Why you can't have an honest or civil conversation with most racists

"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement"

I agree with this, partially. I do believe that there are patterns of behavior that are more or less common depending upon the racial group, and they may or may not result in greater achievement, depending upon the context in which they are being evaluated. The other definitions do not apply to me at all.

Before I begin, I will agree that those who are most passionate about using science to prove racial differences are usually doing so out of malice and often seek to base social policy on those findings--I do not agree with doing this. That being said, I think that everything should be open to questioning and analysis.

I think that the problems currently plaguing the black community are largely, perhaps entirely, based on problems in the environment. I think that if we could magically place all of them in loving, stable environments, provide good education, and remove all racism that they would perform vastly better than they have. All of the negative life outcomes pertaining to the black population would dramatically improve.

First, I will assume that we can all agree that physical differences between the races are genetic. People are more or less lactose intolerant depending upon race, have more or less tolerance to alcohol based on race, and are more or less athletically inclined based on race--culture and environment play virtually no role in determining these things. General physical appearance is also biologically determined.

I'll also assume that we all agree that evolution and natural selection affect human beings. All animals have developed both physical and cognitive traits in response to their environment for the purpose of increasing their reproductive fitness. Human beings are animals and have also developed certain physical and cognitive traits in order to adapt to their environments. I think that it would be extremely improbable for human races, which diverged and became isolated many thousands of years ago, to have very different physical characteristics and still be identical in terms of their cognitive traits. Intuitively speaking, how likely do you believe that is? You would have to assume that our environments would somehow select for identical cognitive traits while simultaneously causing all kinds of physical adaptations. In other words, somehow, our environments were particularly geared so that only physical adaptations would be necessary in order to thrive, and that cognitive demands would be virtually identical--no accidents in biological development allowed. Think about this: we can breed animals to have a variety of traits, simply by sorting them and then breeding them over a period of time. In dogs, we have some that are more or less docile, intelligent, loyal, etc. Now, let's go to another scenario.

The year is 12,000 B.C. Your people have recently discovered agriculture and begun to live in fixed, more densely populated areas. A variety of new challenges await you, in the form of managing social relationships, handling the logistics of this more complex society, and far more complex social hierarchies have emerged. Previously, you lived in a group with only about 150 people; now, you are living in a community with thousands of people. The traits that are required to thrive in this new society are quite different: they require different personality traits and more cognitive horsepower to manage. The people who are more aggressive, less cooperative, and not intelligent enough to handle the increasingly complex division of labor lose their status--by extension, their mating opportunities are reduced. Eventually, the people who come from these groups, many years later, are going to have genetic differences that separate them from hunter-gatherer groups. Let's say there are five of these groups, spread all over the planet, and that these groups develop certain cultural practices that determine one's position within these societies. Let's also assume that the crops that are cultivated are different, the weather is different, the religions and spiritual beliefs that emerge are different, and that the cultural practices are different. For example, the Chinese invented standardized testing, and intelligence was highly selected for in ancient China—this is one of many examples. There is no way, either in the hunter-gatherer groups or in the agricultural groups that emerged, that everything would remain identical over thousands of years.

Now, let's talk about east Asians, since I know a hell of a lot more about them (Asian studies major, Chinese specialization, UT Austin) than I do black people. People of east Asian descent, no matter the country, have demonstrably higher IQ's than whites, even when their socioeconomic backgrounds are taken into account. They outperform whites on virtually every measure you can think of, including income, crime rates, drug abuse, educational attainment, and many others. Many people of east Asian descent came here very poor, were ruthlessly discriminated against, and they are now outperforming whites despite this.

The Ashkenazi Jews are another example. How could culture possibly account for 2% of the population being overwhelmingly dominant in virtually every field in which intellectual prowess is a requirement? They account for 25% of Nobel prizes, a similar number of the top academic positions within the country, and 46% have a household income of over $100,000. Historically, Jews have performed comparably well in other societies, even in the face of extreme discrimination. Why are certain medical conditions that are prevalent among Jews highly correlated with intellectual giftedness? Why haven't non-Jewish whites been able to compete with them, despite all of our advantages?

Complex civilizations have also developed at far greater frequencies outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Why are the vast majority of human achievements concentrated in three regions of the world--Europe, east Asia, and the middle east? The issue is not whether one or several of these things can be explained by culture and environment, but how all of it can be explained away. We can either accept dozens of complicated, mysterious explanations for these differences, or we can concede that racial differences may play some role.

All of that aside, I don't think public discussions of this issue are very helpful and probably do a lot of harm--people will always use differences to justify hate. I should also emphasize that I do not think these differences are responsible for the majority of problems faced by the black community, but I do think they may account for some.

Some on here will automatically conclude that I hate black people and that it is what motivates me to discuss this. Actually, I'm just fascinated by how people differ biologically. Also, if I'm just a nasty racist (not saying you suggested that but some inevitably will), why do I concede "inferiority" relative to Jews and east Asians? Do I just happen to not like black people but love everyone else? At the end of the day, I always give individuals the benefit of the doubt. Many will suggest that I will use this information to judge people in advance--the reality is that, quite honestly, I think I am smarter than everyone I meet, so everyone starts from a position of inferiority

By the way, you don't have to answer every question I posed. I just like to pose questions to encourage thoughtful responses.

 

Historically the intellectual racists are from the North, mostly Northeast and the hardcore racists are from the South, mostly the Southeast. Most blacks I know would rather deal with the latter because they are honest and they know where they stand with them.

Racism is not objective in many cases as the left tries to label anyone that does not agree with them as racists using their 'dog whistle' code book. They never think they are wrong, even when they are.

 

I didn't change the meaning of the word to suit my argument. You can see for yourself that the definition I used is right there in the dictionary. Racism meaning racist discrimination is the common definition.

When people argue that it MUST mean racial superiority, not only is that inconsistent with the etymology of the word it can potentially let racists off the hook who will lie and say they aren't racial supremacists therefore they are not racists. I'm not using wordplay here I'm insisting on the most commonly utilized definition of the word.

 

So as long as you do not hate Blacks you cannot be racist against Blacks?

I do not hate horses, but I do not believe in equality between horses and humans.

I would have assumed you'd argue the same belief held toward Blacks would make one racist.

But since you defined racist as needing hate as an ingredient, that means only those who hate Blacks are racist; others who do not want equality, or to be near Blacks but do not hate Blacks are not racist.

Thank you for clearing the confusion.

 

Actually I said hatred OR intolerance. So if you don't want social equality or to be near Blacks that would qualify as intolerance and thus be a form of racism. In fact if you can not accept a person of another race in any social setting (ex. marry someone of another race or have them as a friend, co-worker or neighbor) then you are a racist.

 

If I don't want to be in close proximity with horses under certain conditions am I intolerant of horses?

 

Yes. Although I hope you are not suggesting any unreasonable conditions. Obviously treating a horse like a human in every way imaginable is not realistic or appropriate.

 

I'm one of those you would call a racist.

I used to believe in being anti -racist until I discovered anti-racists didn;t care about racism towards white people, indeed they claim that it's impossible. Now anti-racists think it's OK to be racist against Jews.

Anti-racists won't consider statistics, they just dismiss them out of hand. They shout down arguments, They are hypocritical and the lie constantly.

They expect you to believe things that are patently untrue in the name of their political convictions.

 

I don't believe you. You've been racist for a long time and I doubt that you encountered enough Egalitarians who believe the crap you are claiming to make you change your views.

 

So I am intolerant of horses if I don't want to interact with horses the same way I do with people?

 

Obviously not. Horses are not people.

 

You've created an ad hoc exception for "non-people" and your logic is inconsistent. You make no sense in other words.

 

OK, lets put this in a US context.

I'll make a statement which I believe to be true:

The path to success involved i) Studying to tertiary education and qualifying to at least associate degree level in a marketable subject ii) Taking a low paying job on completion of that education within your chosen field of expertise until you achieve proficiency iii) Not having children outside a stable relationship and iv) avoiding overindulgence in alcohol or drugs. essentially it is about delayed gratification.

There is a substantial portion of the black community who eschew ALL of the above.They mess around in school, cannot stay in any job, produce children in such irresponsible manner that the term 'baby daddy' was invented by them to denote a male who is the father of a child completely outside any sort of settled relationship and use drink and drugs to an irresponsible level. Obviously, every community has these people but in Black inner city society, this is the norm.

Moreover black people who go to university study useless subjects within a liberal arts program such as black studies, sociology etc. Programs that lead nowhere. Very few are in STEM subjects.

Ipso facto it is the culture of blacks that leads them into the problems they experience.

 

Being attentive to the safety of me and mine and avoiding the threats that can lead to danger in NOT being racist. Allowing the realities of society and the obvious violence to be noted and reacted to is NOT racist. Feeling a level of fear that may cause advanced observation that leads to avoidance of certain people based on generalized attributes is NOT racist.

Profiling is a necessity and done by every single human on Earth...that this can involve Races, Religions, Demographics and Geographics only makes sense as it is what profiling entails. ANYONE who denies they do so in some way is quite simply, lying.

 

White people who have had job advancement blocked because the position is slotted for minorities tend to understandably have a problem with AA. Especially in businesses where there is an obvious bias at the upper tier (no blacks). Lots of places keep american blacks out of the top but follow quotas on the worker and supervisory level.

 

There is another issue that New World black people are just saddled with ...and that is high levels of testosterone. Obviously rejected by leftist ideologues but science has known for a long time that given that black people were selected for strength then the levels of testosterone would naturally be higher. testosterone is closely correlated with violent crime and also with athletic ability. This si why Jamaica produces the world's fastest sprinters but is also very very violent.

 

Does testosterone also explain the murder rates European descendants in Central and Southern America have by chance?

 

What data is your claim based on?

 

My remark is based on top murder rates worldwide lists.

 

You haven't shown the degree of European ancestry the murderers are.

For instance, 65% of America is white, but the percentage of white murderers is less than 65%.

 

So in other words you are just making up lies? Why? Is the "equality" position so weak that you can only defend it by making up transparent lies?

 

Well not every country functions the same regarding crime. For example, England and Wales murder rates are so low that the numbers are compiled over a three-year period, including Black murder counts. Conversely, America is incredibly violent with Whites and Blacks splitting the murders in half every single year. America also has the world's largest prison population. Central and Southern America is made up of European and Indigenous mixed people and their murder rates AND murder counts are unmatched.

I know it's a major blow to the anti-black rhetoric of Blacks being violence-prone, but folks are going to have to accept the fact that there are far more violent races out there.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not arguing anything about equality. In fact I would go as far as to say that European violence is a class of its own.

 

And why should anybody care what you say? You appear to have zero credibility.

 

They can consult top 10 murder rates worldwide lists, look up who inhabits the places, then look up racial make up. One never has to take my word for anything.

 

By definition Affirmative Action is racism. However, it is argued to be justifiable racism.