Am I racist?

I been hearing a lot about the vast difference between amount of crime that blacks do compared to whites (whether it be Sweden or US) and lately I have been avoiding neighbourhood with high amounts of crime (and with that blacks). Like, I don't want to get killed or mugged so it's safest to avoid those places. Does that make me a racist? Isn't racist an irrational fear or something? Should I be worried?

Have in mind that these are just my two cents. >Isn't racist an irrational fear or something? No, fear of being mugged/hurt is the irrational part. Believing that all and any blacks can hurt you is racist. >Does that make me a racist? No. Avoiding bad places because it may cause you problems is completely fine. Avoiding places because you see black people and inmediatly associating it with a bad place is racist. >Should I be worried? Honestly? No, why would you? Unless there's a literal PC police in your country that beats and arrest you for having politically incorrect thoughts there shouldn't be any problems for yourself. I live in a third world soykafhole so there isn't any discrimination problems here, but richer people tend to think that poor people only want money and will do anything to get it, including mugging and killing them. Avoiding bad villages where you know that drug cartels reign supreme is self care. Avoiding anyone that came out of there without any proof that they're bad people is discriminatory as soykaf. I hope you can get my point.

I think you're pretty racist OP

Being racist is pretty natural. In-group-out-group bias is something that is programmed in our neural system and can't be erased. I don't say it's unnatural to be not racist but we shouldn't vilify people who prefer to live with people of their race.

nah OP, just don't go saying this to an SJW type or you'll get chewed out. Thought policing can get pretty real. When it becomes racist is when you start to think that there is something innate about black people that makes black neighborhoods more crime-ridden. also, nice image, made me think.

I'd be careful with those statistics OP, theyre often extremley misleading. For example, ignoring education and socio-economic class (both of which black americans tend to be lower in due to societal racism), or the fact that 'having commited a crime' really means 'having been convicted of a crime' (black people are often more falsely convicted than or are given harsher sentences than other races in america due to racism in the police force and justice system), or the fact that sometimes these numbers are just flat out made up (see /p0l/) >>4365 Bias againt outgroups doesn't need to be erased, you just need to stop using race as part of your identity. That way other races won't be an out group. Also I'm interested to know why you think that in-group-out-group bias itsself cant be erased. >>4367 >you'll get chewed out Interesting vaguness here. If you mean you'll get physically attacked then probably not, despite what internet sensationalim would have you think. If you mean they will argue with you, I fail to see how adding their own ideas is 'thought policing'.

>>4370 >If you mean you'll get physically attacked then probably not, despite what internet sensationalim would have you think >probably not If there wasn't this "probably not" you know yourself that you would be wrong >If you mean they will argue with you, I fail to see how adding their own ideas is 'thought policing'. He was talking about social ostricism and general douchebagery based on "wrongthink" which is easily seen in other SJW filled countries, such as: >Sweden >Canada >Germany >UK

>Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. Or so says wikipedia, and that's the definition I usually use. So, OP, do you think that "blacks" are inherently inferiors to "whites" ? As far as I'm concerned, acknowledging that "black" population as a higher crime rate than "white" population is absolutely not racist, and avoiding those neighborhood is a rational consequence of this knowledge. Not even acknowledging that, currently, the average IQ is higher among "whites" than among "blacks" (and higher again in "asians" and "jews", if you don't count them as "white"), is racist. As long as you remember that any person of any background can rise to any height, and thus must be evaluated on their own merits rather than on their background, you're fine in my book. Now, I will let other argue as to whether "blacks" are actually more violent and less intelligent than other, and if so why, since I don't have enough info on the subject. And I'll keep using those damn quotes, as bothersome as they are, until the day someone comes up with a definition of races which isn't completely inane.

>>4372 >all these quotation marks around names of racial groupings you do understand that on basis of genetic closeness these groupings are somewhat correct? >and "jews", if you don't count them as "white" You do know why they call jew haters "anti-semites"? Don't tell anyone, but it has to do with jews being part of semites. Just because they were for long part in Europe surrounded by whites they didn't that much integrate in European cultures and countries and usually just lived in their own ghettos for long long time. >As long as you remember that any person of any background can rise to any height, and thus must be evaluated on their own merits rather than on their background, you're fine in my book. Sure, but those statistics about crimes and IQ give me enough of background knowledge. I can't, even if I lie to myself, treat that person the same as if some asian came to me and we started a conversation. Don't get me wrong, I give opportunity for people to show their true color much longer than the first 5 minutes and give them opportunity to redeem themselves and change their outlooks and ideas hopefully, but do you honestly tell me you don't have expectations over that individual on basis of their background? If arts student and STEM student came up to you are you honestly going to say that you won't have any pre-emptive ideas about who they are and what they're like on basis of where they are coming from and statistics of average STEM/arts student? >Now, I will let other argue as to whether "blacks" are actually more violent and less intelligent than other, and if so why, since I don't have enough info on the subject. ahhhh, the old "I am not a weather scientist" excuse. Well, fair enough. Not like we are in any real position to make our voices heard..... like for example, on global warming .... wait a second.... >until the day someone comes up with a definition of races which isn't completely inane heard of haplogroups?

>>4373 I'm trying to answer but Lain won't let, she thinks I'm a spammer.

I tried to remove the mention of a certain board. >>4373 >genetic closeness >haplogroup Yes, those are things I've heard about before. And then when the topic of the civilizations in africa came up, some guy told me that the population of east africa is actually caucasian and that's why they had more than mud hut, so I don't know what to think anymore about black people. Basically, I'm saying that I doubt your ability to recognize the genetic origin of a person on mere visual cues. And I surely doubt my own. Idem with jews : I understand that they kept on their own in europe and might be considered their own race/genetic group ; but if I can't tell a jew from any other white, what good does it makes to me ? Apart from our ability to distinguish (even well defined) genetic groups on sight, no, I do not understand that "white" and "black" are a correct grouping. If they're just somewhat correct, seems to me they're wrong. You will have to convince me otherwise.

>>4373 >I can't, even if I lie to myself, treat that person the same I won't blame you for having a bias against some people, that's how humans are, but recognize that it is not in anyone's best interest to let this bias run wild. It will only cause you to miss on great people. > are you honestly going to say that you won't have any pre-emptive ideas about who they are Honestly, I don't think I would, for I have met many STEM students, being one myself, many of whom where highly art-oriented, myself included, sometime more than art students. >ahhhh, the old "I am not a weather scientist" excuse. Not sure where you're going with this, you will have to be more explicit. I'm willing to educate myself on the topic if you make it easy for me. All those guys has ever said to me was "just look it up", and I was never curious enough to, since this has so little importance in my life. Alright that was it, when I say that guy, those guy, I mean a certain plague based on a certain board.

Honestly, stop caring. You'll associate with who you want to associate with. Don't let anyone guilt you into changing that.

There is nothing wrong with being racist.

>>4370 >If you mean they will argue with you, I fail to see how adding their own ideas is 'thought policing'. I meant more like being berated than argument. The population of people who do that is small but notable.

>>4361 It's rational to avoid them because of those statistics. It's lazy to not look deeper into how these statistics are explained. You don't hate "them", you have just already labeled them and therefore don't care about them (because you already know "these people). This is called being ignorant.

>>4365 I kind of lose you where you say "we shouldn't vilify people who prefer to live with people of their race.". Like, yeah, that bias certainly does exist, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't vilify those that (keyword being) prefer to live with people of their race. Recognising individual bias is a step towards minimizing it, and allowing it perpetuates racism which does hurt people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teyvcs2S4mI&feature=youtu.be Really good video series about actual human genetic variation. I recommend watching all of it, it's really interesting anyways.

>>4372 >Now, I will let other argue as to whether "blacks" are actually more violent and less intelligent than other, These two things do go hand in hand; unintelligent people commit more violent crime. It's because that's how we evolved. Killing people and taking their soykaf is how humans lived for 10s of thousands of years. It's only with the very recent rise of civilization that "laws" became a thing. It takes general intelligence to adapt to unfamiliar environments and blacks have less of that so they find it harder. >>4362 >Avoiding bad villages where you know that drug cartels reign supreme is self care. Avoiding anyone that came out of there without any proof that they're bad people is discriminatory as soykaf. I like this point. Don't ignore the context. Various factors go into making a decision about a person (where are you, how are they dressed, what do they say, etc.). What makes you racist is if skin color overrides the other heuristics.

>Ctrl-F mother >Ctrl-F father >Ctrl-F parent >Ctrl-F single If you control for Dad, I thought it's damn near impossible to find any usefully significant (mebbe education) way to predict criminal behavior?

>>4426 I think OP doesn't really think about softer human side of killers and burglars and just wants to carefully go from one side of city to another while going around the black ghettos Plus, I don't think that issue of single parent households are any of issues anyone can tackle on by themselves. But sure I would want to see studies showing your hypothesis on parenthood and crime.

>>4430 wow, here comes the "grownup" wait guys, he has something important to say.... oh wait, he just ranted like a 15 year old smug-o that thinks he is older than everyone else basically >muh "I am not in 5th grade anymore, im in 6th so shut up, I am older than you"

>>4431 this is exactly what im talking about, never did I say anything about older besides using the phrase kids which people use all the time to refer to people they find immature and stupid. But you can't help it, you have to make 50 assumptions off of me saying "im tired of this soykaf" because thats what you do when you grow up valuing anonymous communication, where you get to build an entire identity of someone off a single post so their opinions don't matter to you. I said what I meant and I meant what I said and nothing more. Never did I say anything you said, never did I think like you are saying I thought psychic, thats what you want to be true.

>>4432 *yawn* You seem like a pompous glitterboy who thinks others on anonymous chans are there to amuse him, and if he isn't entertained then he has priviledge to go around posting whine posts nobody gives a soykaf about you being tired of "this soykaf"

>>4432 also >muh assumptions when you were first to draw assumptions with your >"who have no idea how the world works because they observe it from behind a computer screen"

>>4434 thats not an assumption because thats what im referring to. notice how I never referred to anyone specific in this thread, so I am assuming a group a people who observe the world from behind a computer screen... observe the world from behind a computer screen? the only assumption im making right now is based off of you somehow getting upset at my post which im thinking because you must think it was referring to you. >>4433 *yawns back :3* posting on a chan isn't a privilege, again with the assumptions. But just a question, what is an anonymous chan for? And why is the reason you use it somehow better than using it for personal amusement. also why are you speaking for nobody unless you are nobody?

>>4375 >some guy told me that the population of east africa is actually caucasian That's pretty much totally wrong. >>4430 >>4431 >>4432 >>4433 >>4434 >>4437 will you shut the fuarrrk up and contribute to the discussion instead of posturing? Jesus christ.

>>4440 >That's pretty much totally wrong. That's what I guessed. My point, which maybe wasn't clear, is that the discussion of racial issues is so muddied by people spouting bullcrap left and right to support their preconceived ideas (be them of the sjw or alt-right kind), so muddied that the only way to form a reasonable idea is to ignore online discussions entirely and go for the peer-reviewed papers. However that's a considerable investment of time, energy and money, for a subject that is ultimately irrelevant to your personal life, unless you're in such a position that you need to judge such vast amounts of people that you would need to do it on a statistical level rather than individual. Such as : I have 10 billions persons before me, and can only save 1 million on my spaceship before the Earth collides with the Moon next week, let's only bring Jews because they're clearly the most successful. But for just about all of us, we only need to judge people as we meet them, leaving plenty of time to asses if this dude is a filthy nigger of an upstanding black gentleman. (Of course, you don't want to be trying to asses this at night in a back-alley, so do keep clear off the bad parts of town.)

>>4437 >notice how I never referred to anyone specific in this thread That's like saying that you walked into a gay bar and said out loud "damn I hate these AIDS infested degenerates" then when someone confronts you, you back down to saying "oh noes, I didn't meant you or anyone in particular" God damn you are a smug self righterous pompous f4ggot

>>4450 also >the only assumption im making right now is based off of you somehow getting upset at my post which im thinking because you must think it was referring to you. you see gay person? The only reason why you are angry at me is because you know that I am right CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

>>4451 >>4450 The reason why I am angry with you is because you are pompous f4ggot, not because you somehow struck me where it hurts the most Just because people are angry at you doesn't mean that validates your points or makes your points truthful.

>>4449 >I have 10 billions persons before me, and can only save 1 million on my spaceship before the Earth collides with the Moon next week, let's only bring Jews because they're clearly the most successful. why not just do a random lottery? It probably wouldn't be any less effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sidK6yc9I2w

>>4453 Because, statistically speaking, a random jew is more likely to be high-IQ than a random human from the whole human population. I don't even know if that's true, but there were those guys explaining that most highly placed people in the industry and the media were jews, despite there being few jews out there, so I assumed jews must be more intelligent than white people to get there. I'm being sarcastic, but my point is : If there was a subset of the population that you know is more intelligent/successful, whatever the metric, than the rest of the population, it makes sense to select from this subset rather than the whole population, if you're in a hurry and can't do an exhaustive search. You're more likely to select good individuals then. Imagine that you knew that 99% of blacks are stupid, and 99% of asians were intelligent : if you're looking for an intelligent person, you would look among asians to save time. Only if you wanted ALL intelligent people and had the time would you search the few intelligent person in the black population. That would be one use of knowing which race/genetic group is more intelligent. But in reality, using current job would probably be way better, as the difference of intelligence between races are way less than the caricature used as an example.

>>4456 Maybe, but you'd need an objective metric to do that, and as already discussed *anywhere* this topic comes up there really isn't one, different people value different things. A lottery is more fair in many ways. Maybe not the most effective, but if you had a sample size large enough that differences between people of different genetic stock became an issue there would definitely be a sizeable sub-population of smart determined people anyway.

>>4457 > you'd need an objective metric A metric for sure, objective I don't know. Whenever you judge people you do so based on some, more or well defined, metric. And I do think that diversity is important to create a system robust in as many cases as possible, and so that it is important to have many people with many different values. >A lottery is more fair Maybe, but fairness is not the goal, the goal is to maximize the value of the selected people according to your metric. Anyway, I don't want to go in more details over this hypothetic situation, as I only wanted originally to illustrate the kind of far fetched situation where knowing which race is the "best", be it in intelligence or success or otherwise, would be important, as a way to highlight that most people don't need to care about that. All that as a way to defend my own lack of knowledge in the matter.

>>4456 IQ isn't the only thing. jews have never built a great society comparable to west europeans or east asians because they're too insular and clannish you need some amount of diversity for dynamism, a large part of the reason west europe did so well is they had varied tribal identities that coalesced into national. strong basis for competition/necessity of improvement/culling unfit. compare china, whose only real periods of rapid development were under existential threat (hundred schools of thought during warring states, major technological/economic advances during southern song). likewise isolation made japan go nowhere from heian all the way through the black ships, but once threatened they advanced by leaps and bounds (albeit copying the west, but this I think is more the west's fault) you put a million jews in space, you get shtetl culture

No

there are three points to consider: >In general, there is a correlation between poorer areas and higher crime rates. >In america at least, most poorer areas have more black people than white. >it makes sense to not want to risk your life/ property for no reason. From these facts we can extrapolate that it is completely logical to avoid these neighborhoods, and race is not really a factor. I doubt you OP are actually a racist, do not worry. I hope this post is as factual and apolitical as it can be.

>>4473 >jews have never built a great society comparable to west europeans or east asians because they're too insular and clannish Jews are also a much more specific group than either 'west europeans' or 'east asians', so it makes sense that they haven't built any "great society" being that you need more than a small tribe to build a society.

>>4382 Go away.

>>4478 >Jews are also a much more specific group than either 'west europeans' or 'east asians', so it makes sense that they haven't built any "great society" being that you need more than a small tribe to build a society. I'm not the person you are responding to but obviously the point was that you can take any individual country from 'west europeans' or 'east asians' and see that each of them 1) built and maintained at least one empire for a period of time and 2) continue to make meaningful contributions to humanity and the modern world.

Maybe keep in mind that a lot of the reason crime is associated with black people is that poverty and race are correlated, and poorer people have fewer legal options, so, you know, avoid poor white areas too. Other than that, I wouldn't worry about it. >>4373 >You do know why they call jew haters "anti-semites"? It's because Jewish people are supposedly descended from Sem, one of Noah's sons. >>4490 >the point was that you can take any individual country from 'west europeans' or 'east asians' and see that each of them 1) built and maintained at least one empire for a period of time and 2) continue to make meaningful contributions to humanity and the modern world. When has Belgium done any of that?

>>4495 >When has Belgium done any of that? Belgium is basically just France and France did Napoleon. They also make nice chocolate. Next question.

>>4497 how vapid

>>4430 This 100% Unless you’ve grown up or lived a long time in a majority spic/nigger/kike/chink area then you have no business talking about racism. Kindly check your privilege a moment and yield to those underprivileged enough to have encountered this problem firsthand.

That's not racist, but some people might think so. But does it really matter either way? If we've reached the point where being racist on its own is bad enough to be criminalized, then I think I want to stop living on this earth. In other words, if you aren't doing anything to harm anyone else, I don't think it matters if you're racist or not. Also, a marginally related side note: I don't think facts can be racist, but the conclusions drawn from them can be. Had this conversation with someone the other day where they were arguing that pic related is inherently racist, which I don't think it is simply because it makes observations of reality and nothing more.

>>5808 some people don't like being racist.

>>4490 >each of them built and maintained at least one empire for a period of time If you randomly pick a tribe from Asia, you probably a) won't recognize it and b) will find no records anywhere of their glorious empire. Europe is a little different because it's much more culturally homogenized, due to nationalism. I don't think there's a good comparison to be made there. Maybe a kingdom. But guess what existed? The Kingdom of Israel. >continue to make meaningful contributions to humanity and the modern world. if soykafboard is to be believed, Jews are responsible for most of western culture.

>>4419 As someone with a weak background in genetics, this really cleared things up for me. Thanks!

>>4361 All of that sounds pretty reasonable to me Lain, basically what the first reply said; there's nothing wrong with thinking that way and being worried about being mugged and so on.

Okay I'm not gonna read the whole thread so break it down for me, lains: how does "racism" have any moral weight whatsoever, in either direction? A theory of race is a scientific hypothesis. A given hypothesis may describe reality more, or less accurately than another, but how could you call either of them good or evil in a moral sense? Where exactly does morality come into play?

>>6027 I believe the morality comes from the unfairness of having certain assumptions made about you or other possible discrimination based on something that you have no control over.

>>6027 The way you've framed the question doesn't make sense. Moral consequences arise from actions. You can't meaningfully speak about morality if you're just considering the quality of a hypothesis, only the actions taken as a result of accepting a hypothesis.

>>6039 So holding, investigating, and promoting hypotheses some might decry as "racist" is morally neutral? (Assuming, of course, the data is presented in a non-argumentative fashion, conducive to productive discourse)

>>6058 By "considering the quality of a hypothesis" I meant only your personal edification. The boundary at which you influence others is the boundary at which morality applies.

>>6059 >The boundary at which you influence others is the boundary at which morality applies. >morality applies what does that mean, exactly?

>>6060 Your question was about when we can meaningfully make moral claims about things, yes? If you take an action that impacts others, then that action can be judged on a moral basis. Or do you disagree?

>>4361 The reason people are upset about this being pointed out is because it doesn't address the underlying issue which is the economic disadvantage of black neighborhoods. Nobody is saying that it's racist to point out how reality is, just that it's silly to say something without addressing the underlying issue.

>>6113 but I am just a guy going from point A to point B trying not to get mugged or killed. I don't really care what made killers and muggers do it. I have my own stuff to worry about. I have my own economic soykaf to worry about.

>>6114 You don't have to be out there making it better for other people, just not trying to imply that it's because they are black and not because they are economically disadvantaged. That's all anyone would ask of you reasonably, if anyone says otherwise they are probably spooked an ideologically inconsistent and most people who actually know what they are talking about wouldn't take them seriously.

>>6115 I seen a lot of white poor neighbourhoods and they aren't half as violent and criminal as black ones.... kinda makes me think that color of skin is easier/faster/better predictor of criminal behaviour

>>6115 >poverty is best factor to determining crime lol kay

>>6117 >>6116 Not him, but old money vs new money. It takes generations to breed complacency with a society, which is what you are arguing for; complacency being a positive thing. Much like how the same families have been rich forever, the same people have been poor forever. If you want to choose to believe this is because society is working as it should and the people at the bottom deserve to be, then thats where we differ fundamentally not our views on race. Yet when I look at a country such as China where those from the lowest class now are the highest class essentially, part of the party or government workers, I don't think so. Something funny about a middle class that looks up and thinks jews dont deserve to be where they are, and looks down and thinks other minorities are there because of some mental deficiency.

>>6117 is that picture not proof of clear racial discrimination in the police/prison system?

>>6124 How so?

>>6124 Logic is kryptonite to these guys, don't waste your time.

>>6124 Or it's proof that even well off black people can't resist what their inherent genetic programming tells them to be like. Watch Ryan Faulk/Alternative Hypothesis. Essentialism > constructivism, because no organism on Earth could resist what their genetic instructions tell them. The idea that humans are somehow this special snowflake species that's immune to evolution and biology is an idea stemming from Christian thought in our society, and should be abandoned.

>>6130 I think the point Lain was trying to make is that blacks are more likely to be arrested and convicted of the same things whites have a better chance of getting away with.

>>6129 This. They're not here to have a discussion with you. They're here to push their agenda. They will embellish, distort and just downright lie to convince you of it because, to them, their agenda is more important than the truth. Don't get me wrong. They think their agenda is the truth but that's because of pic related. There's a massive preponderance of evidence, evidence that's passed far more rigourous checks than a 10 second glance from some chump on an imageboard but they aren't interested in that. They'll tell you, in a staggering display of ignorance, that academia is controlled by "liberals" who, for some strange reason, want to suppress the truth despite being subjected to evidence everyday while having an intimate knowledge of how to verify it. And that's the difference right there. These beliefs only stand up in the face of evidence due to complete ignorance on how to analyse and verify what they're being told. >>6116 Bullsoykaf no you haven't. I live in a poor white neighborhood, things are just as bad if not worse. >>6117 This graph is entirely backwards for what you're attempting to show. We need their wealth when they were born, not when they're 20-30. It does nothing to normalise for the fact that crime pays. As such the only really relevant data is the final column, i.e. an amount of wealth that you're not going to get no matter how many drugs you sell and would you look at that. It falls off hard. That's before we even get to alternative explanations. The American police being racist is no surprise to anyone. Sage for obvious reasons. We got bored of this blatant shiIling months ago.

>>6124 >moving the goalpost There is quite clear correlation of crime to color of skin Easiest way to prove this is to compare Japan to Somalia

>>6135 ...further correlating crime to poverty actually.

>>6132 >whites have better chances of getting away with it Umm no? Can you prove this besides "muh priviledge"? I showed the proof of my assumption that crime is highly correlated with skin color yet you didn't show yours.

>>6133 >The American police being racist is no surprise to anyone Do you have any proof to back up your claims? Are you also implying that black and asian cops are racist against their own communities?

>>6136 Then what about the most recent increase in crime in Frace and Sweden with influx of brown and black immigrants? Is that a poverty thing also, or a mistmatch of cultures and sexually frustrated men not having their basic urges met and they lash out like animals?

>>6138 You genuinely aren't paying attention to anything that goes against your narrative, are you? Here's one piece: https://5harad.com/papers/frisky.pdf

>>6138 >>6137 What planet are you from?

>>6139 > sexually frustrated men not having their basic urges met and they lash out like animals Oh right. Men are all born rapists I suppose?

>>6142 just black ones >>6141 planet earth nice to meet you mr ayylium

>>6143 forgot the pic makes my point about the blackies a bit clearer

>>6144 You done, sport?

>>6145 genetics influences the brain much more than it does to skin pigmentation I am not a racist, I am a guy that watched "the idiocracy" movie a lot and believes we should have eugenics

>>6146 >genetics influences the brain much more How exactly does it influence the brain? Or do you have any source for that? I don't think that the final personality is dependant on your genes as much as it is dependant on your childhood and education.

>>6147 >How exactly does it influence the brain? Or do you have any source for that? see >>6144 >I don't think that the final personality is dependant on your genes as much as it is dependant on your childhood and education. To prove that you would either have to have different genes in EXACTLY SAME environment (which you can't control, let's be real) or have exactly same genes in different environments. Exactly same genes? Clones? Yes, identical twins. Different environments? Seperated at birth. Look up the meta analysis of information provided on internet.

It would be cool if some of you spent more time with cyperpunk media and thought about the kinds of things it says about humanity.

>>6153 It would be cool if you watched your beezwax maytee

>>6146 Eugenics is a mugs game for people who don't understand evolution. More than that, we've shown repeatedly that if there are differences in intelligence they're within a standard deviation. Which is to say that you can't tell if any individual will be intelligent or dumb by looking at their race. We still get black astrophysics professors and engineers at NASA. So what's the point? Not giving everyone a chance to prove their intellect is statistically a bad idea and once you have that information becomes infinitely more useful than race. Even if it's true (jury is out) it's not useful at all. Also IQ==intelligence or even intelligence==good are both narrow minded. We've shown that black people do better at some intellectual tasks (spatial awareness being the one I know off the top of my head), while it's pattern recognition (which is most of IQ) that white people do better with. More than that, evolution has done a fuarrrking amazing job over the years. In many cases it's steered us away from higher intelligence (it's very energy consuming, humans unique digestive system is the only reason we can afford it) and, as always with evolution, it's been the correct play and has ultimately led to our survival and the wealth of technology we have now. Evolution is still ticking along just fine. Selection pressures are almost entirely social now (in the first world at least), but that's nothing new, social selection pressure is a big deal for chimps as well. Do you really think you can do better with some half-baked theory about genes? Genes are a small part of our hereditary traits. There's soykaf goes on in wombs that we don't fully understand. More that than you're talking about artificially narrowing the gene pool. This, without exception, harms evolution. The only thing that can stop an organism from evolving is called a local hill. Essentially you evolve the perfect amoeba and then stop because every possible change is a step down. The randomness inherent in evolution helps to prevent this stagnation but a smaller gene pool can only increase its likely hood. If the gene is successful enough to have survived (not to mention black genes are more successful than white genes, by population anyway) then it deserves a chance. Even if it seems to be worse right now with changing environments or new combinations of genes they can prove to be more effective in the long run. >>6154 That is our beezwax. You're the outsider here, that much is obvious. Most people are going to just ignore you and get on with the cyb stuff. There's pretty much just me who enjoys responding (somewhat) earnestly.

>>6153 These race obsessed whiners don't care about cyberpunk or science fiction (or actual peer reviewed science), they just see any imageboard and believe it's an infertile field ready to be fertilized (IE, shat upon).

Dogs have differences between breeds, why not humans? Blacks usually have a lower IQ, are more prone to be brutal with physical strength instead of intellect, just like asians are the other way around. Between that, and that most of their ancestral were tribals while whites were building society, it's not a surprised they are mostly still savages killing and raping each other in hoods. There's both the racial and historical question to that result.

The only way I dont blow up everyday reading about this garbage and can let people joke and say racist soykaf in front of me is by pretending that one day this will be settled in some war, like that there is nothing I can do and say or anyone can that there is a fundamental difference between people like OP or the post above me and one of us is going to have to kill the other to exist. Im white before I get some "wow typical savage" comment. But yeah im sure you have some super cool race theory to explain how I got the caveman gene or some soykaf from the albino africans that migrated to wherever. Although before we even got there id just be some dumb liberal that doesnt know what you know. Ive abandoned so many friends over this topic. My position on things is by no means "popular" or me just going with the crowd like some sites like to paint. To be fair though this is probably because I used to be and hang out with racist people. I have a lot of drug problems, I dont make friends with most people. Even when I have friends I always feel alone. The few friends I've had and looked up to were african american (or just african). I dont really care about politics anymore but I do care about those close to me, I think its insane to think one person is so smart they know beyond their environment Regardless about the only good in my country america I can see at all is in black america. When I go to some golf course or suburb i just see disgusting things, I dont see any kind of human spirit at all or anything worth admiring or any beauty. I remember at a family members graduation at some very white college I literally say everyone sitting there as like leeches or worms or something. It might not be far off to say my view is the opposite of how some of you racists see things, and really whos right if we can have such opposite viewa? We both are people and our intelligence probably isnt that far apart, I really do think there is just some unreconcileable difference between us and I think its best to leave it at that and wait for things to boil over. I dont think any of us have some great logical point and the other side just "doesnt understand" and I think your massively overestimating yourself and what you know if you think that. Yeah I do wish stuff like this would be pushed off the site. Not because im just quaking in my boots at pseudo scientific information about race thats totally challenging my world view and blowing my mind, but because I just dont really want to get angry at people here and id enjoy this site more if I could at least imagine that its a place where that sort of thing can be put aside. But its not I guess and i suppose its a good thing because im reminded everyday that there is people like this and I guess in some way it keeps me alive and fighting for/against something. Otherwise maybe id just sit there snorting pills and living like a machine.

>>9432 I'd recommend learning to proofread your blogposts. People who abandon their friends over political beliefs are the worst. As much as I hate certain standpoints and opinions you have to let it go sometimes and just respect your peers. >whos right if we can have such opposite views What does this even mean? Of course someone can be right if there's two opposing views. Unless you actually mean to say you operate on epistemological nihilism, which I doubt. More likely you only do when it's convenient. Also how is seeing blacks as superior the opposite of being racist? That IS racist. I get wanting to keep this soykaf off the site though, mostly it just facilitates uninformed diatribe and low quality posting but occasionally there's a good debate so I don't mind.

>>4370 >They tend to be lower cus societal racism Upper class blacks are still more likely to commit crimes. Not only that but Kenyan children are failing the mirror test, a test that actual actual monkeys, dolphins and some elephants can complete. You shouldn't judge anyone you might come across based on how they look, obviously. But claiming that it's all because of "societal racism" is just denying reality.

>>6133 >They'll tell you, in a staggering display of ignorance, that academia is controlled by "liberals" who, for some strange reason, want to suppress the truth despite being subjected to evidence everyday while having an intimate knowledge of how to verify it. That's not ignorance, that's reality. You aren't fooling anyone.

You realize that none of that matters given that human germline engineering on a massive scale is only a few decades away from being feasible and practical. Also given that basically all "white" countries are run by backwards morons who fear science (euro users don't even understand basic GM tech) there is pretty good odds that some nignog nation with weak ass regulations is going to beat all your precious cracker countries to the finish-line of undeniable genetic superiority. Can't wait to see your salty bitch tears when a bunch of darkies turn you into the untermensch.

The thing is blacks have always, and will always be culturally separate from white population in the US, and they have been hugely taken advantage of. The welfare state was created intentionally to direct the vote of the Blacks. "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 100 years." -LBJ A part of the cultural differences is the family unit. The blacks have a separate family unit from us, and it was destroyed earlier than ours. In part by the welfare state, and in general. Kids being raised by single parents don't have fathers to teach them what it is to be a man, and if the mother works that leaves the kid to do what he wants. It leads to them getting in more trouble and never coming to understand the roles they are to fulfill. A broken family makes for a broken people. It's definitely bad for you to hate Blacks, but to avoid them is completely practical. It may not be their fault, but they still pose a threat never the less.

>>9433 I just disagree. And this is what im talking about, no ones right here you think im terrible for leaving friends for this I don't because they are disrespecting friends I care about more in their beliefs. And no. Im saying when one human is deciding what is right for all of society, its inherently going to simply be their opinion. One person deciding black people are dumber depends on what their cultural and societal beliefs value, as well as personal beliefs. Even on immigration, or any issue. Even when you set the standpoint of say "an ideal society has less deaths", there was many deaths to get to a point here where we had less deaths. You cant know for sure the consequences long term for an ENTIRE living breathing human system just because right now or at certain points it causes deaths. I doubt you will agree with what im saying, you will probably just keep pulling out examples of things that arent disagreeable and when I provide how it isnt you will think im grasping at straws. Which I wont see it like that, to me its very real. your thing about me being racist towards whites or something is a discussion probably best not to have here. Already you are making assumptions about me which is why I hate these kind of discussion. Assuming maybe I have some viewpoint im not even aware of and then consequently jumping from that to "not only do you have it you have it but only use it when it suits you". I already know we could not have any kind of discussion right there because its just going to be me combatting a false character your forcing on me.

>>9446 >euro users don't even understand basic GM tech >>MICE THAT HAVE BEEN EATING GM CROPS HAVE HAD THEIR FERTILITY NUMBERS LOWERED DRAMATICALLY >lul u dunno Okay?

>>9446 >neurosuggesting it won't be China China is at top of the human GM game and they said they will soon discover intelligence genes

>>9453 Only reason I discounted the ching chongs is that their population is rapidly becoming affluent. Once a nation's people start to have something to lose, then they suddenly develop "morals" and get scared of progress (robots, germline engineering, etc), crying for laws against it. Unless president for life Xi's gommunust party can keep a total death grip on the population through surveillance and killbots, when the new middle class and rich see that many of them will be pushed out by lab twined batches of superchineese they'll threaten to a riot. Chinese will certainly figure out intelligence genes and soykaf from large scale studies, but putting that into practice, maybe, maybe not. 50/50. Many nations in darkest Africa have no such problem, super negros can't take anyone's job, because there are no jerbs to take. The goverments are corrupt,as fuarrrk, have no face to lose, and have no regulations to speak of. Easy to setup a lab there to do whatever the fuarrrk you want when other countries are too scared.

>>9463 Except that the glaring lack of infrastructure, and the institutional inferiority of those African countries will suggest a prediction like that is unlikely. Not be on a supremacist bent, but the developing African nations of today pose so little of a stake in the Gene Race when, for example, Nigeria has barely introuduced the possibility of genetically modified crops for cultivation a year prior. Taking the ethical questions at face value, the West still has little qualms on animal testing besides from the dismay of a few affluent NGOs. And the pushback against these NGOs and ethical standards has been mobilised faster than expected since since the start of mass media publications on CRISPR technology. The tone is shifting, and shifting fast! You can't underestimate the extent of despotism in the scientific community when they have a goal in mind. And, the same for China. They're funneling thousands of thousands of subsidies (something that Africa lacks in doing) to their institutional mavericks, knowing that the spending war will be won by he who spends the most. The middle class isn't even a factor in this, because the middle class wouldn't even be there if government didn't put them there. So, the CPC can disappear them just as they made them, believe me. Tell me that a nation that still posts the portrait of a man that made the class struggle into a literal class war can't do it again. Anyways, back to my point, no scientists are flocking to Africa due of their apparent lack of ethical standards (even if it were true), if there's no institutions backing their efforts. All the specific resources, asides from humans to test I suppose, aren't likely there- equipment and such- or are so scarce to the point of economical unattainability. Added with the fact that specialisation within precise areas of expertise are a rarity anywhere with people. And, I am sure the "where" that is Africa can't have them homegrown any better than say a highly developed nation.

>>4416 If I choose to live with my own race and my own race chooses to live with me in our own community that does not let in outsiders of a different race, then thats our thing and our business. "You chose wrong with that free will so the state/society will choose for you" is a double edge sword man.

>>9446 I'll believe it when I see it man.

>>9463 >Once a nation's people start to have something to lose, then they suddenly develop "morals" and get scared of progress That's not true at all. Most societies derive morals from ignorance and religion. Chinese morals are whatever the totalitarian government says they are. >they'll threaten to a riot Last time that happened in China, thousands of people were crushed by tanks and gunned down by the military. Nobody wants to go through that again. >Africa have no such problem...The goverments are corrupt,as fuarrrk, have no face to lose, and have no regulations to speak of. That's China. African governments are powerless and unstable, and that ignorance/religious based "morality" is stronger in African citizens than anywhere else in the world, especially the Muslim ones. If anyone is going to riot over heathen genetics research they don't understand it's Africans. And if any government is going to fall to a citizen uprising, it's an African one. >>9643 >glaring lack of infrastructure, and the institutional inferiority There is also the intelligence gap. Africans have too much evolutionary debt. They were chasing around antelope with wooden sticks while we were building cathedrals. They can't even keep up with the modern world let alone make any meaningful contributing to it. except aids It's sad but nobody said life is fair.

>>6124 You can't derive that information from that picture alone, nor can you conclude that it is because blacks are "different" in some or another like some other lainons in this thread are saying. You would need more data to make such conclusions. What you've done is pull an assumption out of thin air. I'm not saying your conclusions nor anyone's else's are wrong, but I am saying that there hasn't been evidence presented in this thread thus far that shows that. I have noticed something about evidence-based arguments on the internet for the past few years, and it's that people's conclusions do not follow the premises of their argument very clearly or soundly. For instance, this lainon >>4456 is arguing for the selection of individuals to perform a task based off their ethnicity, since ethnicity is presumably a good predictor of performance. Now let's assume that it were empirically true that one ethnicity were genetically superior to another in a specific trait. What benefit would there be in selecting people based solely on their identity? Please think about this carefully. The desirable outcome we are all looking for is that we select the most competent individuals to carry out a specific task. There are already measures in place that help us do this (they are called exams and job applications). Introducing identity into the mix, if anything, makes things worse. What you would essentially be doing is forcing out the more skilled people from the 'lesser' group and replacing them with less competent people from the 'higher' group. >>4361 Well, I'm not going to make a moral argument so I'll say this instead: Probably avoid people based on the best predictor of crime. If poverty predicts crime better than race, then it would be smart to avoid poorer areas instead of avoiding blacks. It might be that blacks commit more crimes because more of them are poorer. Might be something you want to look into specifically for your country. Anyways, these things tend to be quite complicated. Remember to read stats properly, and by this I mean not to make ideological assumptions from insufficient data. As long as you don't treat others differently based on where they're from, you're cool in my book, OP.

>>9660 >>4456 >is arguing for the selection of individuals to perform a task based off their ethnicity, You are cherry picking. >if you're in a hurry and can't do an exhaustive search. What he's saying is ethnicity is a good starting heuristic. People get funny about intelligence so lets use something less charged like height. If you need a basketball player and given a choice of 100 random males and 100 random females a rational person takes the men. It doesn't mean tall women don't exist. It just means it's not economical to go out and search for them. >Probably avoid people based on the best predictor of crime. >As long as you don't treat others differently based on where they're from, you're cool in my book, OP. Interesting you talk about other people's conclusions not following the premise. A native is born into a society that their ancestors worked hard to create. Somebody being not native is a huge predictor of crime, especially if they are refugees, but also just regular African-Americans. They have little to zero stake in your society. At best they want to take as much as they can and give nothing back. At worst they want to turn your society into whatever soykafhole they are running away from because that's what they're familiar with. Treating others differently based on where they are from is exactly the conclusion to your premise.

>>9664 >What he's saying is ethnicity is a good starting heuristic But my point is that is it even worth starting here in the first place? From a practical POV. >It just means it's not economical to go out and search for them I can't imagine a situation like this. I mean, in what way would the process of selection be more quick or efficient? Your example, in practice, is not even a problem. It's so easy to just record everyone's height and select the tallest people, both male and female. >Somebody being not native is a huge predictor of crime...They have little to zero stake in your society Why would they have little stake in our society? I understand refugees because they don't even want to be there in the first place, but what about African-Americans? >At best they want to take as much as they can and give nothing back. At worst they want to turn your society into whatever soykafhole they are running away from because that's what they're familiar with Now you're just being hysterical >Treating others differently based on where they are from is exactly the conclusion to your premise You're right - I didn't really explain it correctly. What I wrote sounds/is contradictory because I approved of OP's avoidance of certain groups of people based off their crime rate, whilst simultaneously telling him to treat others fairly (specifically in a face-to-face social interaction). FYI, I don't believe in avoiding certain groups of people based off statistics regarding crime rate is moral, but I do believe it can be rational from a purely consequential POV. Hence why I said "I'm not going to make a moral argument". From a statistical perspective you're objectively reducing the chances of being in a dangerous situation, I understand. However, in practice, what happens is that individuals develop prejudices due to not being sufficiently familiar with certain groups. This is of course natural, but that doesn't mean it's useful to society. It can lead to conflict and misunderstanding.

>>9660 >>>4456 >is arguing for the selection of individuals to perform a task based off their ethnicity, Mostly I was arguing that, while there might be some far fetched situations where that would be useful, in most cases we have much better criteria of selection, such as current job, academic success etc... Only great urgency where you have only time to consider a single, immediately assessable trait might justify using race/ethnicity, hence my moon crashing story. The rest of the time, you assess the individual, not the group he belongs to, with exams and interviews as you said. >>9664 >What he's saying is ethnicity is a good starting heuristic. Better than nothing, but not a good one, current job is much better and almost as easy to assess. Or even a two minutes chat what with the person. >>9681 >is it even worth starting here in the first place Not in any real situation that has every occurred around me.

>>9648 Sure, as long as you don't bother anyone your group is free to do his thing in his corner of the world. But when "his thing" (rejecting individuals based on their supposed race rather than individuality) shows a deep flaw of reasoning, it makes me want to stay away from you, and be very wary if I ever have to interact with you. That's maybe not exactly vilifying, but the difference is subtle.

Clinging to the modern take on "racism" is like being an idealistic bicycle rider. I use this analogy because I know a person who actually acts like this. He was making a left turn across a 5 lane road, correctly hand signaled, and then began to turn into traffic to cross all 5 lanes of traffic. Legally where I live this is acceptable. Right as he began to turn a Dodge Ram 1500 towing a 40 foot boat screamed by him, and if I hadn't grabbed his collar and kept him from turning he would be dead. His explanation of his behavior was >"BUT I HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY! I SHOULD HAVE TURNED AND HE SHOULD'VE STOPPED!" For this to have happened this person towing this massive boat would have had to make a full stop in the middle of a 45mph road, confusing other drivers around him in a display of potentially car accident causing pathological altruism. My friend did not understand that even though legally the framework allowed him to do something, it was utterly stupid to do so because it goes against everyone's shared understanding of an action (driving). He put himself and others at risk to engage in an idealized behavior, against his OWN better judgment that he might be harmed, hoping this dangerous action would be consequenceless and reward his way of interpreting the shared task of keeping a road safe. He's also walked through known black populated parks at night to "prove" that they weren't criminals and of course was mugged every time. To me this exemplified the mindset of people against "racism" or perceived "racist" behavior. Everyone else on the "road" of life is driving to protect themselves, and generally inattentive and acting on autonomic instinct. At the same time everyone else drives assuming the same, and generally the roads are a statistically safe place. The expectations are the same and it's difficult to "misunderstand" a driver's intentions. Drivers, Motorcyclists, Cyclists, are the metaphor for other races. For them to co-exist on the same road their differences must be acknowledged, quantified and rules made for their differing abilities to ensure all their safety. These are like the parallel societies different races create in the same geographic area. A person like George Lincoln Rockwell or Malcolm X understood this, advocated separation of races withacknowledgements of respect between the societies belonging to these races. If they were to exist on the "same road" they must respect each other's space and differing abilities. You can drive safely next to a cyclist in a giant truck easily, as long as the cyclist respects the truck and truck respects the cyclist. It must be mutual. Ironically, in cities which are multicultural driving is much less safe because of this cultural lack of respect for others non-white races have. Being a cyclist in Holland is a lot different than being one in New York City. A city like Amsterdam however, even though it's a multikulti soykafhole is a safe place to drive because there is a cultural reverence for road safety which "assimilated" non-Dutch accept. This wanes daily with more Arab and African refugees and proves my point. The same way a man towing a boat cannot slow down in time to let a cyclist pass, a cyclist shouldn't expect to be able to be accommodated in such a way. The world, societies, etc can be understood in this way since driving, doing business, and coexisting between races is all a mass social activity. You can respect someone for who they are and still not want anything to do with them, and not be insulted by them not wanting anything to do with you. It is people's innate urge to be with people like them. Being with people unlike them is distressing.(1) The pragmatic approach to governance and life is autonomy for racial communities with essentially a "non-aggression pact" between them. People can work on the betterment of themselves and their people without worrying about the inevitable ethnic conflict of a multicultural society. The alternative is a giant countrywide racewar in the United State's case, so I'd rather live in a world with the least amount of bloodshed. To me, that is the happy middleground between state enforced interracial homosexuality Sam Hyde style and an all out civil ethnic conflict due to mismanagement of option A. 1. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4346023/)

>>9681 >But my point is that is it even worth starting here in the first place? From a practical POV. The point of a heuristic is that it is a cheap measurement which leads to insight and informs you whether it is worth making more expensive measurements. i.e. that guy is black and wearing his pants around his knees, he's probably not a brain surgeon. >what about African-Americans? The evidence suggests they don't care about their own community nevermind the rest of America. Of course there are those that have high intelligence but clearly not enough, and like tall women they are fighting against their evolutionary history. >Now you're just being hysterical Good argument. I grew up on a paki estate so I probably know a bit more about islam than you. >FYI, I don't believe in avoiding certain groups of people based off statistics regarding crime rate is moral, Talking to Liberals about race is like talking to theologians about evolution. You reject reality whenever it conflicts with your fragile belief system and that's what holds you back. I'm curios though, why do you think it is moral to pretend everybody is the same when they are not? Have you actually thought that through? Or is it just that same as, God created everything in 6 days shutup and deal with it?

>>9689 >that guy is black and wearing his pants around his knees Here his attire is more telling than his skin I think. Between a black man in a suit and a white man in dirty rags, which one would you guess is the surgeon ? >why do you think it is moral to pretend everybody is the same when they are not? I think it's moral to give a chance to each individual to prove their own worth regardless of the group they supposedly belong to. And by "moral" I mean in my own self-interest. Even if there is a higher proportion of criminals amongst blacks than amongst whites, and amongst whites than amongst asians, that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of upstanding citizens in each of those groups. So by refusing to interact with a person based solely on their supposed race, you cut yourself from potential friends and such. Which might be fine for you if you have already enough friends, but as someone with very peculiar tastes, I can't afford this. And again, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't keep yourself safe while deciding if an individual is worth associating with. 2am on a poorly lit street is neither the time nor the place to start chatting with strangers. As far as I can tell, "pretending everybody is the same", is what you do when you treat people only as members of a group rather than as individual.

I had to accept that ive become racist since trying to hire some indians. About 10 different indians from different sources, 100% rate of promising they can do "definitely" do things and completely failing at tasks that an inexperienced white university student could do. They are all scammers, it is imbued in their cultural conditioning. I would never trust one.

Is there some reason why threads like this should belong on lainchan? Why even have lainchan when 4chan would work just as well? fuarrrk off.

>>9691 >Here his attire is more telling than his skin My mistake. >I think it's moral to give a chance to each individual to prove their own worth regardless of the group they supposedly belong to. And I think our (western) society does a good job of that. That's the original definition of social justice, before it was corrupted by 21st century fascists. A person with the natural talent and motivation to reach a any position can get there regardless of their background. And I think the fact that there are proportionally fewer blacks in knowledge work, say, than whites is a symptom of biological differences only. That's going a little off topic but I wondered where you stand on that. However what you said before was >As long as you don't treat others differently based on where they're from, you're cool Combined with your later gestures to "morality", the implication being that it is not permissible to use this extra information on where a person is from in your decision making process because it is against some dogmatic set of rules Liberals have. Do you see how I got from, "don't treat others differently based on where they're from", to, "pretending everybody is the same"? The reason I hate this point is because it is just reverse stupidity. Liberals identify that judging people *only* on race is bad therefor *never* acknowledging racial differences must be good. Reverse stupidity is not intelligence. By the way are you the Lain who told me to read Guns, Germs and Steel a while ago?

>>9695 >a symptom of biological differences only Would you say the same for the jews having more Nobel prices or the french more Fields medals? Myself I'm more convinced that it's mostly a matter of education, nurture rather than nature. But I also don't think that quota in college are a solution (way too late)(to address a common race-related complaint in the US), instead schools in poor areas need to fulfil their role better. (More money or whatever, I'm not a teacher I wouldn't know.) >However what you said before was Wasn't me, I'm only >>9691 I'll let the other lainon answer. I would also like you to better explain why you think that the group a person belongs to (be it their race, their origin, whatever else) is relevant to judging them, when you have the individual in front of you? From what I can read, it seems very important to you to be allowed to use this criteria. But if you meet a thief who is black, does it matter that other blacks are criminals more often than the general population ; or does it only matter that this specific person is a thief? Another time, trying to be more clear : if you know that the person is "bad", how does it matter that his group is "bad", when you already have that information about him. If you don't know if he is "bad", then I think we agree that, depending on how urgent it is to assess whether he is, taking into account his group makes sense ; but that you should assess the individual on his own quality given the chance.

Being racist is cool.

>>4373 people dont have big signs on them that say stem major lOL. stupid analogy

>>9693 These threads persist because they honestly believe that spamming this garbage across the internet will change something and not just annoy people. Also, every time they try to demonstrate in public they get their asses kicked and the police have to protect them long enough to get back to the basement. Internet is much safer. Mods allow it because their interpretation of "good faith" arguing is hilariously skewed. They will now flip a coin to decide whether or not to ban me again for saying any of this.

>>9701 this. these people can split hairs forever and think they are great truth seekers fighting the liberal sjws or whatever. they can find all these websites and think they have all this evidence and the day they leave their basements physically and mentally they realize the world they read about online has very little to do woth all of this bullsoykaf and that they didnt know soykaf. facts sorry peace out gamers.

>>9693 >>9701 >>9702 Maybe that you have had many occasions to confront racist ideologies and already know all their arguments and how to counter them. I haven't, and I appreciate the occasion to verify that I am indeed right and that the opposing side has nothing of value to offer. And because there will always be someone who needs to learn why exactly racism doesn't work, I think it's important that it keeps being debated in public. You're welcome to steer away from it, but please do not try to have it derezzed, thank you very much.

>>4370 There are plenty of cases where I live (big country in South America) where people have lost jobs or had their business terminally hurt over remarks contrary to social justice dogma. Outright racism and racist remarks are completely shunned here (one would argue that our fashion of racism is much more subtle than in the US), but social justice dogma manifests itself on issues of feminism and LGBT stuff, and social lynchings can happen over statements contrary to, or even questioning these particular types of SJ dogma. It's not like freedom of speech is respected by everyone, or even the law, even in countries that claim to be "free".

>>9696 >Would you say the same for the jews having more Nobel prices Yes, why not? How do you explain it? >or the french more Fields medals? I don't see the correlation to ethnicity here, the set of winners looks like a mixed bag to me. Frogger universities score high along with Burgers and Oxbridge but universities select for intelligence not nationality. >I would also like you to better explain why you think that the group a person belongs to (be it their race, their origin, whatever else) is relevant to judging them, when you have the individual in front of you? It's a heuristic. >But if you meet a thief who is black, does it matter that other blacks are criminals more often than the general population ; or does it only matter that this specific person is a thief? If you meet a mammal who is a lion, does it matter that other lions eat humans or does it only matter that this specific mammal eats humans? It's called a heuristic because you don't always have a cheap/easy way to find out. >if you know that the person is "bad", how does it matter that his group is "bad", when you already have that information about him. Because you don't have that information to begin with. You are running your thought process backwards here. >If you don't know if he is "bad", then I think we agree that, depending on how urgent it is to assess whether he is, taking into account his group makes sense Agreed. >but that you should assess the individual on his own quality given the chance. Otherwise they won't let you be a Liberal anymore? How sad for you.

>>9698 >people dont have big signs on them that say stem major lOL. stupid analogy All analogies are imperfect by definition. Instead of poking holes in the details why not address the point it raises? >>9701 >These threads persist because they honestly believe that spamming this garbage across the internet will change something and not just annoy people. That "annoyance" you feel is called cognitive dissonance. It occurs because the ideas discussed conflict with the ideas society wants you to believe. >Also, every time they try to demonstrate in public they get their asses kicked When an ideology cannot stand up to scrutiny, followers resort to violence and authoritarianism. You shouldn't be bragging that Liberals are increasingly only able to inflict their ideas on people through brute force. It's not a good thing. >breaking rule 6 The quality of discussion in this thread is civil. Just because you don't like the contents is not grounds to delete it. Again, only weak ideas need brute force to shut down opposition.

>>9716 > That "annoyance" you feel is called cognitive dissonance. No, it stems from fanatics like yourself repeating the same drivel over and over no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary, and flooding internet communities where people came to discuss something else.

>>9695 >That's the original definition of social justice, before it was corrupted by 21st century fascists gtfo lmao. You people are so deluded. You're claiming that the definition of social justice changed because of a small group of people? How fuarrrking absurd. This is such horrid logic and I see this rhetoric pop up everywhere on the internet. Has it ever occurred to you that the so called "21st century fascists" aren't actually about social justice? A 12 year old would be able to understand this. >a symptom of biological differences only ONLY? Where do you even get this information from? Please provide a source, because from my understanding, genes and the environment are both factors in human behaviour. >>9689 I don't think everybody is the same. I'm saying that statistics only serve as predictors in a real social situation. I mean, just because on average black people commit more crime doesn't mean you should assume the next black guy you meet is going to have criminal intent. At the end of the day, everyone is an individual. Funny, it is actually you who's treating everyone as the same. Yes, you can split the human species into groups according to their genetic makeup. Biological differences exist. Does that mean everything is determined by our genes? Obviously not. >Otherwise they won't let you be a Liberal anymore? How sad for you. Why are you people like this? So paranoid. Did you get bullied by a Bernie supporter at school or something?

>>9728 Another question worth asking is why he keeps capitalizing "liberal".

>>9703 good point never thought about it like that actually.

>>6144 >>6146 >genetics influences the brain much more than it does to skin pigmentation Care to explain where in that pic (or the article it's from, for that matter) your claim is supported? And, even if it's true, how that supports your (apparent) position that "darkies" are genetically predisposed to crime?

>>9718 >no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary I don't see any evidence in this thread (for either side). So far I only see people discussing controversial ideas and you rejecting one whole side completely out of hand and getting angry about it. I noted that this behavior is symptomatic of cognitive dissonance i.e. you *want* them to be wrong because external pressures don't allow you to accept them as correct. And your response is to unironically repeat the symptoms while denying to cause. Good job. >>9728 >gtfo lmao. You people are so deluded. Can you please attack the argument not the person. >ONLY? Where do you even get this information from? Please provide a source, because from my understanding, genes and the environment are both factors in human behaviour. Niggers growing up in the US are as worthless as niggers growing up in Africa. Why don't we start there? >I don't think everybody is the same. I know you don't. I said pretend. >Funny, it is actually you who's treating everyone as the same. Let's stay focused. You said don't treat people differently because of where they are from. That means you want people to be treated the same. Or treated the same until you have judged them as an individual. Which is ok but it's not as efficient as it could be as goes against rationality. >Why are you people like this? So paranoid. Did you get bullied by a Bernie supporter at school or something? Again, I ask a straight question and you change the subject with empty ad hominem. It's quite rude you know. Answer the question. >>9730 >Another question worth asking is why he keeps capitalizing "liberal". Just like social justice, the word has been corrupted. I mean Liberal as in 21st century fascism, not liberal as in describing liberty.

>>9736 The whole point of free speech, as far as I'm concerned, is to make sure that I'm right and to expose my opponents' errors for all to see. And occasionally to give me a chance to correct my own mistakes, so that I may be stronger in the future. It's not just a moral principle but a practical one, as all good moral principles. I didn't come up with this idea myself, I think I took it from Hitchens or someone of his kind.

>>9750 it fundamentally rests on the assumption that people think logically. Nobody thinks logically, especially people who think they do.

>>9728 >ONLY? Where do you even get this information from? It's evolutionary. If you go back far enough, humans actually were all the same. The differences we see now are caused by time and natural selection. To be more specific, whites invented food production early on. This means villages/towns/cities grew up around farms. Food can be produced in surplus and distributed to non-farmers who then work full time on developing other aspects of civilization. Intelligence becomes a prime factor in life success therefor in selecting a mate (at least in males). Blacks couldn't make food production work as well. They spent most of their existence as hunter gatherers. That means no surplus, everybody hunts or dies. Few permanent settlements, the tribe moves with the game, anyone who can't keep up is left behind. Intelligence is completely irrelevant, physical fitness is the only selector. Fast forward few thousand years and here we are, Africans win Olympic medals but not Nobel prizes. If your ideology makes you into a racist for acknowledging reality then it's time to find a new ideology to be honest. Ignorance and denial are not virtues.

>>9756 Even if all that you say here was right, that would do nothing to prove your point that ONLY biological differences lead to there being less blacks than jews per capita in the knowledge industry. You have to demonstrate that if the black population came to be as rich as the jewish one, that gap would remain. >humans actually were all the same Define "all the same". Any population has biological and cultural diversity. >whites invented food production Inherited from neighbouring populations in more favourable lands to develop the process, but sure, the result is the same. >most of their existence as hunter gatherers In some places. In other places states were established. The kingdom of Kush was powerful enough to conquer Egypt at one point. >acknowledging reality Present day, present time.

>>9757 >You have to demonstrate that if the black population came to be as rich as the jewish one, that gap would remain. What about what >>9748 said? Move Africans to America and they continue acting out their evolutionary script, playing primitive tribal games, killing each other over worthless patches of concrete and generally unwilling/unable to integrate and contribute to an intellectual civilization. In what way do you think changing the environment could help? >that would do nothing to prove your point that ONLY biological differences lead to there being less blacks than jews per capita in the knowledge industry. Knowledge work is a meritocracy. Nothing matters except intelligence and working hard. Case in point, India a nation of street soykafters writes more code than many other countries combined. >Even if all that you say here was right If I said something wrong please correct it. I know you don't *want* any of it to be true because it conflicts with your social/moral belief system. If you "know" I'm wrong but can't explain it with words then that's just your subconscious playing tricks on you. I am curious about the other side. Why do you think some races struggle more than others in knowledge work? Is it all just a big conspiracy orchestrated by privileged cishet white males to oppress minorities because they're cunts like that. Or what?

>>9448 >I doubt you will agree with what I'm saying It's hard to disagree with such a tautological and poorly written argument. If I understand your position correctly though I do mostly agree. Hovever it's obvious and contributes nothing. I'm very aware of relativism and the fact that I can't predict the future of a complex world. Most people are. Your entire argument (from what I can gather) appears to be just you alerting people to something they already know, connected by a bunch of gibberish. >"not only do you have it you have it but only use it when it suits you" Reread what I said, that wasn't it.

>>9759 >Move Africans to America and keep them in poverty through slavery, then legal segregation, then cultural segregation that remains to this day. And some of it is the fault of the blacks themselves, sure. But still, you can't deduce from the situation that ALL of the gap in success between jews and blacks is biological. There is too much bias introduced by the society in which the populations interact. >Nothing matters except intelligence and working hard. Yeah, and being raised in poverty is not too good for the brain. >I am curious about the other side. To be clear, there isn't a single other well defined side to the debate. As for me : I agree that some of the gap in success between the "races" could be due to genetics. I disagree that it's the only factor. the previous post was responding to >ONLY? Where do you even get this information from? And you have only vaguely explained why it might be due IN PART to genetics, but absolutely not why it would be ONLY genetics.

>>9761 >I disagree that it's the only factor. And to be more explicit about what the other factors could be : - brain development impaired by malnutrition and/or lack of appropriate stimuli during childhood. - poverty culture encouraging quick bucks from criminal activities and/or low skilled jobs over long term investing in education ; especially in the US inaccessibility of higher education due to the necessary monetary investment. Those factors are easily inherited from the parents, which explains why you might think that a population has a genetic defect, when it's a cultural one. The difference is important, as the cultural defect can be corrected by proper schooling.

>>9761 >and keep them in poverty through slavery, then legal segregation, then cultural segregation Maybe African Americans are not the best example. I guess the ones selected to be slaves were probably not the brightest to begin with either. On the other hand it's not like no body else has ever been in this position. Early Asian immigrants were manual laborers inflicted with similar cultural/social segregation. Why did their story turn out so different? The thread did kind of skip straight to African Americans too. What about African Africans? Why are they still ridiculously hopeless on their own land in their own self-created environment? And what about Africans immigrated to non-black countries by choice (e.g. Sweden where they are not poor but worshiped for being "diverse")? >some of it is the fault of the blacks themselves, sure. I'm not trying to blame anyone. My point is it's the fault of evolution and moralizing in either direction is irrational and unhelpful. >>9762 >- brain development impaired by malnutrition and/or lack of appropriate stimuli during childhood. Malnutrition shouldn't be an issue in 1st world countries. >- poverty culture There's a little bit of apex fallacy creeping in here. IQ difference between poor whites/poor blacks still exists and between middle class whites/middle class blacks still exists.

>>9764 I don't really disagree with anything here, but we're still no closer to proving that ONLY genetics are at work. >IQ difference between poor whites/poor blacks still exists and between middle class whites/middle class blacks still exists. Yeah, and? If there is a gap in IQ between poor and rich blacks, that pretty much disprove your point that ONLY genetics are involved in differences in success between populations. (Which is all that I'm arguing against since earlier, if that wasn't clear.) >still ridiculously hopeless on their own land Again, your wild generalisations do not help your point. Gabon and Equatorial Guinea's GDP per capita are above the world average. South-Africa's is higher than that of some parts of East Europe. Speaking of sub-Saharan Africa's population as if it was a single entity is just silly. There are many different groups, both genetics and cultural. Some of those are genetically closer to Caucasians or Asians than to other Africans. So if really all of Africa was failing, that would prove that the issue lies with Africa itself, rather than its population.

>>9765 >we're still no closer to proving that ONLY genetics are at work. It sounds like you want the other side to prove a negative. What are you expecting here? >Yeah, and? White and black kids with the same wealth and social class still fall apart in IQ tests. So even though malnutrition stunts cognitive development in children it doesn't explain the IQ difference between races. >Again, your wild generalisations do not help your point. I'm not trying to argue a point. I proposed a model to explain the world. If you can build a better model then I'll learn something. If you can't then maybe you will learn something.

>>9766 >White and black kids with the same wealth and social class still fall apart in IQ tests. So even though malnutrition stunts cognitive development in children it doesn't explain the IQ difference between races. to what degree? iirc in most studies it's 5-10 points difference with some pretty fat error bars, which is practically nothing. Also, there are still social influences that could be the real difference. Perhaps upper-class black parents talk to their kids less when they're babies for some reason. Maybe the education system is still slanted against black people regardless of social class. Maybe intelligence tests in general stress black people out more, due to a long history of being treated as inferior. There are so many factors that could be at play here besides genetics, especially with such small margins. >I'm not trying to argue a point. you very, very clearly are.

>>9766 >It sounds like you want the other side to prove a negative. What are you expecting here? I'm expecting the other side to backup the claim that they made. Maybe they shouldn't have claimed a negative if they can't prove it, or at least provide some reasons to think it might be true.

>>4362 > Avoiding places because you see black people and inmediatly associating it with a bad place is racist. But if all statistic point to black community being shorthand for poor & dangerous, how is it not rational and justified to avoid a black neighborhood? Imo there's two people on the street. Victims and victimizers. Consider how you must feel to be mugging someone. It's probably scary as fuarrrk. Anybody committing a robbery is going to pick someone they feel like they can pick on, and on top of that, someone who looks familiar. A white getting mugged in a black neighborhood is rarer than you think, most of that crime happens with the bounds of race/class. The locals need to be worried more than you.

>>9767 >to what degree? iirc in most studies it's 5-10 points difference with some pretty fat error bars More like 15 but yes that sort of region. >which is practically nothing. There is a noticeable difference between talking to someone with 85 IQ and someone with 100 IQ >Also, there are still social influences that could be the real difference. Perhaps maybe maybe These look like very US specific excuses when the results are consistent elsewhere. >you very, very clearly are. With what's been posted so far I don't see any reason to give up the model. Let's go meta again, why are you clutching at straws and fighting so hard against this? It's not rational. >>9768 >Maybe they shouldn't have claimed a negative if they can't prove it Logic 101. >or at least provide some reasons to think it might be true. >>9756 Your turn.

>>9774 15 is pretty significant. Can I see what data you're referring to? A paper or reference would be nice. >There is a noticeable difference between talking to someone with 85 IQ and someone with 100 IQ IQ doesn't measure anything related to language competency. Doubt. >These look like very US specific excuses when the results are consistent elsewhere. They're not. Those all apply to all countries that have both African and European populations. >With what's been posted so far I don't see any reason to give up the model. and you're arguing for it. Please just admit that. >Let's go meta again, why are you clutching at straws and fighting so hard against this? It's not rational. it's the scientific method. You try to verify the null hypothesis, not defend the hypothesis.

>>9774 >>or at least provide some reasons to think it might be true. >>>9756 >Your turn. Once more : all that you say only serves to show that race is correlated to success. It does NOT show that ONLY race is related to success. It is possible that BOTH race AND culture have an influence on success. Proving that one does doesn't prove that the other doesn't. I don't know how to say it more clearly than that and you don't seem to get it, so I won't lose more time repeating this point. You and whoever is reading can draw their own conclusion from the exchange.

>>9775 >A paper or reference would be nice. https://isgp-studies.com/miscellaneous/race-and-iq/1991-richard-lynn-in-mankind-quarterly-race-iq-black-white-native-indian-asian.pdf >They're not. Those all apply to all countries that have both African and European populations. I thought the whole premise of this black "oppression" was slavery which only happened in the US. >it's the scientific method Fine. >Perhaps upper-class black parents talk to their kids less when they're babies for some reason. Unexplained cultural phenomenon has the same effect as malnutrition but only happens in wealth households (otherwise the IQ impact on poor blacks would be doubled). Sounds unlikely. >Maybe the education system is still slanted against black people regardless of social class. Yes, I guess all education systems are equally biased against children with low IQ... >Maybe intelligence tests in general stress black people out more, due to a long history of being treated as inferior. Black people are not universally treated as inferior. Especially outside the US. Again this is mostly a "muh slavery" argument isn't it? >There are so many factors that could be at play here besides genetics, especially with such small margins. Yes but we haven't come up with any yet. >and you're arguing for it. Please just admit that. Maybe I understand the confusion. From your perspective it's ridiculous to say it's ONLY genetic when there could be so many other factors. From my perspective it's ridiculous to keep saying "but it COULD be something else too" and coming up empty Maybe the only difference between us is that you would rather err on the safe side (the side society deems non-"racist") and I'm using that irrational social pressure as a reason to err against it. >>9776 >Once more... That post wasn't meant for you. Dude said there was no elaboration. I quoted a post id which elaborates. What you think of the elaboration is irrelevant to this subthread.

>>9780 >the pdf I was looking for specifics of experimental design, subject selection, etc. You'd be surprised how much sociology and psychology is remarkably shoddy in that regard. >I thought the whole premise of this black "oppression" was slavery which only happened in the US. not true. Black people were treated as inhuman, and later second-class citizens, all throughout Europe. America, Brazil, and South Africa are particularly bad in this regard but not unique at all. All European nations were involved in slavery and colonialism in the recent past, and both of those institutions involved dehumanizing and oppressing African people. France, for instance, didn't give colonial blacks full citizenship until 1948. Please, learn some history. >Yes, I guess all education systems are equally biased against children with low IQ... a) this is circular reasoning b) not true, some education systems are very good at dealing with kids who fall behind. c) you aren't born with your IQ score, just like everything else it's shaped a lot by childhood experience. Thus, since schooling it's reasonable to expect early education to have some effect on the outcome. >otherwise the IQ impact on poor blacks would be doubled no reason to expect a linear relation. Also yes, there could very easily be some reason why low-income blacks talk to their kids more than high-income blacks. >Yes but we haven't come up with any yet. yet I just have. Just because you ignore them doesn't mean they're not there.

>>4361 yes according to left leaning individuals no according to people who think stats are useful

>>9813 For what it's worth, I'm left leaning and don't think OP is racist.

>>9813 I'm left-leaning and I'm in grad school studying probability theory.

I don't have anything against niggers. I like controlled immigration. The rich people should pay taxes and everyone should be equal in front of the laws. I'm against any kind of discrimination against people of different skin color or religion or whatever. I'm for love and not war. Against the industry and for nature.

>>9805 >10 wheres teh evidence >20 your evidence is not good enough >30 goto 10 How about no. I've provided evidence you're provided nothing. >a) this is circular reasoning It was supposed to be a parody of your own circular reasoning. >no reason to expect a linear relation. Also yes, there could very easily be some reason why low-income blacks talk to their kids more than high-income blacks. Are you familiar with occams razor? The more details you need to squeeze in sideways to make your story work, the less likely it is to be correct. >yet I just have. Just because you ignore them doesn't mean they're not there. I don't think I ignored anything but feel free to make a list and I'll quote the post number it was answered. >>9826 >For what it's worth, I'm left leaning and don't think OP is racist. The world has shifted so far Left being "left leaning" makes you literally Hitler.

>ctrl+f >not one mention of the flynn effect why?

>>11557 Holy cow that paper is racist as fuarrrk, how can they even allow this!

>>9836 It doesnt matter what you say and what you think of yourself if you still propagate racism in society

>>11567 there's nothing racist about controlled immigration you tool.

>>11557 >why? You're assuming any of the people in this thread screaming RACIST!!!!!11 actually know anything. >paper tldr >in the past few decades US blacks have made larger IQ gains than US whites >all studies that show otherwise are wrong coz we said so >The constancy of the black/white IQ gap is a myth >environment has been responsible. >We believe that further black environmental progress would engender further black IQ gains. The thing is we already know that malnutrition and a poor environment in early life will cripple a child's IQ. So it's expected that if you dump blacks into the richest country in the world with free food and education then their IQs will shoot up (or rather stop being pushed down). The implication that blacks will catch up to whites is optimistic though. For the same reason whites won't catch up to asians or jews. There are fundamental biological issues at work that you can't just wish away with leftist rhetoric.

>>11557 >>11574 >>in the past few decades US blacks have made larger IQ gains than US whites did the paper take miscegenation into the factor or did they attribute everything to "muh environment" non answer?

>>9742 Common sense? It takes longer for animal to adapt with external characteristics to its environment than it is to create new enzymes or neural pathways? also did you look into the study of the pic? You didn't look into it I assume?

>>11575 I'm not involved in this discussion and this is why. You ask for evidence and then throw it aside when it doesn't fit the mold you already have. It's always the same. No one ever concedes in an argument because the other party provided statistics.

>>11576 except brains exist because they change with learned experience, so it makes genetic change less necessary. Hence why human babies have to learn how to walk, because it's worth having that big brain instead of just having walking hardcoded into your brain.

>>11575 Other studies show mixed white and black children don't have an effect on IQ.

>>11588 Im glad someone sees as I do. ive been saying this for awhile and everyone says "wow what poor faith!". Actually in my opinion its poor faith to assume the other side is just unaware or uneducated about what you know. Ive given up this sort of thing completely and so now heres my stance on the topic, I've learnt more from black people than white people and also been extended more kindness. If a study were to say black people are less intelligent id just think intelligence must not mean a whole lot. this sort of discussion never has anything to do with intelligence or iq anyways. nobody makes these threads with intelligence being some arbitrary quality we measure like this. No there is always an implied lesserness. Less intelligence means less consciousness and therefore less humanity. Or intelligence is superior to other qualities, and those other qualities are other human qualities. Hence i dont trust someone either who says "im not racist im just saying black people have lower IQs", and why are you saying it? In the scenarios its mentioned they would never mention "black people are more likely to have curly hair". You guys wouldnt like my friends or think my friends are inferior to you because they are black therefore I dont like you either and I actually hate you because you disrespect people I look up to while I dont know you at all.

>>11575 >did the paper take miscegenation into the factor One paragraph, bottom of page 4. They don't actually know how many of the test subjects were mixed race so they made up a number based on interracial marriage statistics around the same time and from that convinced themselves it made no difference. >>11588 >I'm not involved in this discussion and this is why. You ask for evidence and then throw it aside when it doesn't fit the mold you already have. This would be more convincing if you guys actually understood what the evidence was supposed to prove instead of just dropping it into the thread with no context and then crying about bad faith when people actually start analyzing it. >>11599 >i dont trust someone either who says "im not racist im just saying black people have lower IQs", and why are you saying it? The thread is about the difference in crime rate so the difference in IQ is a correlation worth discussing. All this other stuff about "less humanity" and "inferiority" is just you projecting. Nobody in this thread actually said any of that. >If a study were to say black people are less intelligent id just think intelligence must not mean a whole lot. Just because some idiots think intelligence is everything doesn't mean you need to believe intelligence means nothing. Believing the opposite of what idiots believe doesn't make you the opposite of an idiot. Just like how hating white people instead of black people doesn't make you the opposite of racist.

>>11603 >ive been saying this for awhile and everyone says "wow what poor faith!" Your assertion that anyone who doesn't blindly accept whatever "evidence" you throw at them and immediately admit defeat is acting in bad faith is itself a shining example of bad faith.

>>11612 thats so stupid that thats what you think im saying even, maybe read it over again and think about it a bit more. >>11603 if you want to think its me projecting go ahead. I just really hope you asked yourself if the stance doesnt imply seeing a certain group as lesser, and i hope you fully understand what that would even imply.

>>11615 >if you want to think its me projecting go ahead. Since nobody actually said any of the things you're claiming, yes it's projecting. >I just really hope you asked yourself if the stance doesnt imply seeing a certain group as lesser No it doesn't. The "implication" is another one of your projections. The only fact is, after 40.000 years of evolution, some races have higher average intelligence than others. If you put this fact into your moral framework and come out with a conclusion that less intelligent races are inferior then that's entirely on you. Worse still, if you then decide to throw away the fact instead of your flawed moral framework then you're a complete moron. >i hope you fully understand what that would even imply This is where the IQ = white supremacism strawman falls down. White people are no where near the top of the IQ scale. Any actual white supremacist should be denying IQ science the same way you regressive liberals do.

>>4361 Yes you are racist. But that doesn't make you a bad person. Racism is often rational and therefore ethical (it is unethical to demand that somebody be irrational.) To be clear, not all racism is rational but much of it is. The sort of racism you are describing is a heuristic that you use to enhance your personal safety. Don't let anybody tell you that you're evil for that.

>>4372 >As long as you remember that any person of any background can rise to any height, and thus must be evaluated on their own merits rather than on their background, you're fine in my book. "Must" is a troublesome word. What anybody is obliged to do surely depends on the circumstances. In a job interview, the circumstances are stacked in your favor and there's really no justifiable reason to not dig into who that individual is. However in a poorly lit public parking garage in the middle of the night, you don't have the luxury of reviewing the CV of the man hanging out in the shadows. Judge him by whatever information you have available to you at the immediate moment (race, posture, clothing and environmental context, etc) to make a snap judgement, that's all that can be expected from you. And error on the side of keeping yourself safe. Keeping yourself safe is more important than being fair to others. As for the matter of >is the mugger bad because of his race, or is he bad because of his socioeconomic circumstances getting hit in the head will hurt you just as much in either circumstance. Those questions may matter when it comes time to decide on which legislation and public policy to support or which prosecutors to elect, but they do not matter in the slightest when it's your skin on the line. If skin color is merely a imperfect proxy indicator for socioeconomic standing, it's still valuable information that should not be discarded since you can't very well audit the guy's personal finances on the spot. A combination of clothing, posture and race will generally get you a pretty good estimation though, if you've got some basic common sense.

>>4426 The problem with the "fatherless" angle is the question of why black families are so often fatherless. Ask just about anybody and they'll immediately tell you that it's because the fathers get caught up in the justice system. Which is true to an extent, although not the full picture. But let's pretend for the sake of argument that's the full picture. So far with that answer, we don't really have an answer. We just pushed the question back one generation; instead of asking why this generation of black men are prone to crime, we say it's because their fathers were absence because they were convicted of crimes. But why where their fathers convicted of crimes? Generally at this point somebody will say that the fathers were unjustly imprisoned. For the sake of argument we'll ignore the fact that a great many of them were justly convicted. Why do people make the argument that the previous generation was unjustly convicted, rendering the current generation fatherless and thus prone to crime? Why not cut out the middleman and simply claim that the current generation is unjustly convicted? Here is my hypothesis for that: people are aware of the general level of criminality in their communities, but can be easily deceived about the past. So if you tell somebody there is ~~currently~~ no crime in their community, they'll know you're full of soykaf. But if you tell somebody there was no crime a generation ago, they'll be more likely to believe you. Denying the criminality of the current generation simply isn't believable, so apologists instead concede the criminality of the current generation, blame it on absent fathers, and then deny the criminality of that previous generation to justify the absent fathers.

>>4456 >But in reality, using current job would probably be way better, as the difference of intelligence between races are way less than the caricature used as an example. That's just deferring to the market to judge intelligence because you can't be bothered to do it yourself. The problem here is "the market" isn't some magical force. It's just an aggregate of individual human actors, a great many of whom probably employ the same heuristic shortcuts that you do, for the exact same reasons (they have finite time.) So while it is possible for an intelligent man from a notoriously unintelligent demographic to find financial success in the market, it's by no means an inevitability. Actually I'm not sure you can really call this "a problem". But it's something you should probably consider before feeling so smugly superior with yourself for judging people by their job rather than their race.

>>6037 Manlets are judged every day and nobody sheds a tear for them. I wager it's because no politician has yet devised a way to harness the manlet vote.

>>11800 wow, you've been completely divorced from reality. Everyone knows their neighborhoods have been crime ridden for generations. But, the government has also systematically targeted black communities. Ever heard of Iran-Contra? the War on Drugs? What could those have been but attacks on the ghettos, an excuse to go in there and beat the soykaf out of random people who otherwise would have gotten a petty theft charge at worst? Prison sentences these days are ridiculous. We live in a legalistic society where there is actually economic pressure to put *more* people in prison. Think about that.

>>9685 Here lays the body of William Jay Who died maintaining his right of way He was right, so right, as he sped along But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.

>>11803 Ah yes, the old "drugs being illegal and/or the CIA distributing drugs forced blacks to commit violent crimes" argument. Often stated with the tone of somebody imparting knowledge never before stated, even though it's a completely mundane argument that's been repeated ad nauseam for years. Simply put, it lacks explanatory power. There are many examples of illegal enterprises that induce far less incidental violent crime. >an excuse to go in there and beat the soykaf out of random people who otherwise would have gotten a petty theft charge at worst? By "otherwise", do you mean if not for the war on drugs these people would still be committing petty theft? Petty theft is a serious offense against community trust and people convicted of it never receive proportionate punishment (brief caning would be an appropriate sentence). If the "war on drugs" were responsible for having thieves systematically beaten I would applaud it, but sadly this is not reality. But frankly this is another discussion entirely.