patrick.net

blah blah blah blah blah.... The same crap I've heard for years from conservatives. Nothing new or nothing factual here to back up this. Moving on...

But anyway, WTF does this have to do with the article above? Do you think it was a good thing that a veteran was booed at a public event?

Going in circles. I'm out.

Edvard2 says, "Seems to me that you should form an actual response to a response that isn't nonsense before you claim victory. Your words don't mean much when the thoughts they are supposedly representing are rather pointless and wrong to begin with. Lastly- you failed to answer my question. You did so of course because in answering it that would have basically made your entire argument moot. So I'm waiting. Answer the question I stated above"

The question was silly, of course I believe that people should be granted equal rights and protections under government. But this does not make them equal! It never has and it never will. You can't legislate equality any more than you can demand that your pet goldfish learn to ride a bicycle! All you can do is give people the same protections, encourage behaviors that enhance this, and wait for culture to catch up. There's a lot of inertia to culture. It doesn't like to change, not quickly, and certainly not just because some pointy-headed politician passes a law.

Quigley says

The question was silly, of course I believe that people should be granted equal rights and protections under government. But this does not make them equal! It never has and it never will. You can't legislate equality any more than you can demand that your pet goldfish learn to ride a bicycle!

You are taking this out of context entirely. You need to understand what the statement " That all men are created equal" was meant in its original statement. That statement was to proclaim that all men are entitled to the same rights as others regardless of their background, race, or religion. As such the statements I made before still stand. Either way, I tire of this silly debate. I've wasted enough time already.

"On second thought, let us NOT go to Camelot. 'Tis a silly place."

You use the word minority when referring to race in government policy. A more accurate word to use is 'nonwhite'. They seriously mean 'everyone but Whites' when using the word minority.

It's simply a fact that nonwhites are given 'points' in the hiring process. Any HR person knows they need minorities on the payroll or risk a shakedown. This is a de facto racial quota system. It is another fact that no government agency is all White males anymore, even though White males show the highest aptitude to virtually any job.

If the Forest Service really is all female and nonwhite males as you claim, I think we're on the same page that straight White males are discriminated against in their own country.

10 blacks are barely qualified to tie their own shoes. Speaking, reading and writing proper English is a rare trait for a black even today, much less 1960. There will always be a more qualified and willing straight White male out there for a job that hires any black. Those 10 "qualified" blacks would simply be told to go away in reality.

Your claims of murder or violence by Whites on blacks for applying for a job is ludicrous. Even modern Hollywood, who loves to rewrite history to show blacks are noble and intelligent figures who simply want to be equal to Whites don't go as far as you. Not yet anyway.

Even with the racist policies in place, straight White males still come out on top. The reason boils down to genetic intelligence.
American Whites have an average IQ of 100. American blacks have an average IQ of 85. You simply can't expect someone with an IQ of 85 to do a job that requires an IQ of 100.

The government's only option at that point is to dumb down the job so an 85 IQ person can do it, or hire both an 85 IQ black and a 100 IQ White and make the White person do the work while claiming a team effort. This tactic is very common.

Some jobs simply can't be dumbed down that far and remain White only. Scientific fields are one of them that remain largely White and Asian.

If you want to group average intelligence by race, it should be noted that whites are only middle of the pack. In order: Arabs>Indians>Asians>Jews at the top.
Plenty of "minority" ranks above white people in intelligence. Making this about race isn't the way to go. I suspect our views on this are very very far apart.

I disagree about Arab and Indian intelligence being greater than Whites. So do many others. They are too closely mixed with sub Saharan Africans to have a high IQ.

East Asians have an average IQ of 107. Whites have an average IQ of 100. Mestizo/latino/Hispanics have an average IQ of 90. American blacks, Indians and Arabs have an average IQ of 85. Purebred sub Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70.

It is 100% about race. Whites conquered the world and created modern civilization that is used as the model for prosperity and social order. Some are trying to disrupt what came about naturally by trying to make unequal races equal.

finehoe says

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

-John Stuart Mill

Replace the word stupid with "white racists" and it's even more true (if that's possible).

Although pretty close to all white racists are stupid people.

foxmannumber1 says

East Asians have an average IQ of 107. Whites have an average IQ of 100. Mestizo/latino/Hispanics have an average IQ of 90. American blacks, Indians and Arabs have an average IQ of 85. Purebred sub Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 70.

This is such bs. There are too many different types of intelligence and intelligence is too complex to be represented by a single number.

And even if it could be represented by a single number, that would not be a number that you could determine with a some man made timed multiple choice test (or not timed and MC for that matter).

WE call people like John Lennon, or Vincent Vangogh, or Mozart geniuses(because they were). But as far as we know they didn't put their time and efforts in to developing skills and their minds in ways that would help them score well on IQ tests.

Consider Einstein. I'm sure he would have scored well on IQ tests. But not well enough to represent the creative genius involved in figuring out the things he did.

foxmannumber1 says

straight White males are discriminated against in their own country

That's an interesting perspective, and a strong hint that we aren't going to get on the same page on this one (I'm not sure we are reading the same book).

We could talk about the inherent cultural bias in IQ tests, but I suspect you wouldn't be moved. We could consider the historical context, both in this country and more broadly, but you would, I suspect, remain unmoved. Probably the best thing would be for you to go out into the world and interact with people from all backgrounds with an open mind - you might be surprised. I work with people all over the world, and what I have found is that my biases and assumptions are often shown to be wrong -- sometimes it's even a little startling when I am forced to admit that I had a bias I wasn't aware of.

You are probably right about some of the hiring practices that you describe. You are probably right about incompetent people getting or keeping jobs in part because of how they fit into some quota system. You are certainly right that there is unfairness in the world. I challenge you to go out there, open your eyes and allow your assumptions to be challenged. You might be surprised at how may stupid white people you encounter, and how many black people who can run circles around you. Is every race or ethnicity exactly equal? No, certainly not. Does that mean that an individual's ability is defined by their skin color? Certainly you don't believe that, do you?

Cultural bias in IQ test was proven false many decades ago. An IQ test is the best measure of intelligence that the modern world has come up with. If you know of another, better, measure of intelligence then please let us know.
'Historical context' is just another way to blame Whites for black failure. All of your experiences are anecdotal and therefore worthless.

Once you start dealing in anecdotal evidence you ignore what matters on a large scale: the average.

No one is saying that all whites are smarter than all blacks. No one is saying that there are no intelligent blacks. There are simply not many intelligent blacks in the world. The Bell Curve graph is one of the most important pieces of scientific fact from the 20th century.

Opening my eyes and allow your assumptions to be challenged is literally an extreme waste of time and just creates a potential victim. All the life social interaction and life experiences a white person wants can be had from other whites. The quality of such life will be better when dealing with other whites that share common blood, history and life goals.

More often than not, prejudging a person will be correct and statistically those that prejudge will be safer and have a better quality of life.

For instance, I know that Whites are unsafe walking down the street of a black ghetto. I am prejudging everyone in that neighborhood as a violent criminal. It's better for Whites simply to avoid the blacks altogether.

I don't believe that race is simply a difference in skin color. I believe it is much more than skin color. One of the many other genetic, physical differences between the races is intelligence.

Intelligence can change so much in a couple short generations depending on who reproduces with whom and what their priorities are in choosing a mate.

I don't have time to go in to it further here, but this is why you are wrong.

foxmannumber1 says

One of the many other genetic, physical differences between the races is intelligence.

Even if it were true, it's not significant compared to how much you can affect the intelligence of your kids by who you mate with (within same race for the sake of argument) and the type of attention you give the kids.

THese things are affected by the culture a group is allowed to be a part of.

The differences you want to believe are there are a snapshot you take from a flawed frame of reference.

White people (like me) are just barbarians. The only thing that "civilized" us was the expansion of the Roman Empire and Christianity.

Then we took Christianity and made it even more barbaric than it was originally. See the Dark Ages.

Oddly enough, a smart white guy invented the printing press and the rest is history.

marcus says

Intelligence can change so much in a couple short generations depending on who reproduces with whom and what their priorities are in choosing a mate.

Smart people generally don't reproduce with stupid people. If an above average person and a below average person reproduce, the child will most likely fall somewhere in between, creating a worse person than if 2 smart people had a child.

The sad thing is smart people don't have many children anymore and the stupid people are having more than necessary thanks to a far too altruistic world created by whites.

Education is helpful for the naturally gifted to learn specialized skills that would take a lifetime to learn on their own. If a naturally gifted person never went to school past the 5th grade, they would still be better off at life when compared to the average black who is shuffled through public schools until he's 18. Nature > Nurture.

The average White and the average black require 2 different education processes to get the most out of their natural talents. This is why US education seems to fail blacks where Whites do just fine.

Blacks in the USA are expected to do the same things as Whites and when the blacks invariably fail, educators must dumb it down for the blacks. You can't force an 85 IQ person to learn something on a 100 IQ level.

The average black stops learning at around the normal 7-8th grade White level and age. Anything past that is truly worthless for their education and is just a babysitting service until they are 18. The average black would be better utilized at a trade school for blue collar work.

The blacks who can benefit from high school(10% of all blacks) or college(about 2%) would be identified through a merit based screening process. This merit based screening process is an IQ test. They would then work over the average black grunt.

foxman,

I think you need to lay off the steady diet of Fox News. It's just fact-free right-wing propaganda.

Yeah, there's some "loony left" stuff out there too but it's not as popular as the right-wing stuff.

foxmannumber1 says

The government tells you they want to end discrimination of sex/race/whatever by discriminating against straight white males.

The government discriminated against these poor straight white males by forcing them to take billions in taxpayer funds.

swebb says

I work with people all over the world, and what I have found is that my biases and assumptions are often shown to be wrong -- sometimes it's even a little startling when I am forced to admit that I had a bias I wasn't aware of.

I too work with a lot of people from all around the world, some of whom still live in other countries. I grew up in a rural Southern area where most everyone came not only from the same part of Europe ( Scotch-Irish) but most had also lived in that same part of the rural south for sometimes centuries. There was very little ethnic or religious diversity. Things had been the same... for as long as anyone could remember. There were definitely positive aspects to that environment: A certain level of stability and "sameness" where year after year... nothing changed. People lived in the same houses and on the same land as some of their ancestors.

But what seemed to also be true was that ANY change that happened to show up was immediately rejected. Not by all people, but by a fairly large margin. It was because many of those who lived there had no experience with anyone other that people like themselves. As such they were unfamiliar with other backgrounds, customs, ideas, or religions. So there was a sort of background intolerance. This was 30+ years ago and I can say with a degree of honesty that much of that has changed. The biggest contributing factor was the internet and instant news. People from everywhere get more exposure to other cultures and ethnic groups from the media they digest and as a result I've found that people from back where I came from are increasingly open minded and willing to accept things that are different.

But I digress: When I moved to the Bay Area, I too had very little experience with people from other places, backgrounds, and religion. Over the years I've found that though it would seem to be obvious that all people are basically after the exact same things and that at the end of the day we're simply human. That sounds really cliche' but its what I've experienced coming from one completely different environment to another.

So whenever I hear people talking in a manner that even hints of something different I am a bit baffled. That line of thinking is antiquated and inappropriate. Luckily for most of us that line of thinking is indeed becoming more or less outdated and less common as time marches on and people become more educated.

edvard2 says

Luckily for most of us that line of thinking is indeed becoming more or less
outdated and less common as time marches on and people become more educated.

Whoa whoa whoa wait...

People are becoming more educated?

freak80 says

People are becoming more educated?

Why do you think conservatives are so against "government schools" (formerly known as public education).

finehoe says

The government discriminated against these poor straight white males by forcing them to take billions in taxpayer funds.

They are the government. The funds are taken away from the working middle class.

finehoe says

Why do you think conservatives are so against "government schools" (formerly
known as public education).

To be fair, many public schools suck. Especially in the inner cities and rural areas. I don't blame parents in those areas (the ones who actually care) for wanting to send their children elsewhere.

It doesn't matter how much money we "throw at the problem" if certain communities don't value education.

I went to a stereotypical "white trash" rural high school so I know the problem a little too well. The majority of the student body made life miserable for the minority that actually wanted to learn.

mell says

They are the government. The funds are taken away from the working middle class.

How so? Do you drive? If you do then you drive on roads that were funded like everything else: via taxation. That's what "governance" does. It uses public funds to build infrastructure and other elements of modern society.

edvard2 says

mell says

They are the government. The funds are taken away from the working middle class.

How so? Do you drive? If you do then you drive on roads that were funded like everything else: via taxation. That's what "governance" does. It uses public funds to build infrastructure and other elements of modern society.

The TBTF CEOs depicted in the post effectively put a gun to the politician's heads in 2008, While the economy would have healed much better in the long run compared to the clusterfuck we have now if we would have just let em fail (plus it would have been the right, lawful, non-criminal thing to do), politicians care only about being reelected in the short-term and about their campaign donations, so the bailouts were created. Effectively that makes them the government, and the money was taken from the middle class taxpayer mostly (the poor don't have anything to contribute and the wealthy were the ones being bailed out). Simple.

sbh says

No. Non-white is not a race.

I never said nonwhite is a race. I said US government policies that mention the word minority mean 'everyone but whites'. This is a fact.

A majority nonwhite country will have a different meaning of the word minority, if it's used at all. Most of the time it goes without saying that a government will do everything in its power to help the majority race since that's all there is in the country. Diversity is for previously white countries only. No one is calling for diversity in current nonwhite countries.

For instance, post apartheid South Africa has an extremely racist policy which takes rights away from the minority(whites) who are less than 15% of the population and gives explicitly gives power to the majority(blacks) who are over 80% of the population.

If the USA did this, self hating whites would be up in arms. But since blacks do it to fight white oppression, then it's OK to the self hating whites.

Personal attacks are a sign of no logical argument.

I find the label 'race realist' more accurate than 'racist'.

Race War!!!

We love it. It's exciting!

Must be in our DNA.

sbh says

You cannot survive.....and you're proud of it.

History has proven that those who are racially aware are more likely to survive than those who blindly accept strangers into their lives.

I'm not sure what 'reset the racial population distribution' means.

I think it most likely means extermination of purebred whites by either interbreeding with other races or outright conflict with nonwhites. Either way it's genocide of the white race.

I don't think either of those things are going to happen.

If the USA grows into total dysfunction with whites become less than 50% of the population, those remaining whites will create their own country apart from the diversity. They would have to for their own survival. Such a white racially homogenous country would flourish.

Without whites, the nonwhites will perish through their own ineptitude and they know it. Nonwhites want to live in a majority white nation as a permanent victim with special entitlements. Nonwhites being left to their own devices is a recipe for disaster.

foxmannumber1 says

I said US government policies that mention the word minority mean 'everyone but whites'.

Irrelevant. This thread is not about US government policies, and the proposed amendment doesn't use the word 'minority'. And Eric Alva is white.

Veteran booed out of council chambers speaks out

As a gay U.S. Marine veteran who advocated for the repeal of the military's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” policy, Eric Alva has grown accustomed to being in the spotlight.

But the San Antonio native said he never expected the boos and hisses directed at him Wednesday night while he addressed the City Council on proposed changes to the anti-discrimination ordinances at a Citizens Heard hearing.

“I said that if this ordinance doesn't pass, I could be fired from a job and even thrown out of a restaurant, and people started to boo me,” said Alva, 42. “I was real hurt by that. It was unbelievable.”

Alva was the first American injured in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He received a medical discharge and was awarded the Purple Heart. His prosthetic leg was visible Wednesday, under his khaki shorts. News of Alva's 3-minute speech spread via social media that night.

“To all you people that preach the word of God, shame on you, because God loves me, like the day I lay bleeding on the sands of Iraq,” Alva said to the crowd. “And that's why he saved me.”

Mayor Julián Castro's senior policy adviser reached out to Alva on Thursday, when he “wanted to see how I was doing, and even apologized, saying that the mayor was disappointed that I went through all that,” Alva said.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Veteran-booed-out-of-council-chambers-speaks-out-4739302.php

finehoe says

Irrelevant. This thread is not about US government policies, and the proposed amendment doesn't use the word 'minority'.

I don't think the first topic of this thread matters anymore.

sbh says

You are just as the Catholic church denying that the sun is the center of the solar system

I liken religious zealots to liberals denying evolution and genetic intelligence.

I don't believe in White supremacy. I do believe that whites are the well above average at whatever they try, but other races have their strong suits.

Whites are less than 10% of the world's population. Whites deserve their own racially homogenous lands. Every race does.

foxmannumber1 says

liberals denying evolution

Huh?

foxmannumber1 says

Whites are less than 10% of the world's population. Whites deserve their own
racially homogenous lands. Every race does.

There's Iceland.

finehoe says

foxmannumber1 says

liberals denying evolution

Huh?

Liberals believe in selective evolution. To put it simply, liberals believe evolution stopped at the neck. For a liberal to admit a genetic difference in intelligence drawn along racial lines is like a Christian saying that Jesus doesn't exist.

foxmannumber1 says

For a liberal to admit a genetic difference in intelligence drawn along racial lines

Anything is possible. Are there measurable differences? And how much intelligence comes from genetics and how much comes from environmental factors?

This conversation seems to be doing some "evolution" of its own: It appears to be getting even more stupid and outlandish by the second.

edvard2 says

This conversation seems to be doing some "evolution" of its own: It appears to be getting even more stupid and outlandish by the second.

Good point.

How'd we get from a "gay war" to a "race war" in such a short time?

I have no effin' clue. The level of conversation that this post devolved into is stupid.

foxmannumber1 says

Cultural bias in IQ test was proven false many decades ago.

Source?

foxmannumber1 says

An IQ test is the best measure of intelligence that the modern world has come up with.

I have heard it described as a test to measure how well a person scores on an IQ test, and while not totally separated from how intelligent they are, quite biased based on their cultural background. Let me see if I can find some references on this.

foxmannumber1 says

Once you start dealing in anecdotal evidence you ignore what matters on a large scale: the average.

Why is the average more important than the individual? On average white people aren't very good at basketball -- should they not be allowed to play? Should you consider their abilities instead of the average.

foxmannumber1 says

Opening my eyes and allow your assumptions to be challenged is literally an extreme waste of time and just creates a potential victim. All the life social interaction and life experiences a white person wants can be had from other whites. The quality of such life will be better when dealing with other whites that share common blood, history and life goals.

My frustration has turned into sympathy. Please help yourself. You only live once - you don't have to endure the pain you are imposing on yourself.

foxmannumber1 says

It's better for Whites simply to avoid the blacks altogether.

In a primal, non-thinking jungle rules way, you are probably right. Better yet, though, is to elevate to a point where we do coexist and interact so the base level prejudices are suppressed. Are we better off being physically large, aggressive and well armed in a lawless land, or less physically imposing in a civilized society? You could certainly make the argument for option A, but why would you choose it if with a little work you could have option B...?