Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists



- Fri, 13 Jan 2017 01:52:29 EST RJGzRrNh No.207576
File: 1484290349984.gif -(7478B / 7.30KB, 300x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Racism
Posting here because social sciences.

What really determines if someone is racist?
Earlier today i was walking to collect my mail and throw my rubbish in the bin when i passed some black kids a boy and a girl, we smiled and nodded at each other but about half way to the letterbox i felt an unease and immeditly thought that these kids were going to rob me, they didnt, but i cant ignore that thought. Am i racist? would i have thought that if they were white, maybe if they were tatted up white kids who seemed like they had a drug problem.

So what is racism? Was i being a racist?
Rebecca Findlepere - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:57:50 EST ImY3XWub No.207578 Reply
1484315870494.jpg -(509851B / 497.90KB, 750x549) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Yes, you were being racist. You can do this to attone for it.

I heard if you pay extra, they'll sodomize you too!
Augustus Brookfield - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:44:24 EST iAquTtgI No.207579 Reply
Every white person is racist and benefits from racist systems. What's important is acknowledging it and working from within those systems and yourself to correct them.

It does no one any good to run your mind in circles trying to figure out if you're racist. Because you are, not because your bad, though you may be, but because you were born into a culture that values this vague idea whiteness to the exclusion of others.
Molly Sumblefut - Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:06:58 EST FSAozKjO No.207584 Reply

It's funny because some people actually think like this

>you were born into a culture that still has racial hangups, therefore YOU ARE ALSO RACIST because as a braindead groupthinker I am incapable of independent thought and so assume that the same is true of everyone else
Sidney Piddlewater - Sun, 15 Jan 2017 13:20:24 EST TP1mL/r/ No.207604 Reply
Here is a good tool made by three professors (from Harvard, Washington and Virginia Universities) that can help you know yourself better, including your subconscious attitudes/preferences towards race.

It's called Project Implicit, and as it states, "The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy)." It does so by giving you only a split second to connect a good or bad word with a picture of a black or white person.

Keep in mind two things: one, you might not agree with the results (your conscious beliefs might contradict your ingrained attitudes), and two, if you find out you have a preferential judgement of one race/gender etc. does not automatically mean you are racist/sexist.
Reuben Gidgelutch - Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:05:03 EST 54PBc7Id No.207605 Reply
Nobody ever brings this up, but, of course white people are going to have more wealth than black people in this day and age. Europe dominated Africa. Africa lost. Those slaves that were brought over to America, they didn't own their own lives and to be blunt they should be grateful to even exist. But they're not grateful. They're envious. The losers of history are envious of the victors of history and expect to have the exact same things, if not more, than their victors. But that's not how this world works. Used to be that people conquered each other, and the losers were wiped out from existence, with nothing remaining of them except whatever historic documents could be recovered. Yet now those who are supposed to be extinct are living right next door to us. Yet all that being said, black people are advancing at the same pace as white people. No matter how much black people claim to represent the lowest of the low in the country, the fact of the matter is they're constantly rising just like white people have been. In reality, black people should be so grateful just to exist, but they're not. But you know, that's just how affluent countries like the USA work; affluenza's got us gripped so bad that nobody appreciates what they've got. Nobody appreciates existing. Nobody appreciates health care. Nobody appreciates clean/hot running water. Nobody appreciates the food they can afford. Nobody appreciates shit, and expect more than they have. It's a sad truth.
Reuben Gidgelutch - Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:15:17 EST 54PBc7Id No.207607 Reply
Soft sciences.

I understand what you're trying to do. There's nothing wrong with being anti-racist. But you have to also understand that being non-racist is just as good, if not better, than being anti-racist. I say this because anti-racism entails racism in order to boost up the lower races, in the same fashion movements like Feminism entail misogyny/misandry in order to try and balance out their hypothesized imbalances between men and women, even when it means fucking a lot of men/women in the process. They appeal to the whole 'we're the majority; we deserve what's best' philosophy even though they're not the majority, they just try their absolute hardest to appear that way.

The USA and the world at large are becoming significantly less racist every generation. If that's not good enough for you and you think you have to battle racism today, then I must say I think you're 100 years too late and way too reactionary about spilt milk. Racism in the USA is dead. There's but a few remnants of it. But fairness does not entail equality, and equality does not entail fairness. Anti-racists want equality, while non-racists want fairness. I side with fairness on this subject. Equality is bullshit. Equality is perfection; it cannot exist, even though it exists in our minds. Fairness, however, can at least make the world as bearable as possible for the most amount of people possible. Fairness is why I'm not a feminist or an anti-racist. Fairness is why I'm not interested in trying to correct our history but instead I work toward a better future for everyone of all races.
Reuben Gidgelutch - Mon, 16 Jan 2017 14:17:22 EST 54PBc7Id No.207608 Reply
Has anyone here seen the new It's Always Sunny where they tackle racism in the USA? It's too political for me, but it was extremely insightful, insightful enough to teach a lot of people a few lessons about racism in the USA and why racism is so misunderstood even by experts and activists especially. They really present the idea that racism is incredibly hard to spot without someone outright saying, 'yeah this is because of racism.'
Nicholas Fuvingmure - Tue, 17 Jan 2017 04:32:31 EST xat4AfMo No.207610 Reply
>Every white person is racist
Wow, cool generalization of an entire race, isn't that called something?... like.. Racism or something... ... oh wait, your hate group says that your kind of racism against whites is ok because they are fascist, privilideged...

But wait, the only way that African Americans are still in the United States in 2017 is because a majority of the racist white Americans in 1860 said they should stay... and the first country to abolish all forms of slavery were these racist white Americans.
Did you Know?: There are still forms of Slavery legal in African Countries?
Africans technically received voting rights with the 15th amendment but politics held them from equality. Politics, not the majority of the American people.
The American Civil War wasn't over the fact that slavery was immoral. Most Americans thought it was, but it's the government, you can't do anything about it.
Many Americans made a sort of Underground Railroad system to help Africans.
Many Americans even in the South were against slavery as an immoral system.
But the government doesn't move until it's profitable to do so.
The government doesn't move until it itself is threatened.
But somehow, this revisionist history you love so much says no, it's because White people are racist.
No, it's because governments and rich financial/commercial institutions will exploit anyone they can to make money, and African Americans are just the easiest to exploit because they started from less, or the Irish too, those micks... or the German immigrants... or the Scots...

Wow, it's almost like our system of politics is all about oppression, not of races... but of social status and wealth.
It's almost like Doctor Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, hell even Malcolm X all reached this conclusion in their philosophy at the point in their life that someone puts a bullet in their head.

Funny how that happens, it's like someone is threatening the government's status quo or something.
Sophie Hemmleked - Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:13:30 EST 54PBc7Id No.207613 Reply
Running in circles and rationalizing an argument are two entirely separate things.

When one man has paragraphs to say about a subject, while his opponent has nothing to say except for a single-sentence joke to try and make the opponents argument seem laughable, I can't help but think that the person making the joke literally can't comprehend the things their opponent is saying and can't reply to it so they hide behind humor, much like Trevor Noah on the Daily Show. When Tomi was hitting Trevor with facts and rationality, all Trevor could do was reply with single-sentence quips, never actually discussing anything Tomi said.

Hannah Brozzlefit - Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:54:31 EST iAquTtgI No.207614 Reply
He repeats the same shit over and over again, and it all boils down to "white people can't be racist cause some of them did a a nice thing once" it's not worth addressing with anything but a joke.
Edwin Hobblestock - Wed, 18 Jan 2017 22:32:10 EST EKE5J6vY No.207615 Reply

so u says all white ppl ar racis, and he says all white ppl not racis

so who racis?

wut a cownunderum
Shit Denkinnad - Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:19:05 EST Y58cJ9N+ No.207617 Reply
serious answer in disregard of the _S H I T S T O R M_ that the rest of this thread constitutes:

Racial prejudice determines whether you are racist. However you can then persue the question of where this prejudice comes from. Is it innate in you? is it something produced by your experiences and immediate environment - ie you dont live close to people of different races? is it something that has been produced in you through the media? Is it something that has been produced in you through social institutions such as school, police etc. and/or racial-social conditions (ie. black people are generally less wealthy than white people)

In other words there are many factors that can determine whether you as an individual are racist or not. Some of these factors are reified and others are malleable. Simply deciding that you are a racist (or not) based on one or a few pronouncements/conscious thoughts is a very small part of what you can look into - and you and people around you shouldn't put too much importance upon them. Racism, philosophically speaking, belongs to the virtual world and is not limited to your individual existence and is laid out in such a way as that you have a choice whether to take part in it or not, but there is also potential for subversion and escape.
Esther Drindlebanks - Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:17:44 EST NsFksadU No.207619 Reply
>would i have thought that if they were white,

I would have thought that, because teenagers of any breed are usually troublemakers. It's a matter of statistics, not racism.
George Duvingpitch - Sun, 22 Jan 2017 11:58:29 EST wbhmCm0d No.207622 Reply
As far as I'm concerned, racism is when someone is denied equal opportunity due to the color of their skin. You didn't deprive these kids in any way, your thoughts were private, so while you're guilty of stereotyping, I don't count it as racism.
Sophie Cuffingridge - Mon, 23 Jan 2017 09:22:19 EST 54PBc7Id No.207623 Reply
I totally concur.

That being said, I'm almost positive that when black people say 'all whites are racist' what they actually mean is, 'all white people (in the USA) have an objective advantage over blacks due to how this country has been run the last 300 years, and therefore whites need to rectify this issue before equality can exist.'

That being said, this issue will not be rectified, but one day African Americans will stop caring because they'll be on almost equal footing to whites in terms of money and influence (but not population numbers) and at that point racism will just be such an old, insignificant conversation. Probably.
Henry Chendershit - Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:04:53 EST 2IPvcf8v No.207624 Reply
I feel like for the most part racism already is an old insignificant thing. I feel as though a lot of what get's counted as racism are perceptions about past hardships, perceived offense. The actual hardcore real racism that exists nowadays is somewhat small in first world countries. At least compared to a century ago.

That's not to say that racism isn't a form of excessive self serving idiocy, it is. The things that happen with it seem smaller and smaller. The worst thing I can see is people still deciding themselves along racial lines. Now come the problem I see with that, is that in and of itself a form of prejudice?

I do feel like some of the sensitivity towards the idea of racism is exaggerated by seeing all these groups as separate. So does that play into the problem of racism itself? Prejudice and racism are both wrong. I think that as time goes on at the very least the world is moving more and more away from these things. I think discrimination, anger, these are the things that would make a person truly racist op.
Martin Cledgeforth - Tue, 24 Jan 2017 06:29:13 EST d4DXKOh3 No.207630 Reply
Do you feel unease when a black guy in the library asks you where the toilets are? Do you feel unease when a black guy in a densely stacked record store asks you if he could squeeze past you?

Feeling unease around people walking down the street is normal. The streets are while statistically safe, still a "dangerous open place". There is no real ritualized behavior on the streets like there is in cafe's or public pools, etc.

You feel out in the open.

If some white trash had walked past you, you probably would have felt the same way.
Jarvis Greenforth - Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:42:57 EST 54PBc7Id No.207631 Reply
I don't even speak to white trash. I was getting gas in some shady area the other day and there was this middle-aged couple sitting and smoking cigs outside the station. I got in my truck and the man comes up and starts knocking on my window. I literally just look at him, put my truck into Drive, and drive off while he's standing there knocking on my window.

Trashy people are trash. I lived next to a white/mexican ghetto growing up and lived next to the black projects in my young adulthood. It's all the same, just different cultures. There's tons of drugs, tons of wanton violence, people smile at you and act like your friend just so they can rob you or ask you for money and then start demanding it. My best friend growing up (white dude) was found eviscerated with some other dude who'd been killed on a train track in my town. I stopped chilling with that dude when he started ripping people off for dope. I feel bad for his bastard fucking son.

Low-income, low-education areas are just the worst no matter what color. You don't see any of this shit in middle-class and up areas.
Hugh Hablingway - Tue, 07 Feb 2017 06:25:10 EST RJGzRrNh No.207696 Reply
OP here.

So this morning a bunch of police raided an apartment below me, turns out those black kids, were squatting in a vacant apartment with a bunch of other black kids, apparently they were part of a Sudanese gang and were robbing people in my neighbourhood constantly.

I know it sounds convenient, but im being totally honest with you, i have never heard anything so scary in my life, and ive heard a meth head cry out and bang and scream because he locked himself out of his house and had to wait an entire day for a locksmith.


I think you're right. setting also helps too, i have no problem talking to people of all races/religions most of the time.
ghoulie - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 03:45:06 EST akimJuHG No.208034 Reply
being racist and being racially insensitive are divided by a very fine line. the thoughts you had are more xenophobic.

i think racism is when some of that fear turns to hate.
Beatrice Gazzleman - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:22:29 EST 54PBc7Id No.208036 Reply
Being aware of the realities of race and being racist are considered the exact same thing to liberals.
"How dare you make racist comments about how many black people commit crime! How dare you make racist comments about the genes of other races making them prone to more violent tendencies! How dare you make racist comments about how black people need to act towards the police!"

Maybe if the race card wasn't being used/abused 24/7 we'd be able to have better, more constructive conversations about race.
Ernest Niggledut - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 15:59:00 EST Ya59RsKY No.208037 Reply
1492631940466.jpg -(34571B / 33.76KB, 550x247) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Claims to be aware of the
>>realities of race
Goes on to claim it is reality that
>>more black people commit crime
>>people of other races have genes that make them more violent
>>black people need to act 'better' toward police (presumably for the privilege of not being murdered?)
These are by no means un-ambiguous, accepted 'realities' that one should be aware of, in the sense that one ought to be educated that the earth is a sphere. These are reactionary, radical ideas that have emerged to prominence thanks to the boiling over of one loathsome corner of the internet, so don't pretend like these are obvious, inherent truths that we all ought to accept without you arguing for them.

'Reality' vs reality; more black people commit crime: Also, more poor people commit crime, pic related. Systematic forces stretching back centuries have and continue to make black people more poor than other races (in the US.) Are you going to argue there is no causal relationship between poverty and crime? If not how can you know it is the blackness that causes it, and not the poverty? (indeed, you cannot know, because it is a counterfactual.)

'Reality' vs reality; other races are genetically more violent: For this we have to look globally rather than the US, since you're making a claim about an inherent biological factor of our species. I'll post the pic for this one in a following post. Notice how a white country (Russia) is pretty high up on that list, but so are several non-black places. What do all these places have in common? Poverty! So this seems to be more evidence that poverty causes crime and violence, not race. So unless you want to link to me genetic studies referencing specific genes, their distribution in populations according to race, and the prevalence of that gene within violent offenders, I'm going to say the whole 'genetic superiority' angle is a eugenic fantasy without basis in fact.

'Reality' vs reality; blacks are responsible for their higher murder rate by police due to how they act toward police. One final image to come after. We know that blacks are being killed by police at a rate that's about 20x higher than whites are. Yet, this chart shows that whites violently attack police at a much higher rate than blacks. White people manifestly behave worse and are treated better, black people behave better and are treated worse. And that's true whether the officer in question is white or black. How is this some sort of racial, genetic inevitability again?

If you want to have constructive conversations about anything, generally it's not a good place to start off with 'we would be a lot better off if you just accept the reality that you are inherently genetically inferior to me and ought to just behave better so I don't end up killing you because I don't like how you act.'
ghoulie - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:03:15 EST akimJuHG No.208040 Reply

i dont think he was saying anything you're trying to debate with him about. seemed to me like the quoted section is him expressing today's radical liberalism as he's perceived it. nice charts though
ghoulie - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 20:32:05 EST akimJuHG No.208041 Reply

that's a good point about poverty though. living in low income, high crime area as a minority doesn't exactly give someone the best opportunity to succeed. the surrounding social validation would only enable it further. then you have water that never goes down the drain and the cycle repeats. do you think a solution would be to spread low income units to better areas instead of having acceptable, modern day concentration camps?
John Bunman - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:50:00 EST Ya59RsKY No.208042 Reply
Hmm, so you're suggesting he means the quoted statement as an ironic over-exaggeration on the part of the liberals? I suppose it's possible, but I'm familiar with his line of reasoning from many other threads, so I don't think that's the case. I'd be glad to be wrong though, the other argument is certainly less of a headache.
John Bunman - Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:59:52 EST Ya59RsKY No.208043 Reply
>>do you think a solution would be to spread low income units to better areas instead of having acceptable, modern day concentration camps?
Maybe, maybe not. We'd have to tease apart the relationship between urbanization, industrialization, and social strife. So for example spreading out low income urban people to rural areas won't necessarily improve their lot, because it will cut them off from certain services, and their skillset won't necessarily be applicable to the industries the rural areas have available.

I think that the kind of solution you can use depends on how large scale of a change you're willing to make. So low income people are so concentrated because industrialization forces urbanization, concentrating people around industrial and business centers. However, new technology is allowing production and business to be more decentralized. But at the same time, people thought that decentralizing technology in the form of telecommuting would cause a wave of de-urbanization, and it really hasn't. There may be deeper psychological reasons for mass urbanization, which means we can probably work to make cities better from a perspective by improving the 'modern day concentration camps' into gilded cages and kill two societal birds with one stone.

Obviously I'd prefer a scenario where everything can become massively decentralized. Maybe we need to wait for another major technological leap for people to be willing to give up the need for close physical proximity Brain VR
Sorry for the double post. nb
George Trotman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:56:23 EST hvs4h/ox No.208044 Reply
i've been struggling with this since 2016 the year of trump.

You may not be racist but you may be dealing with a contingent narrative thought.

Think about it with the cognitive boon of your memory and linear sequence.

Compare it to being high.

In the beginning you try weed it opens up your mind to the idea of preconcieved notions. You feel elation, you try new things. You may even have hope or optimism about the world changing in ways that you never had before, because you tried a new thing and it was great.

But then you develop an etiquitte when you have to smoke weed because of the circumstances in the place you live, that explain an adjacent cognitive thought that is critical in that it is imposed, that you deal with through the understanding of obligations. Kind of like how works leaves you with time off that you cherish and wait for. A place for the coping cognitive calypso of delayed satisfaction to find a climax.

But because of the etiquette the arranger of behavior to keep yourself in comportment. And the occasional wandering thought to why it might be or could be like it is, that paridigm of they grows.

It's not specific people but a general populace that exists in pre-existing media maps, and representational realities. Like the culture we were born in, and melded together and made sense of without intricate skeptical critical implenmentation, just pretty much kalideoscope like as toddlers.

So you get a growing shadow that explains a paradigm of oppositions or contrasting behaviors to yours because your behavior is somewhat dictated or imposed upon you because there is a time you concievably can or cannot. All those thoughts accumulate, and there intrusive because there probably not thoughts you want to be spending your time agonizing out.

So it can seemingly work out that because the critical paradigm preventing the optimism or potential isn't an "it" because it's not some reality stopping us from flying or having super powers, but a legal one. The other side of the binary that can crop up is a they.

So if you think about that as something that exists, eventually you can find yourself behaving as if or as if the thing you have described as your bane of existence.

Becoming the thing, as perenially described, you have hated. Your shadow.

Which is a concept actually related to the resitance or opposition of thoughts. The ego finds value and centers itself in this shaky world shakily, to be human, but tries to be firm without being rigid. That trying or ideal, eventually meets its resistance because of that after. Almost encountering it's opposite pole that it found externally in other, in itself.

So if you ever thought there was racism, sexism, hate, there is a point in that paradigm, where you can find yourself underneath it.

And that leads to the concept of the shadow.

The thing that comes over you or upon you after, you have a moment allievating your struggle with fufillment and desire. You notice yourself being racist right after you were not. You find yourself being cruel right after you finally are kind.

You feel like a bully right after you are assertive, after being a person who has struggled with the existence of bully in life.

The political, social, and media extenuitions and complications come inherintly because they involve a representation or a paradigm on people. So the other self consciousness can see that as a social complication as well, and we potentially struggle around in the potential quicksand of never enduring our shadow without being judged amorrally in a public category with the exagerrated consequences of the prejudices we feared.

But usually making everything social was a way for egos and individuals to deal with moral conflict in every way after the realization that the same problems that weren't metaphysical or based in physics or lack of knowledge still go on with that knowledge.

So you explain why things don't work tautologically through a "they"

While they is mostly useful for as a reconcillatory group for a person in derealization and the intangible part of ourselves. Or the ownus or the albatross the part trying to come to reality. Or us trying to find that part.

Kind of like understanding alienation and foreign as not negative. But explorative.

It's kind of like how we have the emprical average of an existential crisis pegged at thirty or forty. The mid life crisis.

Kind of like they is the manifestation of the restlessness. We often times imagine ourselves from perspectives that can't literally exist without special narratives like a rockstar, or an astronaut. They is the adult version of that. It's those spaces lining up with the critical spaces they were often associated with.

There once was a gaze that was not adventures but explorative and synthezing. A becoming. We were young and we were formative.

Then there is a gaze that where all those gazes go. And we feel that gaze judge us.

We perhaps deal with our initial creative optimism's vision's shock at inequality and unfairness, through a exitential mid life crisis. Where we feel we don't have our integrity, and that we don't have our life. Even though we may know these things.

You basically did live in a time. And now your probably experiencing some severe social anxiety that would only be abundtly understood in categories we in this time don't give answers to but questions.

However as experiencee's of this we are also ripe for exploiting.

the birth of tragedy isn't just when Apollo grasps it with reason. It's when the dionysian, the choral, the known through looking, known through feeling, the affect and impulse. The self experienced. Can no longer reach a milestone. And dionysius, knows that a grief's affects have been interpretated in security, and not in grief.

If you get happy, and your neurosis tells you something that drastic afterwards.

It's because of this. Understanding yourself as completely questionable. Because now to simply have fun and not feel racist, can bring you to some tears. To experience a stable meaning to see a good movie. The experience of the self experience.

It's not staying young forever, it's the battle of knowing you once did feel good. To have the knowledge you felt good, and feel that. To feel you feel good.

That you love.

It can make you weepy. It's very abstract, but yet it also explains every drunken behavior or catharsis there is.
John Hannerlock - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:45:35 EST 54PBc7Id No.208045 Reply
>You may not be racist but you may be dealing with a contingent narrative thought.
Ok except little black kids DO rob people. As a matter of fact, they murder, too.
A little black girl walked up to a friend of mine alone on a dark night and asked him for money. When he said no, she pulled out a gun on him and a big black dude slunk out from nowhere and demanded his wallet.
When I lived in Philly, I saw plenty of little black kids running around arranging drug deals.

You ain't wrong to be a little paranoid, OP. It's not racism, it's truth.
Phyllis Simblesun - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:56:14 EST WfoZwfmn No.208046 Reply

"They" rob.

"They" murder.

Stigmatized means stigmata. Stigmata is self inflicted or perceived in pattern. Pattern is there because of the contingency between significance and signification.

I see sign I hang sign. However I have gestalt but I am. It's different when you project on to it and when you let they project onto I. Because you have a literal opportunity in generalizing to answer questions. But if you start having that happen in real time your dealing not with sense and sensibility but sense and synchronicity.

In other words your dealing with the tenuous unspoken agreement that often snaps but with the combination of the critical and the literal visual you can understand the surreal.

I'd recommend Dali.

You can understand surreal before method, but with the self critical comes one of the only tools to understand in the main reason for conundrum in life metaphor and purpose both narratological realities or phenomenological, why paranoia is there.
Phyllis Simblesun - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:15:58 EST WfoZwfmn No.208047 Reply
It's the same as me where I live being hindered in aliveness and living opportunities because of narrative constructed to keep me on a set path of living and adulthood around poor whites and blacks and Spanish...and Indian people. It's not any more intellegent than the ones you see portrayed about other places on television. There not even used for much outside seeing yourself or others as "outside" as in "outsider" to experience that "thatness." Not necessarily for credit or street credit, perhaps to build an identity sometimes but in a sense it is to have that to be that.

Problem is when trying to be creative they often leave a litany of things that one as having lived in "the village" has to work out in adjacent fear or idealigocal spaces having not been given the gift of deconstruction in early development.

It would be like if I was "paranoid" that a guy was smoking meth or on welfare.

You see how surreal it is when you try it on yourself. If I was paranoid I was incredibly high and hiding it from the police when he was "paranoid" I was.

Kind of the same faculty people exhibit after reading web md. Literally taking the hat and putting it in there head kind of akin to what Dali did with his real obsessions, anxieties, and fears.

Humans have idiosyncratic tendencies and they have heuristics but it's not that deductive even by the fallacies standards because you can still hang the sign.

Just like you can get the shoe on the foot by forcing it even if you do it under the pretense of seeing if it fits.

On top of that people act that gaze out on persecution complex's so that's gonna give you even more "shadow"
Phyllis Simblesun - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:27:03 EST WfoZwfmn No.208048 Reply
It's healthy and expanding in perception when you can picture a space. Can see a cogtive frame and see the interesting patterns with in it.

And it's somewhat even healthy that the difference between them that we can note is done by effort.

But it's not healthy to think you have to do that all the time. Because in reality people and ideas that were racist or stigmatized against groups of people did gain influence and that is in our language right next to or in opposition to what gives language spoken and visual, detailed and broad, it's compacity for nourishment, wonder, and love.
John Bunman - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 14:31:00 EST Ya59RsKY No.208049 Reply
1492713060119.jpg -(35551B / 34.72KB, 489x247) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>Here's an anecdote about something that happened to someone I know one time. It proves every member of the group I'm talking about does the things I claim they do. TRUTH.

Unwilling to defend your statements with facts, or engage with the tons of posts now challenging your claim, you fall back on anecdotal evidence? Really? This chart would like to have a few words with you, if you have any interest in actually engaging and defending your points at all, or are you just going to keep re-iterating your beliefs into a vacuum? How is that 'constructive conversation'?
ghoulie - Fri, 21 Apr 2017 03:11:57 EST akimJuHG No.208052 Reply
1492758717546.gif -(1730105B / 1.65MB, 200x150) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

>or are you just going to keep re-iterating your beliefs into a vacuum? How is that 'constructive conversation'?
Matilda Brookville - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:15:43 EST 54PBc7Id No.208053 Reply
>"They" rob.
>"They" murder.
Replace 'they' with 'black people' and add in 'at the highest frequency of all races in the USA' and you're finally on your way to the truth.

>I'd recommend Dali
Who? And for what?

Bruh, I'm a philosopher, but your reply that I'm looking at looks like nothing but a bunch of randomly churned out statements, almost none of which have anything to do with my initial statement.

I take it you're trying to say, in so many words, that you consider my justification of extra-precaution around black people to come from paranoia. Well, paranoia isn't based in facts, where as my opinions on black people are. Step out of academic philosophy and step into real philosophy, where not everything can be boiled down to ideological gray areas and we use facts to weigh in on opinions.

>The "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis" (2011) state that of gang members, 46% are Hispanic/Latino, 35% are black, 11.5% are white, and 7% are other race/ethnicity.[46]
>According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery. Black youths were overrepresented in all offense categories except DUI, liquor laws and drunkenness.

Lol I'd like to see your sources for that pic.
You wanna engage me in debate using facts? Then post your sources instead of posting a picture of an unknown source that conveniently rolls with your statements, because I think your picture isn't based in fact, based on my knowledge of race and crime. Unless, of course, and this is what I think is the truth of the matter, your source is breaking down crime in a way you don't understand.

It says that 53% of violent youth criminals are white, and 44% are black.
There are roughly 4 times as many white people as black people, therefore if black people make up just a little less in terms of violent crime arrests as white people, but there are 4 times as many whites as blacks, then that means black kids are almost 4 times as violent as white kids, and that's just in terms of getting arrested, meaning that the real number actually goes well-beyond that.

You can't fight facts with ideologies. That being said, the scientific truths of racism have been swept under the rug as 'unethical' even though science and sociology have both concluded that there are glaring differences between white people and black people, both genetically and socially.
Matilda Brookville - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 10:19:34 EST 54PBc7Id No.208054 Reply
I should probably point this out because you guys probably don't understand, but, I'm in no way racist. Knowing the truth about race is important, race isn't something to be disregarded, but you won't find me acting racist towards anyone, but I know my science and I know my sociology and I base my opinions in facts. I know where I'm safe and I know where I'm not safe. And let me tell you, race plays a big part in this, even though wealth plays an even bigger part. Go live somewhere where your race isn't the majority, which is how I've spent the majority of my life, and you'll learn the truths about what racism looks like, on both sides. And let me tell you, both sides are justified, and both sides are guilty.
Isabella Dasslefock - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:33:29 EST Ya59RsKY No.208055 Reply
1493062409853.png -(54935B / 53.65KB, 1004x437) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
That picture is from a book length report on juvenile justice by the National Research Council, in a chapter on racial disparity.
This chart doesn't touch on the different proportions of each group within the population, and that's not even the salient point to take out of it. Here is another chart from the same chapter in which the crime rates have been indexed per capita. You're claiming that blacks and whites having a nearly equal arrest rate means blacks just inherently commit 4x as crimes, since they are 1/4th as populous. But this index shows, for example, that the arrest rate for minorities (since these data compile all minorities together) is at most .5 higher, which is 0.25x higher according to their index, not 4x.
But ignoring that, this chart has much more interesting information to tell us. Note how the arrest rates are almost in parity, but the more severe the consequences (moving up the scale from delinquency referrals to long-term detention) the more likely the offender is black. Why should it be that whites commit crimes at a greater rate than all minorities (even being the majority of the population) have their cases adjudicated at almost double the rate, yet get put in long term detention less?
It seems like you are the one who is not understanding this data. Whites and blacks commit crimes at comparable rates, but blacks are given much more severe consequences for it -- which makes it harder for them to get by in society, which gives them no alternative but to turn to crime, which fosters a climate of crime, which means children will also be raised in an environment where it's harder for them to integrate into society. You don't think the net sum of that, applied to your entire race, across decades, will generate a 0.25x disparity in criminality? You bet your ass it would, and it would still have nothing to do with genetics.

If you really want to claim you're not racist, then lets see you put up or shut up. You claim that blacks are more violent because of genetics. Ok, lets just take for granted that that's true for a moment. If that's the case, then black crime is a medical problem that could easily be solved by gene-line retroviral interventions, which we could do today if we knew what gene to look for. We could even apply this intervention to members of every race, so that these violent genes are no longer present anywhere in our genome. Is it not our responsibility to do exactly this, if what you claim is true? If we were to do this over night, do you imagine a lot of the problems that force minorities into crime would disappear at the same time? If they didn't, then what makes you think it was genetics in the first place?
Matilda Brookville - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 15:43:32 EST 54PBc7Id No.208056 Reply
>If you really want to claim you're not racist, then lets see you put up or shut up. You claim that blacks are more violent because of genetics.
Good. I can prove that easily, right now.

> Is it not our responsibility to do exactly this, if what you claim is true? If we were to do this over night, do you imagine a lot of the problems that force minorities into crime would disappear at the same time? If they didn't, then what makes you think it was genetics in the first place?
I imagine yes, if we were to intervene in people's genes, we could make much better humans. I mean, it's not unknown that humans with high levels of Monoamine Oxidase A never succeed even close to the rate of humans who have low levels of Monoamine Oxidase A. Notice that Asians have the lowest amount; fun fact, asians in the USA actually get shat on by affirmative action because they are literally more successful than white people in terms of growth. I mean, in Japan last year like only 100 people were killed by gunshot. You get 100 people killed by Gunshot in Chicago, alone, every few weeks, and we're talking about an all-black area here, pretty much, at least in regards to crime. Mind you, Japan has a population of 180 million, so it's not like we're talking peanuts here.

That being said, I mean if in this day and age someone were to suggest that all black people be genetically modified to fix them, there'd be a massive backlash and the option wouldn't even be considered possible, it would just be thrown under the rug as 'utter racist nonsense with no basis in real science'. Truly, genetic intervention could drastically improve the conditions of every race, yet I have no doubt we will not see that even suggested in our lifetime.

Also....why do you keep referencing some book from 2001?
I mean this link from the US department of Justice (with much more recent findings and longer trends) sheds plenty of light on this subject.
Isabella Dasslefock - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:10:27 EST Ya59RsKY No.208057 Reply
Simply changing expression of Monoamine Oxidase will be totally insufficient. If you turned down expression of it across the board, not only would certain foods like aged cheeses become toxic, but we would also become more intrinsically susceptible to our own neurotransmitters; we would be tripping all the time.
Also, if you're suggesting that the over-abundance of MAO is the cause of failure in blacks, then why does only 5% of the population have the 2R variant? What about the other 95%?

>>in Japan only 100 people were killed by gunshot
Because, by and large, owning a firearm is illegal in Japan. But we are now at the point of discussing the benefits of gun control, so I suspect you will walk back that angle entirely.

Still, if you want to alter the expression of a gene because you think it will make people less violent, you have to apply it across the board. If you don't make it about race, then it's not racist. That was the purpose of my thought experiment; to reveal whether or not you were interested in actually dealing with the problem, or simply wanted to denigrate a group of people. You also didn't respond to my suggestion that eliminating a gene will do nothing to erase poverty or institutional bias against people.

>>...why do you keep referencing some book from 2001?
Phyllis Hongerway - Mon, 24 Apr 2017 17:24:01 EST BFirzLoU No.208058 Reply
To be anticipating being robbed because robbery exists is why it's paranoia.
anticipating should lead typing to a more positive experience not dread of a negative. Dali can help you with turning that around because paranoia is actually like a photo being developed in the black room, or a movie's preview. Hence the paranoiac criticalmente.

Secretly you framed the metaphor to not deal with how a child can be influenced by an adult or how gangs also work the same way.

Children with need. Even if you get over being a child self aware of the very kind of lack we discuss in philosophical debates and accept people can prey on you not from a series of gentle psa's or your parents you still have to ween your self off of associative treatment it's like a literal negative voice in your head. That's your friend's anecdotal spotify mix. You'll also noticed how the elder moralized the heist to provide a pretense where the mark could have helped to show you as a child he would not.

That's not race that's literally trying to figure out human nature and nurture. As adults we sift through the wrinkles in narrative but they are not usually as dense enough to get into us at every fear response level and usually stay super ego i.e. What makes you feel like a good or bad person. They aren't usually narratives that tell you how unhuman you are and how you have these flaws and these limits and this that you desire in life is not for you. There not usually completely sociapthic social influences. But a child in that circumstance led around by an elder faces that.

Plus we in America have nearly ruined and abandoned the census and surveying faculties and I have to speak in a reframing of a racist friends metaphor because I can't assail the litany of fear and masquerade of false facts and statistics we have laying around.

Ask yourself why it's your reaction that when you can't believe people in general did that and you will find yourself on the same side as the people who were robbing in a ritualized metaphor
Edward Hibbleville - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:02:23 EST 54PBc7Id No.208062 Reply
>What about the other 95%?
It's 'A Wolf in a Hen House' scenario. You've got 100 people. 5 of them are psychopaths. Essentially, 5% of the populace is ready to ruin everything for the other 95%, and they do, to a large extent. Get in any situation with 20 black people, and it's likely that 1 of them is ready to start killing people, escalating the situation drastically. Then you've got the whites where it's more like 1 in 100 and the Asians where it's more like 1 in 500. 99 people having to deal with 1 psycho is a lot better than 19 people having to deal with 1 psycho.
Fact of the matter is, the black community is stuck with some horrible situations due to their own internal desire for violence. Look at black schools. Look at black countries. All of these places are warzones, essentially.

Truth be told, I think what this boils down to is simple; black people and white people cannot be governed the same way. Their genetics are too different, and therefore they require drastically different environments to succeed.

>We are now at the point of discussing the benefits of gun control, so I suspect you will walk back that angle entirely.
Lol as if I'd back away from an angle. Besides, we're not talking about the benefits of gun control. 'Gun control' is not what made Japan so safe. To be blunt, it's a combination of things, from Japanese people being significantly less-violent than their white/black counterparts, to pistols (just pistols) being banned from day 1 in Japan. If you think gun control can lower the USA's gun violence to levels even remotely similar to Japan, you're very mistaken. Simply put, 97% of violent gun crime in the USA is perpetuated by pistols, and in almost all of the areas where this happens, pistols are illegal or unable to be owned without extreme permits. Doesn't matter. The black market is flooded with pistols. You'll never get them away from the American gangsters.

Lol I'm asking, why would you sit there and try to make an argument based on some shotty book from 2001 when there's much much better data you could use from the government's own websites that are as recent as 2016.

I like you. But you're an idealist, not a realist, like me.
Let me break your idealism with realism. It will be fun, and factual.

>To be anticipating being robbed because robbery exists is why it's paranoia.
Wrong. Let me correct that for you using realism.
>To be anticipating being robbed because robbery exists (but isn't a norm in your vicinity) is why it's paranoia.
>To be anticipating being robbed because robbery exists (and is normal to your vicinity) is intelligent decision making and being responsible.

You can't use One-Size-Fits-All philosophy, you have to philosophize on a case-by-case basis.
Walking around a rich neighborhood with a gun just incase someone tries to rob you is paranoia.
Walking around a poor neighborhood, possibly like a ghetto in the city, a ghetto where nobody is your skin color, and having a gun on you for your own safety, is a smart decision.

Here's another example.
Getting drunk at home is a fine decision.
Getting drunk at a bar an hour away and needing to drive yourself home is a dumb decision.
The intelligence of your decisions is entirely based on the situation you use them in.

>anticipating should lead typing to a more positive experience not dread of a negative.
Lol. Let's say you've got a business trip to Nigeria coming up. Preparing to have a positive experience, to get to know the people you've got to do business there with, is a good idea. But you know what's also a very good idea? Preparing yourself for the negative experiences you might find there, and making sure you stay safe, by doing things like not walking into dangerous areas and carrying around guns and having a security team with you.

>Dali can help you with turning that around because paranoia is actually like a photo being developed in the black room, or a movie's preview. Hence the paranoiac criticalmente.
From the sounds of things, I should be the one teaching Dali to be more well-rounded.
Maybe you should study Diogenese and the Cynics. You could say that they were truly the ultimate group of philosophers in terms of facing the hardships of reality while also enjoying life. I think Diogenese could teach you quite a lot.

>That's not race that's literally trying to figure out human nature and nurture.
I guarantee you, race is a significant factor. Genetics are a significant factor. Think of it like 50% nature 50% nurture.
Besides, if a child is taught to be violent by an adult, then that further exemplifies my point that it's not wrong to be wary of children. Especially seeing as, according to science, there's a 5% chance of a black child being a psychopath purely by nature. That means that 5% of black children WILL become violent, even if they have the nicest parents in the world and no factors contributing to their violent tendencies.
But what's even more significant is the fact that something like 60% of black people WILL become violent if exposed to enough of these things; Alcohol, tobacco, drugs, crime, violence, fatherless homes, motherless homes, abusive parents, etc.
All things you can normally find in a low-income area. But mind you, all this applies to white people, too, just at a 45% rate rather than a 60% rate.

>Plus we in America have nearly ruined and abandoned the census and surveying faculties and I have to speak in a reframing of a racist friends metaphor because I can't assail the litany of fear and masquerade of false facts and statistics we have laying around.
Amen to that shit. This is why I like you.

>Ask yourself why it's your reaction that when you can't believe people in general did that and you will find yourself on the same side as the people who were robbing in a ritualized metaphor.
It's simple; I want to be the victor. I want to be on top. I want to succeed. If anyone or anything were to get in the way of that, I'd happily hurt or even kill them with no qualms whatsoever. I'm the kind of person who has every trait of a Sociopath except 1; I have incredible sociability and agreeableness, where as criminal sociopaths do not have any sociability or agreeableness. I'm a happy guy. I love life. I love my life. But I see every single human I come across as an enemy. However, I examine them closely, and if I've thoroughly examined them and found no issues with them, I consider them my ally, instead, and I truly appreciate their existence.
Edward Hibbleville - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:07:19 EST 54PBc7Id No.208063 Reply
Oh shit I forgot to break down paranoia by the numbers.
Ok, so, essentially, if there's a 1% chance of something happening, but you're actively avoiding it, then you're paranoid.
If, however, there's a 50% chance of something happening, and you're actively prepared for it, then you're just intelligent.
In some areas, you've got no chance of being robbed. In other areas, you are being watched at all times, and when the right person sees you standing alone with some sort of weakness showing, they will swifty and efficiently rob you and no one will care, because you're probably an outsider.

I lived in Philadelphia. I lived next to the Eastern ghettos. Several of my friends were robbed, and several were burglarized in their own homes. Mind you, Philly is almost 60% black, and the perps in all of these instances were black.

It's just not safe to be white in a poor black area. That being said, if none of these black people were poor, I'm sure their crime rates would plummet. Class has a lot more to do with violence than race, however race is also significant, and sad to say black people in the USA are truly our greatest victims of history aside from the Natives. But that being said, we've righted the wrongs of history, we're still just dealing with some of the after-effects, like multi-generational poverty. I blame quite a lot of this, since the 60's, on the Democrats, to be blunt. It seems like nobody likes to keep minorities poorer than Democrats.
Esther Grimwill - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:26:41 EST Ya59RsKY No.208064 Reply
Talk about a hasty generalization! 5% of black people have 2R MAOA and now they *are* psychopaths. Did you even read that article you linked about how MAO works? MAO overabundance doesn't automatically make you a sociopath (which is what the article suggests, and is a totally different thing from being a psychopath) it just alters the probability of certain tendencies. But now you want to turn it into some absolute signifier of criminality. Should we lock up babies who are born with this variant straight out of the womb? Can you not see your own slippery slope?

You can't govern different people by different laws and hold onto the Constitution (assuming we are still just talking about the US.) That has been established many times by the supreme court. Ignoring the illegality, it's just logically inconsistent to say that some people are held to one standard of behavior, and some people to another, based on nothing more than who their parents were. If you think having a stricter government will solve violence, you have to apply it across the board. If black people have nothing to fear in this proposed governance, then surely white people don't either, right?

>>If you think gun control can lower the USA's gun violence to levels even remotely similar to Japan
It depends on what you mean by gun control. You're hand waving away a lot of history here too. Ever since the war guns have been nearly totally banned in Japan. That means there are hardly any guns that have ever been in civilian hands in the country, and there is no major importation or domestic manufacture of new guns. Logically, this means there have been very few opportunities for firearms to enter the black market, though of course it does happen, it's simply radically more difficult to accomplish.
Contrast this with the US, a country where gun ownership has always been allowed, is allowed on a massive scale, and which both imports a tremendous amount of weapons and is the largest domestic manufacturer of weapons. Can you not see how the situation you claim to be the reason gun control can't work; that it's so easy for weapons to get into and out of the black market, exists precisely because there had been no control on the proliferation of weapons up to the point of the individual who buys the gun being able to decide to keep it legal or let it slip into the black market? It's like you put the entire onus of the control system on people's individual good will and good judgement, and then act surprised that the problem is intractable, because those are never reliable things.
Now, I don't advocate gun control. I think a well armed (but also well trained) populace is integral to interpersonal peace, but I'm not going to go and pretend that the reason there are no gun deaths in Japan is simply because they are some sort of non-violent master race. That's bullshit, there are no gun deaths because there are no guns available.

>>why would you make an argument based on some shotty book
Because it was a picture that I quickly found that demonstrated the point I was trying to make, from a well respected and widely known research institution. You're acting like pinning the date of the book on me is some kind of devastating shut down, who gives a fuck? You really shouldn't be throwing shade on people's sources either man, when I've seen you post some of the most truly outrageous conspiracy sites as cited sources for information that is available from much simpler and more direct places.
Phoebe Fabblepuck - Wed, 26 Apr 2017 21:32:40 EST LCuMtw/y No.208067 Reply
I get what you're saying because you recognize black communities are affected by black crime. But the reason the crime is that way is because of the public void of repsentative state. That's how gangs work. If you're saying we have affected groups with races and genetics yes but it's not a persons genetics that lead to crime.

It's perception and custom and stored knowledge. It's not a coincidence that things get so feudal there not even just for the gangs but for venture capitalists and government officials. Because those places are geographically in the past. Positive change often happened from community leaders that were highly evocative and believed in an actual public forum or restoring one. They had to deal with deals from people that promised solutions that never came. This making us cynical. This is cynicism for democrats we tied so many knots but only a few honeymoons got underway so to speak. The reason being our public forums had plenty of stabilizing fresh start naive but aware of history perspectives that helped for periods at a time but because we see the same reoccurring faults our organizing brains note that sameness.

now we let are selves as individuals breed enough epistemological doubt in our public forums that we are set with a bunch of narratives that do nothing but doubt or suspect and intense group of all the faults that lead to collapse. Clearly we did not mentally recover from the economies collapse. We as people now have to be prepared to actually reconcile a state of mind where equivocation and evocation exist. Because we don't suspect it possible that when entertaining an idea that we will be met with hostility. We usually end up arguing or finding compromise but we actually have to develop the same kind of ability that mlk and Malcolm x had and that was to be able to exist in evocative thought and argumentation at the same time. The better we are at that the more positive outcomes will be had and the less misery you will find because of the massive pollutants in macro images and psychological tests across america
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Sat, 29 Apr 2017 06:12:59 EST vano1wpA No.208076 Reply
>Eugenics_race_scientist has logged onto the chat
All of these facts and figures you've presented are nothing but modern phrenology. It used to be that scientific racists patiently explained how the Negroid was predisposed to violence and debauchery because of the unfortunate construction of his skull — now its MAO expression and haplogroups. Of course, you've attached yourself like a barnacle to this idea, now a racist cliche, that you are merely facing the difficult facts that others are unwilling to, that you are just being realistic, that a misplaced commitment to egalitarianism has blinded others to reason — so there's no point in arguing, you simply cannot be disabused of these (completely bullshit) post hoc justifications for your attitudes, which you disingenuously insist are not actually your attitudes, just the "facts." I post this only because it might be of benefit to someone reading this thread, you are so far down the rabbit hole of self-blinded ideology I could never hope to convince you of the fundamental intellectual bankruptcy of conceiving people and the world in this way.
Simon Sashnet - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:18:44 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208077 Reply
Pretty sure that you're full of shit. White people are most likely to be psychopaths, Europe and North-America have the most serial-killers after all.
Jarvis Shittingforth - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:57:54 EST Ya59RsKY No.208078 Reply
1493582274717.png -(11449B / 11.18KB, 641x427) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Ehh, I hate to agree with 54P, but while that is a commonly held belief movies and TV have created, it doesn't hold up to the facts. The proportion of race among serial killers is about the same as the proportion of race among all criminals, and about the only information we can get out of that knowledge is, perhaps, that serial killing isn't a distinct phenomena, but just an extreme criminality that increases directly proportionally to the general crime rate in a population.
Clara Chanderdock - Mon, 01 May 2017 15:23:56 EST 54PBc7Id No.208081 Reply
Flicker, I literally dare you to back up that statement with facts. I also dare you to reply to any of my science that I'm about to post just for you and everyone else here.

Be prepared to be proven wrong. Also, I dare you to cite a source backing up your claim.

>I hate to agree with 54P
What is it about my wisdom that makes people so afraid to agree with me?
Where did you find that picture? Doesn't look accurate.
Here's a quote from the Beaurou of Justice.

The demographic characteristics of homicide
victims and offenders differ from the general
Based on data for the years 1976-2005 -
z Blacks are disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The
victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than those for whites. The offending rates
for blacks were more than 7 times higher the rates for whites.
z Males represent 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization
rates for males were 3 times higher than the rates for females. The offending rates for males
were 8 times higher than the rates for females.


The Bell Curve argued that the IQ differences cannot explain all of the racial differences in crime. Richard Lynn has argued that an additional factor is that races differ in their average degree of psychopathy which is a personality trait associated with crime.[72][73][74] Robert Hare, creator of the most widely used psychopathy test, reported in a 2008 study on a general population sample that Blacks scored on average 3.86 vs. 1.7 for Whites.[75]


You can't fight facts.
Samuel Warrynidging - Tue, 02 May 2017 00:26:51 EST 58c+uNGL No.208082 Reply
I honestly tried to take the race test... I don't get it? It's asking me to assign words to groups of people? Like glorious as either good (european) or bad (black people)... that's like asking to what group would you assign the word asshole to white people or black people... well there are assholes in every group... so... how am i supposed to answer?
Henry Hodgeford - Tue, 02 May 2017 14:25:31 EST Ya59RsKY No.208088 Reply
1493749531189.png -(83454B / 81.50KB, 668x621) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>Where did you find that picture? Doesn't look accurate.
Jesus Christ man, even when I'm trying to help you you're going to jump up my butt about sources? Here is the source for that data, broken down into decade rather than lumped, with the research institution at the bottom. Is that good enough for you, lord master?

>>What is it about my wisdom that makes people so afraid to agree with me?
It's that you stay stupid shit like that.

>>You can't fight facts.
Yes, but you aren't giving us facts, you're presenting data in a distorted way and offering a very strong spin on it. So you make a test that establishes blacks have a higher rate of psychopathology. Ok, but did you establish CAUSATION or a mere correlation? Did you control for the fact that poverty severely increases one's risk to psychopathology, and therefore is an absolutely confounding factor in this case?
Fanny Nunderchurk - Tue, 02 May 2017 23:43:06 EST lxQ2unrs No.208091 Reply
IMO we are all implicitly racist in some way. I dont think it's an inherent sin, your actions are what determine how evil you are, not what your subconscious does. All the test says (if you are shown to be racist) is that you strongly associate negative traits with african americans (there is also an obesity one I think). Is that bad? Only if you act on it.

I guarantee, you put this test on Arabs about pakistanis, or africans about pygmys, or balloon animals about anyone non-balloon animal they'd get the same result. I have a hard time believing there is anyone out there who doesn't have ingrained racism about some other racial group, somewhere. Most of human history was marred with extreme xenophobia, it's only recently that we think that's a bad thing. Only the most cosmopolitan upbringing even hope to could stop it, and even then, it's a theory that forcing white kids to play with an equal subset of asian/black/native american/ bantu african/arab/mongol/romani/etc... people would eliminate this implicit racism.
Martha Furringworth - Wed, 03 May 2017 07:52:36 EST d4DXKOh3 No.208092 Reply
Don't forget that we humans have evolved in a tribal environment. I'm not saying we genetically are predetermined to be racist, but I will say that the basic architecture of our brain is structured to favour things we know, and distrust things we don't know.

Which actually goes across many things, not just racism. Just look at people's taste in food or music. I remember being a teen and just listening to hardcore hiphop and the most underground heavy metal, and I'd scoff at jazz and classical music because that's for old people, now half my cd collection is jazz and classical music - because I found out that several techniques used in heavy metal come from jazz and classical music, and I started chasing some hiphop samples I liked, and those came from jazz and classical music.

There's this Dutch saying: The farmer won't eat what he doesn't know.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Thu, 04 May 2017 03:42:31 EST 3OceFGwp No.208103 Reply
1493883751634.jpg -(175616B / 171.50KB, 1136x381) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Again, the most transparent mask of propriety, the obscene little fig leaf is a straight-faced claim to be representing the "facts." It's a textbook example of argumentation in bad faith, and also by this point a hopelessly well-worn racist canard.
>my wisdom
Hahahahahah. One dimension of this is made clear in a few words, you like to flatter yourself by convincing yourself that it's smart to be racist.

Source please? Do you have a citation for this claim? Do you have facts and logical arguments or just ad hominems?
Wikipedia and internet forums taught a whole generation of budding Talmudic scholars the arcane techniques of bad-faith engagement. I can't really convey to you how utterly generic, as in conforming to genre, your posts in this thread are — much like how every Nigerian 419 email seems to be cribbed from the same style guide, I could have read these posts by Amateur Race Scientist a hundred times already, some time ago, somewhere, down to the citation of The Bell Curve via Wikipedia. At one point I actually did dispute statistics, argue over methodologies, etc, but I realize now this is hopeless, as the racist's patience for this game is inexhaustible and he will never come clean to the fundamental disingenuousness of his rhetoric.

I'm not the first person to recognize this; Jean Paul-Sartre did too. Pic related is him discussing the character of the anti-Semite, but it could just as easily have been written yesterday about the internet racist.
Clara Fanfoot - Sat, 06 May 2017 10:53:42 EST 2ml6FJEz No.208119 Reply
Too true. Crystalyzed knowledge is the son of fluid intelligence but it's also it's father later in life when are mind is less easily opened.
Jenny Dungerspear - Mon, 08 May 2017 08:31:08 EST 54PBc7Id No.208125 Reply
Bruh. You can't just argue against facts with factless opinions. Come back in 100 years.
Hugh Drinninghood - Mon, 08 May 2017 15:18:53 EST Ya59RsKY No.208129 Reply
Bruh, you can't use the same canard to defend that what you're saying isn't a canard. Come back never, which is when the 'I'm just representing the facts' saw will hold water.
Martha Chullyseck - Fri, 12 May 2017 13:17:19 EST fauAxRSH No.208138 Reply
Poverty leads to desperation, crime, and "bad" people.

Poverty afflicts more blacks than whites due to previous institutionalized racism. After decades of systematic depression, blacks are poorer than whites. However, many poor whites are just as bad. Therefor it is reasonable to expect blacks to be poorer and thus more inclined to hostility towards you and your estate. Just as poor white people are more inclined.

There is and always will be an us vs them inclination since we developed as a clan type social species. Our tribe vs theirs shit.

So no, you're not racist for being a person. All people are racist. Racism is undeserving discrimination against another race without any reason than skin color. I'd be cautious of a broke person wearing nothing but red clothes and a bandana eying me down. It doesn't matter what their skin color is. The same colored person could be wearing a sweatervest and in some rich part of town and I wouldn't think much of them.
Phyllis Goodman - Tue, 16 May 2017 12:06:15 EST j6Iw79c/ No.208147 Reply
1494950775502.png -(280771B / 274.19KB, 500x524) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>blathers about sources
>cites Metapedia, which a simple Wikipedia check would have told him to be a "far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, white separatist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi" encyclopedia

classic X8
Charlotte Buckledan - Wed, 17 May 2017 13:32:02 EST 54PBc7Id No.208148 Reply
Nice argument, faggot. I liked all your deep and insightful sources. Did you literally just come here from /pol/ because you're butthurt about the things I say over there?

I'll tell you what, when you grow some balls, try to refute my facts. Good luck, you'll need it.
Molly Goodwell - Wed, 17 May 2017 16:54:43 EST Ya59RsKY No.208149 Reply
Cool. Are you going to reply to the any number of other posts that are also responding to you? Or just going to keep saying 'refute my facts' after people refute your facts?
Phoebe Blatherhall - Wed, 17 May 2017 18:04:05 EST YXMsMuFM No.208150 Reply

Shouldn't you instead be defending your sources or something?
Phyllis Goodman - Thu, 18 May 2017 03:18:07 EST Ec3DbRC6 No.208151 Reply
I've learned that refuting X8 is mostly a waste of time, because not only is he cartoonishly smug, he does not value argumentative rigor. His arguments, such that they bloom and rot in the course of exchanges with clearer thinkers, bear all the telltale signs of having been cobbled together on the fly from express-purpose Google searches, rather than any kind of good-faith deep engagement with data. That's why you'll find a lot of right-wing blogs and stuff like KKK websites and Metapedia among his sources. One time, trying to establish the depth of his grounding in climate studies, he linked me to skepticalscience.org, a repository of counterarguments to climate-change skepticism, in between a bunch of links to stale old strawmen about sea ice.

On the rare occasion that he finds himself cornered but wishes to stay involved in the thread, he'll double down on that maddening didacticism and unload a bunch of pompous bullshit about the joy of having found a worthy adversary, oh what a rapturous day in this intellectual slum of an imageboard, blah blah blah, really just an excuse to complain more about how nobody ever comes correct with facts. Then he'll throw in something unverifiable about the accolades he's earned from some august and unnamed institution, or a five-figure research grant he's got to get to work on. He's also been involved in numerous secret raids on al-Qaeda, and has over 300 confirmed kills.

As to the shit he wrote in >>208081, I'm not disputing the Bureau of Justice study or those claims it supports regarding the criminology of class. The disproportionate representation of blacks among both the victims and perpetrators of violent crime follows from a few common-sense facts: poor people commit more crime and have higher recidivism rates, poor people rarely leave their neighborhooods, and guess which race inhabits all the poor neighborhoods in America (and is persistently gerrymandered around and targeted for effective disenfranchisement with voter ID legislation)? In fact, the hypothesis of a race-independent statistical basis for crime is supported by the second study cited in that Metapedia snippet—and here's where you've really put your foot in your mouth, you poor braying ass. /me clears throat

Removed from context, the figure sounds damning, doesn't it? It's a figure for psychopathy, somehow, that comes out to 3.86 for blacks against 1.7 for whites—that's more than double! But in fact this is a starting point for the paper's analysis, not a conclusion; this figure (called a PCL:SV) is a statistical quantification of Hare's four-factor checklist model of psychopathy (PCL), accounting for interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and overtly antisocial features as indicators permitting a diagnosis. Here's the next few lines:
>As indicated in Figure 1, over half of the total sample had a score of 0 or 1, and about two thirds had a score of 2 or less. A score of at least 13, used in the MacArthur Civil Psychiatric Study as an indication of “potential psychopathy” (Monahan et al., 2001), was obtained by 1.2% of the total sample, 1.0% of men, 1.2% of women, 1.9% of African Americans, and approximately 1% of Whites. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .84; the four PCL: SV facet alphas ranged from .65 (Interpersonal) to .75 (Lifestyle), which were acceptable given only three items per facet.

There is indeed a higher mean score on the assessment among blacks, but this is accompanied by a higher standard deviation; in other words, the incidence of a high score among blacks is amplified by a greater incidence of outliers. This is what we would expect of a condition subject to exacerbation by such socioeconomically predictable factors as alcoholism and nonnuclear upbringing. And sure enough, the only factor correlations found to be significantly at variance between demographics in the study were the Affective–Violence correlation (greater among whites) against the Antisocial–Violence correlation (greater among blacks). Meaning that >>208077's stereotypical assertion about heartless white serial killers, if a little crude and exaggerated, reflects an empirical reality: among clinical psychopaths, whites tend less often to be antisocial with poor impulse control, and more often to exhibit remorselessness and lack of empathy, those classical traits of inborn evil.

The purpose of the study is to gauge the correlations of PCL-measured traits with IQ, violent behavior and rates of alcohol use.
>The current study is the first to demonstrate invariance of a
latent PCL: SV model across sex and ethnicity in a large, randomly
ascertained, community sample. Thus, the results provide addi-
tional support for the four-factor model of psychopathy, consistent
with studies of offender (Neumann et al., 2007), psychiatric (Jack-
son et al., 2007; Vitacco et al., 2005), and adolescent (Neumann et
al., 2006) samples. ... Overall, the associations between the
psychopathy factors and the external correlates were similar across
the sex and ethnic subgroups
, with few statistical differences in
these associations between groups.

That's all it comes down to. The study does not purport to show blacks to be violent crazy criminals in any exceptional proportion, it's to investigate patterns of factor covariance in the population at large. But then, real science is rarely so sensationalistic as "race realists" like to read it.

The other part of the Metapedia link cites the scholarship of eugenicist Richard Lynn, who has published a paper [1] using Penthouse Forum and the anonymous World Penis Size site as major sources for data [2]. X8 seems suddenly very skeptical of the Wikipedia he usually defends so ardently, so I'd invite him to take a quick glance through the rest of the sources section to find such sterling sources as Breitbart, the Daily Mail, the American Renaisssance, the Law and Freedom Foundation, the Gatestone Institute, VDARE, and what seems to be a delightful personal blog, darkmoon.me. Wild conspiracy ravings and a pageful of original poetry!

[1] https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/an-examination-of-rushton_s-theory-of-differences-in-penis-length-and-circumference-and-r-k-life-history-theory-in-113-populations.pdf
[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size
Jenny Duckhood - Thu, 18 May 2017 15:38:56 EST Ya59RsKY No.208152 Reply
I was also in the thread where he linked to skepticalscience! Hilarious. Oh man, good times. So long X8/54P, you had it coming, you did rile up some people to make interesting points from time to time, your unique brand of shitposting will not be missed.

Also a learned statistical breakdown of that data that I didn't bother poking into. Although I think that the concept of statistical outliers dragging a mean up is pretty much too nuanced to be used rhetorically against racist apologists, it's a satisfying explanation for me.
Fanny Bogglelere - Sun, 28 May 2017 23:18:08 EST +XN4QoUK No.208163 Reply
>am i racist for being afraid of being robbed by a couple of children?

no, youre an unfunny troll.
Hannah Bunfoot - Wed, 31 May 2017 04:05:08 EST 1tQasWvq No.208172 Reply
1496217908074.jpg -(40717B / 39.76KB, 445x571) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
> Discriminating against someone based on race.
This. Remember, noone is implicitly racist. You have a choice - you can identify with the group, or the individual.
Fucking Sanningshaw - Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:10:06 EST jAYQ7vMV No.208230 Reply
Nothing quite like admitting your opponent is right and then telling yourself you won the argument, amirite?

God damn I wish we could have more conversations about 'race reality' around here without people trying to turn it into a fight.

But then again, nobody comes to /pss/ to converse, they just come here to disagree with everyone else here.
Fuck Pinninghot - Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:46:27 EST Ya59RsKY No.208234 Reply
Well, I never suggested nor believe that the argument 54P put forward was right. I merely was saying that his arguments were of higher quality than the average poster who espoused his kind of ideology, and he was much more civil and would mostly try to consider what the other post said, so he was much more pleasant to debate with than those who have followed in his wake. In all honesty, I miss 54P for this reason (RIP.)

But, surely you must know that the topic of 'race reality' is a bait for a fight? Are you saying you want to go to some place where everyone already agrees with your opinion? I would suggest stormfront if that's the kind of term you want to throw around. Sounds like a nice special snowflake safe place where no one has to disagree with each other. This place is for debating philosophy and social sciences, it says so right up top.
Lydia Hinningkore - Sat, 17 Jun 2017 01:00:12 EST 1rbxcRA1 No.208241 Reply
>>tatted up white kids on drugs

You're a lil racist and fully classist
Cornelius Tillingfuck - Sat, 17 Jun 2017 05:41:31 EST FnoN5W0l No.208242 Reply

After the crybully, the cryracist. What has internet done.
Beatrice Crashway - Sat, 24 Jun 2017 16:16:19 EST G97uCr6I No.208258 Reply
So, according to you, everyone who talks about the reality of race is baiting others into a fight? It's a subject no one can bring up unless they're a troll?
Ebenezer Grimfoot - Sat, 24 Jun 2017 20:42:26 EST B0ii5qEp No.208259 Reply
Anyone who wants to talk about race reality should go to stormfront, its a marginal view most people dont agree with.
the flicker !FwnV7hV52I - Sun, 25 Jun 2017 04:05:43 EST rDFhhhN4 No.208260 Reply
1498377943551.jpg -(199182B / 194.51KB, 888x695) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
The "reality of race" is a fundamentally dishonest phrase, since people who employ it are never interested in discussing the material reality of racial conflict, or the contingent history of the creation and reification of racial categories. There is indeed a certain "reality," however shaky and provisional, to a racial category like "white," the definition of which has always shifted in service of class power — as when Southern and Eastern European immigrants in America were not considered "white," fitting the interests of the Anglo labor aristocracy. There is indeed a "reality" to how the very scientific racism which reactionaries peddle today has its genesis in the apologetics of the chattel slave trade.

Of course this is not what "race realists" are talking about when they employ the phrase. I have emphasized the bad-faith speech of the scientific racist so stridently in this thread because it is important to recognize his disingenousness for what it is. The reactionary who peddles scientific racism always couches his words in the civil manner of the good republican parliamentarian, and seeks above all to convince you of the frankness and honesty of his inquiry. Deny him this rhetorical charity and he will bray and bellow that you have violated the rules of civic discourse. It is all a game. The reactionary is a parasite that feeds on unmerited political goodwill, and scientific racism is how he convinces the impressionable that nativist settler hatred of nonwhites is reasonable, respectable, and proceeds from authoritative evidentiary grounds which the educated and critical will accept.
George Fottingsire - Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:31:10 EST WFGKCTJE No.208262 Reply
No, you said you wanted to discuss 'race reality' without it turning into a fight. Which means you want to be at a place where no one at all would disagree with you. There's quite a broad space between arguing an opinion different from other posters and being a troll, or don't you know that?
Cedric Clorringspear - Thu, 03 Aug 2017 17:35:56 EST cc26aplb No.208327 Reply
Wouldn't it just be easier to say that everyone is racist?
Wesley Guddlesure - Sun, 06 Aug 2017 04:55:32 EST 4FAq+MEK No.208342 Reply

But then how can he fool himself into thinking he's not as censorious and intolerant as the people he's attacking?

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.