White people...

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by NegaStoat [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Mostly on topic, a white cop shoots and kills a black person. The liberal media goes crazy with it and makes it a national issue, time after time. Meanwhile, a white cop straight up executes a white male (unarmed) somewhat close to where I live and no one gives two shits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZBS_p-NVFI

I more or less stopped watching TV a long while back when it comes to news reporting and racial issues. I could rant about giving a shit about your community, raising your kids right, and praising education and striving for intellectual excellence as opposed to embracing a culture of educational compromise and idol worship of sports figures. But that wouldn't be a productive rant since people are more comfortable having someone else to blame.

Yea...my guess is if we dug into it, unarmed Whites would come out ahead of Blacks on the whole getting shot by cops thing.

But it's noted that you think whites might have reverse discrimination in the area of being shot by cops.

I agree it's stupid how much emphasis we put on sports. But I don't think that's just a minority thing.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's a reason why Bernie's call for virtually free college is popular.

Well it's gotta be either because people like free stuff or because socialism has worked everywhere else it has been tried!

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

But the reality is that the majority of merit-based scholarships go to white people disproportionately (barely). There is no real evidence that anyone in their right mind would be born black instead of White for access to college.

Yes, because White people do better (and Asians do even better) at everything that colleges measure for admissions, not because the institutions are not prejudiced. Being Black is worth a hundred points of SAT scores or something.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

It's not that blacks are stupider than whites. It's that ghetto culture they have (which makes them stupider than whites).

So glad we have your genius to guide us on the nature vs nurture debate. There are these things called twin studies, and they have fairly conclusively proven that intelligence is highly heritable especially towards adulthood. 50% at least.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well it's gotta be either because people like free stuff or because socialism has worked everywhere else it has been tried!


Yes, because White people do better (and Asians do even better) at everything that colleges measure for admissions, not because the institutions are not prejudiced. Being Black is worth a hundred points of SAT scores or something.


So glad we have your genius to guide us on the nature vs nurture debate. There are these things called twin studies, and they have fairly conclusively proven that intelligence is highly heritable especially towards adulthood. 50% at least.

1) the policies he has proposed have been tried in other advanced industrial democracies (Germany, Sweden) and seem to work better than our market based approach. If you want to spin this into something about Soviet Russia -- frankly you don't know anything about democratic socialism and should stop getting your info about it from Rush Limbagh.

2) My point is that you would be better off, statistically, being white than getting 100 free SAT points. White people often see this the other way around and feel like victims of discrimination. You want to zero in on the one part where black people get a small bonus and ignore the entire downside leading up to that.

3)The fact that you bring this up is puzzling unless you are claiming that whites are biologically smarter than blacks. Which we have demonstrated not to be true.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

1) the policies he has proposed have been tried in other advanced industrial democracies (Germany, Sweden) and seem to work better than our market based approach. If you want to spin this into something about Soviet Russia -- frankly you don't know anything about democratic socialism and should stop getting your info about it from Rush Limbagh.

Germany/Sweden are small and culturally/ethnically uniform. The US is large and culturally/ethnically diverse. Soviet Russia is far more comparable. In addition, if you seriously believe we have a free market here, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The "market" moves purely at the whim of the central banks.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

My point is that you would be better off, statistically, being white than getting 100 free SAT points. White people often see this the other way around and feel like victims of discrimination. You want to zero in on the one part where black people get a small bonus and ignore the entire downside leading up to that.

Including race as part of the admission decision is the very definition of discrimination. I don't understand how you can argue this.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

The fact that you bring this up is puzzling unless you are claiming that whites are biologically smarter than blacks. Which we have demonstrated not to be true.

Where has this been demonstrated? AFAIK the fact that the Black/White test score gap refuses to go away is a source of continual frustration for educators. I'm not claiming that this gap DOES prove that whites are biologically smarter on average, but I certainly have not seen the reverse demonstrated.

I personally am against all forms of discrimination, whether they target Blacks, Whites, Asians, Hispanics, men, women, republicans, democrats, gays, straights, young people, old people, etc etc. So I am against Jim Crow and affirmative action equally. I find it rather amusing that our government, which outlaws discrimination based on race, does in fact itself discriminate based on race. Orwell is living large in modern society. Or was that Huxley? I forget.

[JurisDictum]

This bit from the Roast of Hugh Hefner seems somewhat relevant and funny as shit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgN_PDku_c4

[maskedmelon]

What is the goal of the documentary?

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What is the goal of the documentary?

Watch my documentary I'm making.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What is the goal of the documentary?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2233406/

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Germany/Sweden are small and culturally/ethnically uniform. The US is large and culturally/ethnically diverse. Soviet Russia is far more comparable. In addition, if you seriously believe we have a free market here, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The "market" moves purely at the whim of the central banks.

Why do you think "culturally/ethnically uniform" matters?

In Sweden, they weren't always a social democratic country. They used to have big inequalities like us, until they pushed too far and there was an electoral revolution -- and then democratic socialists were voted into power and introduced universal healthcare etc.

So people wonder why. Why would the working classes come together and create a better society for themselves in Sweden but not the US.

The reason we came up with, is because they are culturally/ethnically uniform. Therefore, politicians can't get most voters to vote against "welfare queens" and the "takers" as easy. In short, its a lot easier to split the non-wealthy vote when there all worried about thugs raping their daughters and hitting people the minute we talk about free college (see above).

The reason this countries rightwing wants to talk about Russia is obvious. Russia was a shitshow before communism, it was a shitshow during communism, and its a shitshow now. So if they can pivot the conversation to Russia -- a country that had a violent revolution an and instituted a single party dictatorship -- they derail the real conversation about why is our coverage worse than other advanced countries.

Soviet Russia is an example of Communism -- which even then, was considered a seperate ideology from "trade-union socialism" (what they have in Germany/Sweden). Lenin lead the Russian Revolution based on the writings of Karl Marx -- but he changed Marx's view quite a bit. Rather than the spontaneous uprising of workers Marx talked about. Lenin decided that there needed to be an elite "vanguard" to educate all the factory workers and lead the revolution. He turned a populist ideology into an elitist one. Lenin forcefully argued against (and killed) people arguing for a democratic socialist system.

It kind of went downhill from there from a human right view point. Stalin (after Lenin) killed millions. Although we never really admit in the US, it was pretty god damn amazing that a country as backward as Russia was after WW1, somehow managed to surpass the US scientifically. But everyone agrees its not worth killing millions over.

Your comparing multi-party democracies to a single party dictatorships. There is no comparison -- there different systems. One is authoritarian and believes the government should create bureaucracies to allocate the resources according to "needs" (in reality according to politics). The other is a democracy with a capitalist economy that uses socialist ideas to redistribute some of the money away from the top and toward the bottom.

[Scrapiron]

Statists gotta state, doesn't mean its the ethical/moral thing to do, just means its their nature to do it.