Jimmy that Greek likes this post.Ok, for those of you without reading comprehension:
...
But I certainly am not touching it. There's a lot of shades of Stephen Wolfe in that post.
Jimmy that Greek likes this post.Ok, for those of you without reading comprehension:
...
Jimmy that Greek likes this post.
But I certainly am not touching it. There's a lot of shades of Stephen Wolfe in that post.
Also, pardon my ignorance, who is Jimmy that Greek?
More like an odds maker. That's what he was best known for.Never mind I did some quick googlefu. I thought he was perhaps a forum user I was unaware of, but it turns out he's a long dead sports ball announcer and equally relevant.
That and his infamous comment concerning, "fast twitch muscles" that ended his career with CBS.More like an odds maker. That's what he was best known for.
I'm not familiar with that.That and his infamous comment concerning, "fast twitch muscles" that ended his career with CBS.
The jist of my 5 minutes googling is that he said something pseudo scientific about blacks today being bigger and stronger than whites because slaves were bred that way. There may be something to that in very particular circumstances, but mostly it's a calorie intake during childhood thing that really determines whether or not you'll reach the full height your genes can give you.I'm not familiar with that.
I'm not familiar with that.
Jimmy the Greek said:The black is a better athlete to begin with, because he's been bred to be that way. Because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back. And they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs. And he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War, when, during the slave trading, the big, the owner, the slave owner would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have uh big black kid, see. That's where it all started!
The ESPN 30 for 30 documentary on him is pretty good and fair.
edit: for some reason I was thinking fast twitch, but close enough.
I don't know how this upsets anything in this thread. I had gotten that notion pretty firmly from your longer post above.In order to squarely upset the entirety of the thread, I'm not a believer in any sort of religion...
I may have misread the tone of your reply. Or better stated, I may have read tone into your reply that wasn't there. I apologize for my snark in the follow up. I also have almost no vision regarding societal divorce as it's being called. There are no clear cut lines to make a break. At least not that I can see. But we have more states in insurrection now than pre-civil war - think sanctuary states, outlawing energy sources, allowing elicit drug use/sales. Our federal gov't is willingly ignoring their own written laws on immigration. And the 600 or so people (house, senate, executive, scotus) in charge of ruling the 350 million or so citizens all appear to be grifters without allegiance to America. I'm hoping we find a way to release some of the pressure without violence. In that regard I'm willing to listen to ideas even if they're outlandish. SomethingWut? You said there's no harm in discussion, which I agree, so I demonstrated my agreement by engaging you in discussion...on the merits. I didn't shut you down. I didn't call you names. I just engaged in the exchange you said you desired.
Ok, for those of you without reading comprehension:
I said he was not making the point he thought he was making and what he was representing as a dunk was in fact what is known colloquially as a self own. I was implying that the argument 45 had made was in fact more race based than he may previously have intended and was blundering into dangerous territory for the uninitiated.
Most people are unwilling to even conceive of racial differences in the climate today, but I'll discuss literally anything to its logical conclusion provided I have enough background knowledge to muster conversation.
I can argue this point logically from many different perspectives, including race, but that wasn't my aim.
This is going to take all of your reading comprehension skills and your best steel manning of a position. Any idiot can make a parody of this argument and dismiss it as racist, but to actually engage in this you will need your thinking cap. (A straw man argument is a technique often used by intellectually dishonest people as a reframing of a statement to conclude something that wasn't said and then arguing with the reframed argument no one was making. A steel man position is the opposite. Giving your opponents argument the best possible light in order to engage it effectively.
Genetic disposition is much like the heritability of I.Q. It's important to take note of, but not an all deciding factor that can't be mitigated through understanding and diligence. Allow me to extrapolate before you start rage typing.
I have Irish heritage and I come from a long line of alcoholics. I am genetically pre disposed to being bad at alcohol consumption. I know this so I don't drink, with the exception of a glass of wine for special occasions like anniversaries, new years, etc. I understand the factors of my genetics and also try not to overdo sweets, avoid smoking, and maintain a decent cardio level because both sides have a long history of living to 60 because of alcoholism and poor diet. In other words, taking responsibility for oneself will mitigate most problems.
On the heritability of I.Q. there are a few things to be taken into account. First and most importantly, having a high i.q. doesn't automatically make you more intelligent or a better person. It's simply a measure of pattern recognition. In laymen's terms it's how quickly you can learn or pick up a new concept. Someone with an i.q. of 95 that makes a concerted effort to learn and better themselves will be better at whatever they're doing and learning than someone with a 130 that sits in the basement whacking it and playing games all day. The guy with a score of 130 could catch up and pass the guy with a 95 in a matter of months, but the point remains. Having more doesn't inherently make you better.
Here comes the bad part nobody wants to look at. American blacks (specifically American ones, wealthy Jamaicans coming to England for instance often outperform whites in their school) tend to have a lower i.q. by a factor of 2 when compared to average whites. E.g. whites are average 100-105 blacks average somewhere around 80. When you combine this inability to learn with particular genetic markers that are shown to increase hostility and violence (I can dig them out if anyone wants specifics, but I'm working from memory here) it's not hard to see what's happening. These factors present themselves, in America mind you, through all income brackets and education levels. This means that when compared to any other race, blacks have a higher tendency to commit violent acts no matter the level of education or their income. Ghetto dwelling or otherwise and education is not the problem so far as I can tell.
A recent Rasmussen poll (the only one that accurately predicted the trump 2016 victory) asked minorities if they thought it was "ok to be white". The conclusion? 47% didn't know or said that it was not ok to be white. Split just about down the middle with, I believe, 21% saying they weren't sure.
I say all this here in the national divorce thread because it may be in everyone's best interest to be in a homogenous state. If you look at Japan for instance, their crime rates are incredibly low comparatively and most of this is due to cultural and racial homogeneity. They are very similar things, but not the same. Typically neighborhood trust and general positive feelings of society are increased when you're with people of your own race. This is the same for all races. Black people like to live around black people, Asians around Asians etc. This is called in-group preference and White republicans actually have the lowest in group preference without having an outgroup preference. The rest of the world is laughing at our stupidity and over sensitization of race.
It's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. Being unable to or unwilling to engage with this doesn't make you better, it makes you a pearl clutching Karen.
Just for the record I can argue any of this from the opposite side and I probably have a better understanding of it than you do. If you want me to help you articulate your points, refine them, or just in general need some I am absolutely willing to assist. The deep level debates are where I live and I enjoy the discussion.
The "internet was free," for a while, until it wasn't. And similarly, I think the American system of (federal) government has simply reached its shelf-life date, in terms of being free and not being run by interest-grifters. The country's founders seemed to know this would happen, and alluded to it in their writings on the subject. So they tried to kick the can down the road as far as they could with checks and balances. But it only lasted so long. When a critical mass of the grifters all thinks the same, unfortunately ol' br'er rabbit is gonna get where he wants to go.I may have misread the tone of your reply. Or better stated, I may have read tone into your reply that wasn't there. I apologize for my snark in the follow up. I also have almost no vision regarding societal divorce as it's being called. There are no clear cut lines to make a break. At least not that I can see. But we have more states in insurrection now than pre-civil war - think sanctuary states, outlawing energy sources, allowing elicit drug use/sales. Our federal gov't is willingly ignoring their own written laws on immigration. And the 600 or so people (house, senate, executive, scotus) in charge of ruling the 350 million or so citizens all appear to be grifters without allegiance to America. I'm hoping we find a way to release some of the pressure without violence. In that regard I'm willing to listen to ideas even if they're outlandish. Somethinghas got tois going to give.
As I started reading this I though, okay. Fine. I'll give it a chance. But I stopped reading at "blacks average somewhere around 80." That's nonsense. 80 is just above retarded. So you're saying blacks average just above retarded? American blacks do score less than whites on IQ tests. Not 20-25 points less.
Now, what does that have to do with the point, that red states on balance have a net negative in terms of federal spending? Are you asserting that blue states have a lower ghetto population? I mean, you're right that R45's point is bull ****. But you're wrong about why that is.
You do realize the red part and blue part are different things, don't you? And that he could be saying one, without saying the other?...But it sounded pretty strongly to me like he was saying that those minorities were the source of the problem, by virtue of their race. Maybe I read it wrong, and if so, I'm more than willing to accept a clarification.
Yes, what you just said is exactly what I meant. That's why I added the part in red, precisely because it is not redundant, nor the same, as the part in blue, and why I said I could have read it wrong and was looking for further clarification.You do realize the red part and blue part are different things, don't you? And that he could be saying one, without saying the other?
The data we currently have is that American blacks are 2 standard deviations below whites when it comes to I.Q.
If you're going to use that to say that race accounts for the crime in red states being higher than in blue states, then you must establish that red states have more ghettoland compared to blue states.I'm fairly positive the point I was countering was his posting of crime stats and other negative implications being a red problem instead of a crime ridden dem hell hole problem within red states and when the stats are broken down blacks are disproportionally represented criminally or in single parent households etc. I'm unsure of where the federal spending portion came into play and I don't want to comment on it without the full context.