeing what comes out of it so to speak. I've not shared this idea with any human, so I'm curious how others perceive it. If you're too caught up in the lower level of functioning which is where racism pervades, even in subtle forms, it may take a little while for the idea to digest and properly click into place.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Good question. By "racism," I mean prejudice in favor of one's own race, not just any group. I don't mean it as a slur. It is a much broader definition than is typical, and that is what I intend.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

There is one thought, that if thought about deeply enough, completely obliterates racism while at the same time taking you to a higher level of functioning. That thought is: Do not use and abuse your own race. That is what racism is at its core. I've discussed this concept at length with my nonphysical friends (I connected to the nonphysical realms a few years ago, a big deal indeed) and each one finds it to be something of monumental importance. I wish I could explain this concept in a very public way to get rid of racism once and for all.

When this concept is truly understood, what emerges from it is truly a celebration of diversity. This has been checked and confirmed in many ways. My nonphysical friends are intelligent in a different way and they have their own way of being able to look at things from different angles and seeing what comes out of it so to speak. I've not shared this idea with any human, so I'm curious how others perceive it. If you're too caught up in the lower level of functioning which is where racism pervades, even in subtle forms, it may take a little while for the idea to digest and properly click into place.

Welcome to the forum. "Racism" has a lot of diverse meanings, so it can be shaped into any target you find suitable. You think fighting racism is to not abuse your own race, but so many other activists believe the opposite, at least for whites, as though whites can not be anti-racist if they do not stand against their own race. I prefer to not think of racism as a target, because the anti-racist dogmatism is a big part of the problem, a cause of systemic delusion. Your nonphysical friends may have different ideas, and maybe they don't even have races, but all of us physical organisms have them, because we have genomes and geographies of ancestry and so on.

 

[walfin]

I ignore it only because it lacks relevance. Young adults are victims of discrimination by the police, relative to older adults. Some innocent young adults are victimized by the police. Nobody thinks of that as a national tragedy, nor should they. Men are victims of discrimination by the police, relative to women. Some innocent men are therefore victimized by the police. But, that isn't a national tragedy. Nobody thinks of that as a national tragedy, nor should they. Blacks are victims of discrimination by the police, relative to older non-blacks. Some innocent blacks are therefore victimized by the police. And, the whole American media complex therefore claims that it is a national tragedy. The moment that we realize the established fact that blacks are vastly overrepresented among criminals of almost every sort, a fact that the media complex actively suppresses, that should bring a revolutionary perspective to the fact that the police discriminate against them. No shit the police behave as though blacks are far more likely to commit crimes? No shit?

This is a question of morality. It is fundamentally unjust for an innocent person to be punished just because others who look like that person may have a tendency to commit more crimes (even if that is true). I don't think younger people should necessarily be discriminated against, nor should men be discriminated against. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to punish the guilty and acquit the innocent, erring on the side of assuming that an individual is innocent. In a just legal system, everyone should be equal before the law, regardless of race, age, or indeed any factor other than actual guilt or innocence.

Jim Crow is what whites imposed on blacks, but what I propose is the existing diversity of local laws that each race has chosen for themselves. We need to be real about racial differences, because they really do mean that no single law manual works for every race.

Gun laws are not working for Whites and Asians as well, not just Blacks. The US is the land of school shootings where deranged maniacs of every hue kill their peers for, at times, no discernible reason. There was also a very young white supremacist who murdered numerous blacks at a church. It is not true that a single law would not work for every race in this case. Ban guns, and you would no longer have such unnecessary loss of life.

 

[Inexorable Username]

I keep meaning to come back to this thread when I have time to find sources and I am not on my phone, but it’s been an excessively long time and tbh, I’m getting too busy to place this as a high priority.

On racism being innate:
No, I do not believe that racism isn’t something we are born with.

That being said, the ability to, and the desire to discrimination is innate. How one chooses to discriminate is an aspect of nurture, not nature.

So is the tendency to discriminate against other things natural? Yes. However, is the tendency to discriminate against other races natural? No.

 

[Inexorable Username]

That is a fairly straight-foreword question to answer, in my mind.

My original intention was to discuss IQ - which isn’t.

However whether or not racism isn’t an aspect of nature or nurture? Whether it’s innate? I feel like the answer to that is readily apparent to people who have experience researching certain topics, like neurology, child development, and similar.

What is a better question to as is:
Why might a person intuit that racism is innate?

That is a more interesting subject matter. At what point does a belief become so engrained that it feels intuitively true? Does the tendency to intuit beliefs correlate with a decreased cognitive capacity in some form? Or does it correlate with lack of education?

When we start wonderingly where intuitively believed opinions come from, the subject becomes much more complex and interesting.

I’ve run in to this tendency a number of times. An example I can think of of the top of my head are the bible-thumping, die-hard Christians who intuitively feel that what is written in the bible isn’t the word of God.

Perhaps that is a poor example though, because having faith as an end-all, be-all value is so heavily pressed on people in the Christian religion.

A better example might be an extremist democrat socialist or communist who intuitively feels that capitalism is wrong.

If you’ve run into this person before, you’ve probably noticed how pointless it is to have a discussions with them. The individual is so persuaded in their beliefs that it is apparently impossible for them to consider a contradictory mindset.

Another example would be the stereotypical, uneducated farmer, who is so stubborn about what they believe that there is no reasoning with them.

Obviously these are extreme examples, but they raise the question - when does a belief become intuitive to a person?

Why might a person feel like racism is an intuitive reality, and when does that happen?

I have a few intuitive beliefs myself that have been discounted with time. I don’t think I’ve met many people who don’t have these. I have, however, met a few intellectuals who have reached an intellectual height such that they have reprogrammed themselves to no longer harbor certain beliefs they once took to be intuitive. So it appears that it is possible to rewire the brain in this regard.

It’s an interesting thought. One I’ve wondered at myself. Are your “I feel like this is true” debaters just intellectually subnormal in some aspect? Or are the poorly educated? Or have they, perhaps, been socially conditioned to resist contrary opinions?

If I could figure this out to a greater degree, I feel like it would be useful in dealing with some of the people who pose arguments to me that are particularly lacking in certain fashions.

 

[peoplesuck]

inex, this man only uses the forum to talk about racism, and superiority.
Please for the love of god, people, stop feeding the troll.
he is a shit person, or he is actually just trying to piss people off, and waste their time.
I vote both
my 2cents

 

[Inexorable Username]

Oh, well, I mean....It's not wrong to talk about racism. If people don't talk about it, they have no opportunities to be shown why their inherent beliefs are wrong. They just go on believing them in silence.

 

[Rebis]

Pretty sure abe is banned so he can't respond.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Inexorable Username]

Pretty sure abe is banned so he can't respond.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

What? Why?

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

racism is innate
who you tryna berate
them mods be power trippin
but apostateabe never quittin
committed apostasy at the age of three
the primordial OG

 

[walfin]

racism is innate
who you tryna berate
them mods be power trippin
but apostateabe never quittin
committed apostasy at the age of three
the primordial OG

 

[Rebis]

Pretty sure abe is banned so he can't respond.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

What? Why?

Made another post along the same lines. Race, sex, blah.

 

[Thurlor]

Apparently every single community has a list of taboo topics. Kind of dissapointing that our taboo topics are the same as those of society in general.

 

[peoplesuck]

I feel this came off as more condescending and aggressive than actually explanatory, my bad.
I dont try to be an asshole.
I probably shouldnt even post when already a bit agitated.
sorry

Spoiler

I hate to be the one to ask this but what definition of racism are you using? What you are describing seems more like in-group vs out-group dynamics.

Apparently every single community has a list of taboo topics. Kind of dissapointing that our taboo topics are the same as those of society in general.

You added two sentences to this thread, were you really interested?
the first page was people actually trying to talk, after the first page everyone realized abe is being extremely biased. From the second page on, its just waflin arguing with a person with no interest in changing positions. a screaming match, where neither person can even hear the other. If you think the reason abe was banned, was because these topics are taboo, I would have to disagree. He seemingly makes no attempt to actually entertain what anyone has said.
*posts two sentences*
*comes back a month later to see abe banned*
" he just wanted to talk"

Spoiler

oddly enough he only had interest in talking about genetic superiority, and literally nothing else. I looked at his post history when I started to see what he was doing, If I remember right, all of his posts were edgelord quality. ( negativity and taboo just for shock value and attention )
he was banned for adding nothing, the only reason he was allowed to stay, was that he created activity. imo that is like facebook ads using negativity for pulling attention. Being negative just for attention, well im not sure why he was here so long...
I personally see no problem with talking about races being superior, or sexes, but the difference is so small, it makes no sense to actually give a shit about it. what is to come of it, really? " WOW WHITES ARE 8.5% BETTER AT SPATIAL REASONING, MY LIFE IS NOW CHANGED"
I actually dont see how an intpf could have so much activity in a racism thread, and zero about theoretical engineering ideas, or designs. Intpf seems to be made up of people too young to really be specialized, and older users, who are either coders, or psychologists.
I add very little, but I think the important difference in useless, and useless and hateful, is hate. Lately ive been extremely cynical and shitty, but cmon, he literally only came to the forum to argue genetic/sex superiority.
give him a voice, sure, but realize it gives the forum a negative connotation, to see a thread like that, constantly above anything actually interesting. Maybe im extremely biased because I like building and engineering more than ideologies or weird abstract theories about abstract things.
I just wanted you to know its because of him, not that certain ideas are off the table. This forum is much more open than any person you will just randomly talk to on the street, I wouldnt think of it as some closed off policed forum, other than trans topics, and suicide, where people here are extremely sensitive. ( thats because we have a few trans peoples, and almost all of us are/ have been suicidal )
I think I openly said trans people can fuck off, and im not banned

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

@OT:
Didn't i tell you back in 2014/2015 when you wanted to prove the supremacy of white man over his dissimilarly coloured brothers to go back to stormfront?

 

[a_ghost_from_your_past]

racism is innate
who you tryna berate
them mods be power trippin
but apostateabe never quittin
committed apostasy at the age of three
the primordial OG

i know why i have you in my sights.

 

[byhisello99]

Whether you are racist or not you probably feel differently about everyone you encounter and you judge them depending on lot of factors. Its not a simple issue of being racist or not.

Yes. Even the same genetic pool (how physicians view race) expresses itself very differently depending on environment. Africans who crossed the Atlantic in slaver ships went to North America, South America and the Caribbean. There is no record of diverting captives to a destination based on background. Africans raised in the Caribbean who emigrated to the U.S. are in nearly all respects except skin color indistinguishable from whites born and raised in the U.S. The same is not true of people descended from Africans enslaved in the U.S.

 

[BurnedOut]

The rhetoric for racism usually arises from
1. feeling that an opportunity can be exploited
2. feeling that the other race has more resources.

We humans are idiocentric in thoughts and allocentric in association. What does this mean ? If a white man is poor and if his friend his poor but another black man is rich and his friend is rich, he will immediately assume an allocentric stance.

Looking back at history, rife instances of racism do not exist in the lower socioeconomic strata of the society. At least, in the history of India, this has never been the case. The poor were poor and were not specifically 'Hindus' or 'Muslims'. They are forced to side with their races for the purpose of survival and obligation. The narrative was different among higher socio-economic classes of the society. They were free to engage in racist politics because they know they have some leverage against their opponent.

Look at Iran's realpolitik and maybe you will get my point. In reality, Shias outside of Iran abhor Iran's brand of shiism. The same applies to Non-Saudi Arabian sunnis. If they try to fuck around in Indonesia, they are going to be kicked out by both the races because they have coexisted with each other for long to have their boundaries becoming contiguous at first and permeable later.