We have a responsibility on this Forum to do our part, however small, to stop White Supremacists

You don't understand this, do you. The police will immediately shoot anyone with a gun. Your brilliant idea is flawed.

 

From the Washington Post today:

"While the data show a decades-long drop-off in violence by left-wing groups, violence by white supremacists and other far-right attackers has been on the rise since Barack Obama’s presidency — and has surged since President Trump took office."

"Terrorism researchers say right-wing violence sprouted alongside white anxiety about Obama’s presidency and has accelerated in the Trump era. Trump and his aides have continuously denied that he has contributed to the rise in violence. But experts say right-wing extremists perceive the president as offering them tacit support for their cause."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

 

Many people were overly impressed by The Bell Curve which did not take into account the impact of racist government policies designed to systematically suppress and degrade targeted minority populations.

 

They could be a little more accurate (e.g. the highest right wing terrorism incident rates were in the 1990s) and also be less emotional with the vocab. Its currently an upward trend; not a surge. Tabloidism only gives right winger the means to avoid the evidence (such as, only a a week or so ago, a right winger claiming that right wing terrorism was just vandalism)

 

I don't know what those would be that would impact IQ.

 

The WaPo gets those stats by defining many left wing fascist twits as right wingers.

"The inconvenient truth is that our leaders, both Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us for decades. They are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history. The takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations. I could write a ten page essay on all the damage these corporations have caused, but here is what is important.
El Paso Killer’s Manifesto, Political Reasons , 8/4/19.
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/7e...cedfb854dbdd7c3559b1c5afa0e15d63402d39934.pdf

A left wing twit, unless you believe right wingers identify Communist China as their model government.

 

Okay, you've established that you're a "blank slate" believer. It's all down to the environment. And evidently, you believe that this is so obvious that any decent person will agree with you. So it should be very easy for you to answer my questions, which I will repeat here, with some added emphasis in the first question, and some added sophistication in the second to bring it into line with the first :

Therefore, if someone were to assert that individuals differ in intelligence due to differences in both their environments and genetic heritage, and that genetics plays a bigger role than does environment in creating IQ differences among individuals, they would show that they are a white supremacist?

How about someone who explicitly asserts that, between certain ethnic groups, one is more intelligent than the other, due in part to genetic reasons -- also a white supremacist? [I've added the 'in part' because I don't know of anyone who believes that genes alone account for intelligence or intelligent behavior. Literally no one of the people I've read. It would be a pretty crazy thing, to assert that environment can play NO role at all in how intelligent a person is. But there are some who assert that genetics is quite important as well.]

It seems to me clear that, since the 'environment is all' belief should be obvious to any decent person, according to you, anyone who has either or both of the above positions must be some sort of white supremacist, or racist, even if they concede that of course environment can play a role as well as genetics. I repeat: I've never read anyone at all, not a single person, who says environment has zero effect.

But I may be misinterpreting your position. So what do you think about the two statements above, which say, in effect, environment plays a role, but so do genes.

I'm genuinely curious about your answer -- you may not have thought about this much so take your time, but it seems to me that you are saying environment is all, genes have nothing to do with it and anyone who says they do, that they are important in determining IQ, must be a racist (and in the American context, a white supremacist).

So what do you think? What do you make of my two statements above?

 

I stopped reading straight away. I made a simple point: the white supremacist really isn't interested in the evidence. They will refer to spurious relationship and they will refer to shoddy convenient study. They do not undertake correct research methods, given those methods will lead to rejection of their core authoritarian attitudes. This is all very obvious, so it beggar's belief why you don't acknowledge it.

 

So far CNN has yet to report on the Dayton shooter's beliefs. He sounds like AOC.

 

Think about your last sentence there. The people I've read who believe that there is a "true link to IQ" do not deny the influence of non-genetic factors. Not a single one of them, and, if you think about it, it would be ridiculous to say that a baby born into a toxic environment, with a violent illiterate mother, surrounded by violent illiterates, would grow up with exactly the same ability to score on IQ tests as he would if he were born and grew up raised by two loving parents, both of them professors at Harvard.
The only argument is: do genes play some role, and if so how much?

I understand this is a radioactive topic. We can expect certain people on the Left to pull out all the stops, to use demagogery and slander and misquotation -- generally they are just ignorant of the relevant research so I suppose that excuses them a wee bit.

But I think it's useful, for sanitary purposes, to expose them when they do. As a great Marxist once said, the motorforce of progress is truth and not lies.

 

State mandated discrimination can decimate a targeted minority, for instance to deny employment and income will can result in malnutrition, inadequate housing, disease ...
Woodrow Wilson stopped the advancement and assimilation of the black American population in its tracks through racist federal policies that were quickly embraced by many state governments.

 

See, I told you you are too pig headed to take sound advice.

Your strategy for dealing with white anxiety has failed for 50 years. What is that definition of insanity again?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/20/upshot/white-anxiety-trump.html

 

"White supremacy is not a mental illness. We need to call it what it is: Domestic terrorism. And we need to call out Donald Trump for amplifying these deadly ideologies." ~ Elizabeth Warren

Anybody want to tell her the Dayton shooter was a socialist and Warren supporter?

 

AOC and other environmental extremists are responsible for mass shootings makes as much sense as holding Trump responsible.

No wonder the MSM is suppressing the record many of these shooters leave behind.

 

Based on that link it seems like white America is finally realizing that the world doesn't revolve around them and when they say "losing their identity" they mean an America not exclusively for white Americans anymore.

 

I agree but the intensity around blaming the El Paso shooting on Trump is mentioned in the left wing media, but now about the Dayton shooter.

 

And it is making them angry and they want to do something about it.

 

Sparta apparently tried to systematically eliminate Helots that they perceived to be especially smart and competent thus removing them from the gene pool.
Was this de facto genetic engineering environmental?

 

Well, based on the blatant anti-white sentiment coming from the democrat party is it any wonder?

 

You're dodging my questions.

Yes, the people I call "white supremacists" -- the Klan types -- are ignorant of all research on this issue, as well as of much else. I had an extended debate with one such -- maybe on this forum -- last year, and brought up all kinds of evidence for the complexity of this issue, from Mayan civilization, to the recent substantial increase in average IQ in Ireland, to the change in Korean academic performance when they move from Japan (where they are an under-caste) to the US, to the Flynn Effect (which he just flat-out denied), etc etc.

But many Leftists use the term "white supremeacists" much more broadly: for instance, I recently read an article in Boston Review which just casually referred to Charles Murray as a 'white supremacist'.

Now I don't have much respect for the Hard Left. I think they're dishonest people, most of them, either that, or ignorant, and a threat to liberal democracy. So I am not surprised when they smear people they disagree with. You probably know that the Communists, the dominant trend among anti-capitalists for many decades, routinely smeared their Marxist opponents as "agents of Hitler and the Mikado" -- so I'm not surprised to see good men like Charles Murray used in the same way.

But I don't know where you fall on the spectrum of honest dealing. It's logically perfectly possible to be on the Left, even the Far Left, and to engage in political polemic honestly -- not attributing views to your opponents that you know that they don't have. Rare, but possible.

Or, it's possible to be honest, but to sincerely use expressions like "white supremacist" in such a way as to take in a very broad group of people who just happen to disagree with your 'blank slate' view. But then, if you do this, you're being very careless in your use of political vocabulary. It would be like me saying that anyone who believes in any form of socialism is a Stalinist, by definition. I would have created a private vocabulary that is mis-leading when used publically.

That's why I asked you how you would rate those two statements. And I ask you again, please evaluate them. It seems to me that you would have to say that both of them are the utterances of white supremacists. But I don't want to attribute views to you that you don't have.

So ... what do you think?

 

So you have no idea of how many there are and cannot name any ???

 

I think most white Americans would welcome immigrants of and race who believe in the key concepts of the American Revolution - the American Way and can speak English, support themselves and be productive contributors of our society.

White supremacists would probably only want white immigrants, but that would include almost all Hispanics - which assumes that White supremacists know the meaning of "white".

 

And only leftists are openly racist these days. Because they get away with it.

 

But that is not what we are getting.

seems to me you don't get to tell White supremacists what they mean by white.

 

Suppose the genetic contribution to intelligence is, say, 75%. Now, if we remove all the people with an IQ over 90 from the environment, we have changed the environment. Because of 'regression to the mean', the low-IQ people who are left will have some children whose IQ is higher than theirs. But these children, and all their children, will grow up in a low-IQ environment. Does that make sense?

By the way, that's an interesting fact about the Spartans, which I did not know. I now have a picture of the Crypteia encountering a helot and asking him, "A man had a wolf, a goat, and a cabbage ..."