Myths About Liberals And Liberalism

[glassjester]

You don't know @glassjester or the woman of whom he was speaking.

Yep.

 

[ClimateSanity]

https://www.infowars.com/video-showing-insanity-of-alt-left-goes-mega-viral/

 

[Arthur Brain]

https://www.infowars.com/video-showing-insanity-of-alt-left-goes-mega-viral/

Oi, '140IQ man'. Why are you so daft as to follow gormless propaganda like 'info wars' and why are you spamming up thread after thread with the same crap?

:AMR:

 

[Tambora]

https://www.infowars.com/video-showing-insanity-of-alt-left-goes-mega-viral/

Talk about blindly following, and unable to defend what they are protesting for!
Loons.

 

[Ktoyou]

No spamming please. If you have no comment, do not post.

 

[ok doser]

town, bloviating on the n-word:

... it's not a word that carries a neutral expression. ...

perhaps not in your experience

or perhaps not possible in your imagination, because of your experience

but i've heard it used in neutral terms, by blacks and whites

According to a wide sampling survey conducted by Unney and Feldman of Stony Brook University, in New York, about 40% of whites in their study admitted to believing "a little or more" that blacks are poor because of racial differences in intelligence.

racial differences in intelligence are an inconvenient truth that the left would prefer to ignore - african-americans have a mean IQ of 85 compared to the general population's mean IQ of 100

one would have to be an insane leftist to believe that would have no influence on poverty levels or success in life, at least in those endeavors that require some degree of intelligence

apparently 60% of the whites in their survey are insane leftists

it's not racist to accept fact based in race and make reasonable extrapolations

Or, around 40% of whites admitted to being a little or more racist.

only in your fevered imagination

 

[ok doser]

You don't discover a rule by anecdote. That's part of your larger problem. You confuse any bias confirming experience with something greater. It isn't.

The word has a history with white people and usage. It's uniformly degrading. Find another word and live with the disappointment of not being entitled to that one.

sorry dude - i'm entitled to use any word i like


and you are not entitled to tell me i'm not

 

[ok doser]

It is also likely, though, that many white people do use the word to mean any black person.

i know two - both canadian, both elderly, both extremely rural

 

[ClimateSanity]

town, bloviating on the n-word:

perhaps not in your experience

or perhaps not possible in your imagination, because of your experience

but i've heard it used in neutral terms, by blacks and whites




racial differences in intelligence are an inconvenient truth that the left would prefer to ignore - african-americans have a mean IQ of 85 compared to the general population's mean IQ of 100

one would have to be an insane leftist to believe that would have no influence on poverty levels or success in life, at least in those endeavors that require some degree of intelligence

apparently 60% of the whites in their survey are insane leftists

it's not racist to accept fact based in race and make reasonable extrapolations



only in your fevered imagination

Would you agree that there is a base IQ that is hereditary and can be expanded significantly through cultural influences and self training?

Can it also be eroded significantly through cultural influences and bad habits of the mind?

To me, the 15 point difference in average IQ in the African American community is purely cultural and not based in heredity at all.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Rusha; what is your reason for thanking every post that says something hateful to me?

 

[Town Heretic]

town, bloviating on the n-word:

That's one way to mischaracterize it.

perhaps not in your experience or perhaps not possible in your imagination, because of your experience but i've heard it used in neutral terms, by blacks and whites

There's an exception to most rules, but it doesn't alter what that word is built upon or the argument against it.

one would have to be an insane leftist to believe that [IQ disparity by around one standard deviation] would have no influence on poverty levels or success in life, at least in those endeavors that require some degree of intelligence

I don't believe anyone is surprised by finding large populations of generationally disenfranchised and impoverished people do worse on IQ tests and have less successful lives.

Here's some help from a solid article by Gavin Evans.

"The world’s leading IQ theorist, Jim Flynn, has proved that IQs have risen across the board over the last century (100 years ago the average IQ by today’s standards would be about 70). The reason for this “Flynn Effect”, as it has been dubbed, has nothing to do with genetics and all to do with environment – in particular, increased exposure to various forms of abstract logic, which is what the tests measure.


Different population groups are exposed to markedly different environmental conditions, which is why average scores vary. For this reason IQ scores are rising faster in some populations than others (average IQs of Kenyan children were shown to have risen by 26.3 points in 14 years). Similarly, black American IQs are rising at a faster rate than those of white Americans, while Jewish Americans went from having below average IQs at the time of the First World War to having above average IQs now.
This illustrates how absurd it is to compare the IQs of different populations but when you remove IQ scores from the tool box of the scientific racists, the rest of their case falls to dust.


And yet the widespread combination of misplaced faith in the immutability of IQ and misplaced faith in the ability of genes to determine behaviour has allowed their claims to fester away, unchallenged in the public arena. The problem in not challenging these bad ideas promptly and vigorously goes way beyond their flawed science. If the public and its opinion makers come to accept notions like Wade’s – such as that Africans are, by nature, none-too-bright tribalists – we’ll be in danger of returning to the dangerous mentality that formed the ballast for colonialism and slavery."

sorry dude - i'm entitled to use any word i like

I wasn't talking to you. When you use the word it only helps my case. Go to it.

and you are not entitled to tell me i'm not

Of course I am, but I still wasn't talking to you.

 

[ok doser]

That's one way to mischaracterize it.

i thought it apt

There's an exception to most rules

were you stating a rule?

I don't believe anyone is surprised by finding large populations of generationally disenfranchised and impoverished people

sorry town, blacks weren't generationally disenfranchised and impoverished in upstate new york, especially in Rochester, home of frederick douglass

Here's some help from a solid article by Gavin Evans.

gavin evans, the scholar with a phd in developmental psychology and genetics, who wrote his dissertation on "Cultural and Environmental Factors Contributing To Intelligence and Success"?


that gavin evans?


ohhhhh - this gavin evans:

Gavin Evans has a PhD in politics.....Evans effectively admits that he’s biased and unscientific. He writes, "I was intensely involved in anti-apartheid activities in the 1980s."

He adds, “Racism is an issue I feel strongly about. It upsets me, deeply and personally, and I believe that its faux-scientific expression is its most insidious version.” (Loc 4640).

I rest my case.

Evans is not an open-minded, objective scientist. He is on an emotional mission to discredit anyone who makes an argument that some groups may be smarter than other groups.

He champions the idea that we are all blank slates (an idea that Steven Pinker brilliantly demolishes in his book The Blank Slate).

http://francistapon.com/Work/Reviews/Black-Brain-White-Brain-a-brainless-book-by-Gavin-Evans

by all means, town, go on believing that race and intelligence aren't linked

meanwhile:

 

[ok doser]

...it doesn't alter what that word is built upon or the argument against it.

what that word is built upon:

The variants neger and negar derive from the Spanish and Portuguese word negro (black), and from the now-pejorative French nègre. Etymologically, negro, noir, nègre, and ****** ultimately derive from nigrum, the stem of the Latin niger (black) (pronounced [ˈniɡer] which, in every other grammatical case, grammatical gender, and grammatical number besides nominative masculine singular, is nigr- followed by a case ending, the r is trilled).

In its original English language usage, ****** (then spelled niger) was a word for a dark-skinned individual. The earliest known published use of the term dates from 1574, in a work alluding to "the Nigers of Aethiop, bearing witnes".[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/******

the argument against it?

The word has a history with white people and usage. It's uniformly degrading.

was mark twain's use of "ni66er" uniformly degrading?

no, it wasn't

was the use of "ni66er" by mark twain's character huck finn uniformly degrading?

of course not

 

[ok doser]

 

[ok doser]

 

[ok doser]

sorry, CS, i missed this

Would you agree that there is a base IQ that is hereditary and can be expanded significantly through cultural influences and self training?

studies with twins separated at birth and raised in different environments tends to disprove that

as you might imagine, the sample size is small

Can it also be eroded significantly through cultural influences and bad habits of the mind?

this would be a difficult one to prove (or disprove) scientifically

but, as peterson points out, the two best predictors of success are IQ and conscientiousness

conscientiousness appears to be culturally acquired, while IQ appears to be innate

To me, the 15 point difference in average IQ in the African American community is purely cultural and not based in heredity at all.

i see no reason why intelligence shouldn't be linked to race, as are other measurable physical quantities




but as we see in the example set so splendidly by town, the left isn't interested in letting that consideration be heard - they diligently shout down any discussion of the possibility of race and intelligence being linked with cries of "racist!"

if the discussion is about the problem of blacks in US society


if we discuss the Ashkenazi jew?

crickets



but in town's case, it must always be kept in mind that he is a descendant of slave owners and so is hyper-sensitive to the subject

 

[ClimateSanity]

Comment?

 

[ok doser]

Comment?

stupid handheld - i came back to it with my lappy

 

[ClimateSanity]

sorry, CS, i missed this


studies with twins separated at birth and raised in different environments tends to disprove that

as you might imagine, the sample size is small




this would be a difficult one to prove (or disprove) scientifically

but, as peterson points out, the two best predictors of success are IQ and conscientiousness

conscientiousness appears to be culturally acquired, while IQ appears to be innate



i see no reason why intelligence shouldn't be linked to race, as are other measurable physical quantities




but as we see in the example set so splendidly by town, the left isn't interested in letting that consideration be heard - they diligently shout down any discussion of the possibility of race and intelligence being linked with cries of "racist!"

if the discussion is about the problem of blacks in US society


if we discuss the Ashkenazi jew?

crickets



but in town's case, it must always be kept in mind that he is a descendant of slave owners and so is hyper-sensitive to the subject

My point is how much is due to conscientiousness and how much TO IQ?

My intuition is that heredity is a very small part of the IQ difference. Study blacks with IQs above 120 and I feel that the conscientiousness of those in the study would be equal to those of whites with similar IQs. It would be worth studying.

 

[ok doser]

it would indeed - i suspect conscientiousness and IQ measurement are linked more strongly than race and IQ

and i suspect that conscientiousness and culture are linked as well.



all of this is speculative, little of it is well supported and it serves no one's benefit to restrict the discussion with cries of "racism!"