Race Thread, Part Douche

WE WILL OVERCOME!

lol negers

I guess I'll use this.

>>1033 No, it's not a give in and that's what you simply refuse to admit. It's conjecture. Either you have proof that skin color/features and IQ tie-in genetically or you don't. Do you have that proof? If you don't, you have no argument.

For one thing, it has nothing to do with skin color or features, it has to do with common genetic stock leading to common features being expressed.  All this intentional bullshit, how you intentionally misconstrue our arguments to say stupid shit like "black skin makes someone dumber" is really quite infuriating.

For the refuation of this argument, I'll point you to an earlier post where I wrote about the Ashkenazim. Because I think it'd be more work to dig that post out, I'll just reiterate it here...

They actually have records of the ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews being more successful in reproduction based on their intelligence, and now they have the highest IQ of any group in the world.  In addition, they have many extreme genetic abnormalities, mostly relating to nerve conductivity, and the thickness of the myelin membranes surrounding axons.  Their nervous systems are turbo-charged.

Also, your complete and utter butchery of the science of genetics is infuriating as well.  Genetics only exist in groups for you when there's no reference to the way those genes may affect behavior.

Even if race is defined socially, it doesn't mean that there's no biological component there.  Black parents don't spontaneously produce a white child, or vice versa.  The way you argue I'd almost believe you think that's the way things are.

>> Why don't black studies PROFESSORS count? If anything their opinion should mean the most since its their fucking job to know about Black History and achievements and have spents a ton of fucking time researching it.

Well, you can't rely on them the same way that you can't rely on a bank robber to give you an accurate account of what happened at a crime scene.  They have their own interests in making sure everyone believes one version of what happened.

>>4

And it's like I said. You can't trust a white person with black history either. You can't trust a nazi with the history of jews. You can't trust an American with Iraq history. If you don't think whites have a vested interest in making sure everyone believes one of version of history you're exposing yourself as...well...what you are. :)

>> Ashkanazi Jews sexually selected for intelligence because their culture (environment) told them to do so. This was said before and smashed the arguement then and it smashes the argument now.

Uh, I don't think you understand your own argument.  You said they sexually selected for intelligence, which implies a genetic component, and yet somehow this refutes my claim because you used the word "environment" in it. 

>>5
Maybe.   But mainstream historians don't hold their culture above, and ignore all the others (at least, not anymore).  They are careful to point out the contributions of asians, indians, egyptians etc (Most of them don't even assert whether the egyptians were black or not, there's really so little evidence we don't know one way or the other)

Besides Egypt, and the Nubians, there really isn't that much to say about Africa.  There were people there, and they did shit, but their civilizations numbered fewer, and never had any lasting impact on the civilizations that followed (unlike for example, China, India, or Persia, which had impact EVERYWHERE, including Africa.)

So, I guess I trust the "white" professors more. (actually more accurate to call them mainstream instead of white... there are many historians who follow this mold who are black, and while they will in their classes point out some of the things that africa did, they won't try to assert that they were all important in the ancient world)

>>6

Environmental component for sexual selection for intelligence comes first. I already know there's a genetic component. But (In humans) genes aren't just there for no reason. They are there because they've been selected for by the environment.


>>7

Fallacy. You don't have a special insight into the minds of these men. You expect me to do what you refuse to do because the race of the professors I've cited: Give them the benefit of the doubt.

And of course you find nothing inherantly racist or at the very least hpyocritical about your view. Maybe we should have a debate on afrocentricism or maybe you can find one yourself and see where you sound like a braying ass.

But indeed, it is more accurate to call them mainstream instead of "white". I definately agree there- the reason they are mainstream is because of that whiteness. Yet another privelage of white skin. The assumption that they can never lie or hold their culture above anyone elses...because they are white.

...

Ha. Utterly Pathetic.

>>8
A. So you admit that genes can control intelligence?  Really your argument is making less and less sense by the minute. 

B. I give them the benefit of the doubt because they aren't (at least overtly) dedicated to a special interest other than that of history itself.  You notice how they speak highly about the acheivements of non african/europeans, it only stands to follow that they'd be LESS (though not neccesarily completely non) biased. Anyone interested in African studies is obviously biased TOWARD all things African, with an obvious agenda of advancing the black community.

>>Ha. Utterly Pathetic.
You aren't winning.  Chimping out and acting like you are isn't helping your case. 

I approve this new thread. Can't wait for the next 1000.

10GET

I got lost at >>4. I'm sure I'm not missing much.

>>10
So everything has to get your approval?

>>12
Yes.  I am Anonymous, I am LEGION, and I do not forgive!

I do not approve >>12.

>>9

{A} Genes control intelligence as a balance to nurture. It's a balance. But Genes are not fate. IQ is not fate. From what I've seen save for cases of retardation- nurture can undermine genes very easily.

I don't know how many times I have to keep fucking repeating this, but it's getting very irritating. Genes do not completely control anything. Skin color can change over generations due to the environment just like intellect. The human is malliable.

{B} You can repeat it all you want. It's still a fallacy. You don't have a special insight into the minds of these men. Oh wait- maybe you do.

You're white and so are they.

Why don't you just say what you really mean? You trust them more because they are white. That's all there is to it.

You know, it's funny. You expect people to take the Bell Curve seriously despite the fact that the Pioneer Fund has been connected to Nazi science and the fact that Pioneer Fund doesn't usually fund projects that have nothing to do with race.

You refuse to acknowledge their interest in spreading negative racial psuedo-scientific dogma and yet when it comes to WHITE MEN doing STUDIES ON AFRICA, you can't bring yourself to believe that they could be telling the truth because they aren't doing things to further whites in this racial heirarchy you believe in?

Haha, the very reason why it's so utterly pathetic is that motavation doesn't change "the truth". You will freely use this argument when referring to the bell curve; "just because they're nazis doesn't mean the science is bad".

Well, same applies to african studies, doesn't it?

Oh wait, no.

Any studies about blacks are lies to further blacks, I forgot!

LOL! And to top it all off you resort to racist phrases! Awwww, how sweet. Thinly vieled bigotry topped off with blantant bigotry...my favorite! That shit is almost as sweet as the victory you're all too quick to point out that I haven't earned.

Haha....[i]"You aren't winning! You aren't winning! You aren't winning! I hope you know that you're not winning! I mean, I realize you haven't even been keeping score, but...you're not winning! Me! My race! My furher! I am! We whites are winning! Always winning! You're black! You can't win! You're not winning! You aren't winning! You aren't winning!"

WHATEVER YOU SAY TO GET TO SLEEP AT NIGHT

>> Why don't you just say what you really mean? You trust them more because they are white. That's all there is to it.

Did I not just say that not all of them were white?  I was using the word white to contrast with your "blackness" theory. 

>> WHATEVER YOU SAY TO GET TO SLEEP AT NIGHT

And really dude, stop chimping out.

It's embarassing.

>> 15 A
Genes can act as a limiting factor to intelligence, just like nurture can.  On the converse, genes can also act as a booster to intelligence, even in adverse environments.

And with regard to how genes change over time, I don't think this was your original argument.  The argument is whether genes control traits expressed, and you said that they don't.  Now you're saying that genes change over time, and therefore that marks an influence of the environment...  Ok, fine, given.  But how does this refute anything I said about genes being a controlling factor for traits expressed?  It almsot sounds like you're agreeing with me.  This is what I meant when I said you don't understand your own argument.

>>17
Shut up.  You're embarassing. 

>>16

And your point would be what? It's still fallacy. You don't have a special insight into the minds of these professors. Mind on telling us who these magical black professors are? Because you pretty much prefaced that statement with this one: "So, I guess I trust the "white" professors more."

Which says to me that you wouldn't even look for a black professor out of the sheer fear that they would say something positive about the civilizations of Africa.

>>17

The only thing that's embarassing is that boner you get whenever your mom bends over.

Don't play the ad hominem game with me, son.

You will lose.

Oh by the way, while you were busy with character attacks you forgot to respond to this:

You know, it's funny. You expect people to take the Bell Curve seriously despite the fact that the Pioneer Fund has been connected to Nazi science and the fact that Pioneer Fund doesn't usually fund projects that have nothing to do with race.

You refuse to acknowledge their interest in spreading negative racial psuedo-scientific dogma and yet when it comes to WHITE MEN doing STUDIES ON AFRICA, you can't bring yourself to believe that they could be telling the truth because they aren't doing things to further whites in this racial heirarchy you believe in?

Haha, the very reason why it's so utterly pathetic is that motavation doesn't change "the truth". You will freely use this argument when referring to the bell curve; "just because they're nazis doesn't mean the science is bad".

Well, same applies to african studies, doesn't it?

>>18

I've been over this a hundred times already. It's in the other race thread. I don't understand what exactly you're looking for from me. But the statement: "There can be no solely genetic causes for low IQ among any of the races because IQ (being an environmental test, intelligence being an abstract) isn't solely genetic." ---- Pretty much covers it.

You're not going to get anything other than that response.

>>19 Which says to me that you wouldn't even look for a black professor out of the sheer fear that they would say something positive about the civilizations of Africa.

oh lawd, iz dat sum "black studies" again?

"Black studies," like astrology, is a pseudodiscipline.  Its sole purpose is the creation of ludicrous agitprop to boost the "self-esteem" of the target group.  The same goes for any other field with "studies" in the name ("Chicano studies," "wymyn's studies," etc., etc., ad nauseam).

"Did y'all know de Fay-ros in Egypt was black like us?  Dass right, chilluns!  Back den, WE wuz de massas an' WHITEY wuz de slaves!  An' de E-gypshuns had 'lectricity!  An' airplanes!  Dass right, thousands o' years ago, we could FLY an' shit!  Until Whitey an' de Jews come along and took it all away wif dey white debbil tricknology!  Doan you hate Whitey?  I sho' hates Whitey!  It beez a con-spee-ro-cee!"

>> Because you pretty much prefaced that statement with this one: "So, I guess I trust the "white" professors more."
Because I knew that's what YOU would say about them.  I was being facetious. 

>> The only thing that's embarassing is that boner you get whenever your mom bends over.
...quite disgraceful...


>> who these magical black professors are?
Let me see...  Jeff McEwen was one at UNC.  Took a world Civ class from him.  He did go into the Nubians, and the black pharaohs of Egypt, but he didn't claim any unfounded bullcrap like that the Greeks were black, or that the Egyptians weren't really a mixed society.  He taught about history from the point of view of pointing out what has influenced our current culture.  This didn't mean glorifying whites or blacks or anyone; most of the people he "glorified" were Semitic... you know, Persia, fertile crescent, that area.  He did teach a black history class, but I never took that.  My brother's civ teacher was Chinese, and he had approximately the same things to say.

>> Oh by the way, while you were busy with character attacks you forgot to respond to this:

criticism of the bell curve:
Consideration of the book's actual content is being displaced by the rhetoric of denial: name calling ("neo-nazi," "pseudo-scientific," "racism"), sidetracks ("but does IQ really measure intelligence?"), non-sequiturs ("specific genes for IQ have not been identified, so we can claim nothing about its heritability"), red herrings ("Hitler misused genetics"), falsehoods ("all the tests are biased"), hyperbole ("throwing gasoline on a fire"), and insults ("creepy," "indecent," "ugly"). (taken from wikipedia, quoting Arthur Jensin in the National Review)
Mostly done on emotional grounds.   Compare that to criticism of Afrocentrism...  Mostly scientific.

Afrocentrism attempts to make the most out of the contributions of African society to the world’s society at large.  This is mostly done through dodgy evidence, or possible connections for which there is no data to support.  Examples with refutation in parenthesis:

Jesus was black... We know this because black people lived in that area at that time.  (logic failure…  just because something is possible it doesn’t mean it is true.  We have no reliable evidence about Jesus’ life at all except for that which exists in the bible)

Egypt was a black society.  I know this because the Greeks described them as having dark skin and kinky hair   (There is evidence to the contrary.  While it is quite possible that there were negros present, they were not necessarily the dominant ethnicity, and they were certainly not the only ethnicity.  In fact, most mummies show Caucasoid/cro-magnonoid features.)

Black Egyptians invented the philosophy and learning the Greeks are famous for.  (No proof, no merit.  No connection at all.  There was cultural exchange, but to assume that it was the only source is ridiculous.)

Read over that stuff above.  I can pick them apart just by questioning their methodology and logic.  I don't need to question their motives.

>>20 "There can be no solely genetic causes for low IQ among any of the races because IQ (being an environmental test, intelligence being an abstract) isn't solely genetic."

I never said that the differences between races were SOLELY genetic.  That's an example of a strawman. In fact, that statement was not even an appropriate reply to what I wrote. As for the other two claims, IQ as an environmental test, and IQ being an abstract, let me elaborate.

IQ as an abstract:
Not true.  I've been over a thousand times how IQ is a measure of performance, and modern g-loaded tests (those given credit after about 1984) are accurate measures of intelligence, as well as how the correlate to later success in life.  Pretty impressive for an abstract, eh?

IQ is an environmental test:
I've been over how american blacks, speaking english as their native language, still score lower than impoverished Chinese.  What's the reason?  Surely the test couldn't be too hard for the black kids to understand, what with it being originally written in english?

What's the reason?

There are obvious correlations.  For example, why does the bell curve put latinos above blacks?  They, for the most part (Around 75%) don't speak english as their native language, and they definately don't have better education than black populations.

On our way to 1000get.  Or not.

>>22
I agree.

The aryan nazi theory is bullshit and so is the afrocentrist theories. Blacks didn't have very good civilisations, but this doesn't mean discrimination is justified, all it is is the truth and the best course of action we can take is one of eugenics and meritocracy whereby no one's abilities are ignored because of their race. If a black guy is more determinned and intelligent than a white guy to become a docot he should go to the university.

You will find I am completely right. I would also like to mention I started the "im racist but im not thread"

I've been tapping away at that thread for quite some time now, you can probably guess who i am from my style of writing.

>>25
as 22, I agree with you as well.

Your life is what you make of it.  You aren't inferior because you belong to a race or not.  My main point is that just because race is a hot issue to us doesn't mean that we should ignore the field of genetic study. 

I usually get so caught up in the competition of the debate that I forget formality that and use some racial slurs (Only because I find them hilarious, not because I actually hate blacks or chinkies or heebs).  For that I apologize. 

>>23


We are going in circles here. My responses can be found in the original race thread. I'm getting tired of having to re-repeat myself over and over. And I am getting tired of posters like >>21.

As for Afrocentricism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afrocentrism

I still say that whites have vested interest in seeing that history favors them. To say that whites are less likely to attempt this and black professors are more likely is bigotry.

Other than that, I have nothing else to prove here. This argument is nebulous and going nowhere.

But by all means, continue on.

>>28 And I am getting tired of hearing objective truth, so I'm going to ignore it, cry "racism," or invoke vast murky conspiracies.

Fixed.

>>29

Ok.

I just realized how funny the name Les Wyatt is

>>28
To say that whites have vested interest in seeing that history favors them is bigotry. To say that members of the NOI are less likely to attempt this and muslim arabs professors at egyptian universities will support 50 year old nazi propoganda that no one cares about anymore in the first place is complete lunacy.*


fix'd

>>31
I don't get it.

>>28 I still say that whites have vested interest in seeing that history favors them. To say that whites are less likely to attempt this and black professors are more likely is bigotry.

Then why does the "white" version of early history, where black most try to claim that white people are repressing the truth, mostly concern the peoples of the fertile crescent and persia etc...?(Harrapans, Assyrians, the Abrahamic religions, ETC ETC ETC...)  Didn't you say yourself that whites should not be trusted with IRAQ'S history?  And yet, when you do trust them with it, they glorify it!  And, what's more, they don't even try to claim that Europe was doing anything really interesting during that time!

What's up with that?  Could it be that *GASP* they don't have a vested interest in history itself?  Or are they ONLY trying to downplay the black side of history, ignoring that they're supposed to hate the Sand Niggers and the Cow Bangers, and the Chinkies too?

>>28 To say that whites are less likely to attempt this and black professors are more likely is bigotry.

Not all black professors are doing this.  Did I not just give a counterexample in >>22 of a black professor who didn't?  No, I'm saying that people who go into "black studies" are the ones likely to do this.  There's a difference between your field of study and your race.

So I can take this as a concession speech?

>>36

Concession to what?

Well, not really a speech per se...  But the fact that he hasn't responded as a concession of defeat.

>>38

This doesn't answer my question.

What am I conceeding to?

>>39
Well, you don't exactly have a response for anything I wrote.

>>40
True, I don't.

But that's not the same as conceeding.

>>41

Um, I'm not sure if you were referring to me [anti-chan] but >>41 isn't me.

I still want to know what I'm supposed to be conceding to.

>>42
DA FEET!

You flaked out and went home kid. 

>>43

Defeat on what grounds? Am I conceeding to the general concept of defeat? Surely by now you can see that this argument is going absolutely nowhere.

Take Afrocentrism: We will never agree because you've already decided by virtue of the label; Afrocentrism is damned. IE - "attempts to make the most out of the contributions of African society to the world’s society at large."

That's not what Afrocentrism is. There's evidence that states to the contrary of opinion held by the white mainstream and they will not hear of an African or any white man defending Africa. Mali, Zimbabwe are discarded as not even civilizations when they have all the prerequisites. When I pointed out that Africans made steel, someone's response was: "Oh...well that's not real steel, anyways."

Come the fuck on, you're not going to believe any evidence that's shown to you. Your answer to anything that points to the Africans being advanced is basically: "We've already discovered that and anyone who says anything contrary is lying for self gain."

To sit here and assume even for a second that any white man wouldn't have a 'vested interest in ensuring his history wins out is bigotry. I'm sorry but it just is. What am I supposed to do to make you see this?

You are locked into a perception of blacks- a idea of them being supermasculine is encoded to the way you consider them. By virtue of your argument against Afrocentricism you imply that white man's place has always been in front of the black. Like the great white hunter leading the ape. You simply won't stand for that ape- in addition to being more powerful- also talking and articulating to you what it has done.

This process has played itself out so many times in academia , it comes as no surprise that there are a hundful of black professors out there that stop searching, stop caring and conform to the white version of history.

It's like you're saying whites were historically wrong about everything- Except Africa. You just won't let it go. I mean- even hypothetically speaking- let's say all of Afrocentrism was build on a lie.

Doesn't it seem odd that it's unacceptable for Africa and Africans to live in this lie (and be empowered by it) meanwhile it's acceptable and encouraged for white to have lived in the lies, myths and legends of their race?

To me, your argument sounds more like one of: "We were always of blacks so they should just trust us when it comes to history."

Sure, you seem like you care about history- but when I take a look back at all the things you've people lied about- it makes me weary of your version of things. But of course you're going to object to Afrocentrism! You're white.    

You should write a Wikipedia article