What is a racist?

That is certainly true. It does not mean that intelligence research should be discontinued. Currently people with IQ's below 100 have more children who reach adulthood than people with IQ's above 100. While this is happening computer technology and automation are eliminating jobs most people have the intelligence to learn. If current trends continue a growing percentage of America's and the world's population will be congenitally incapable of doing anything useful for a living.

 

My, you've picked a fairly benign example that even liberals are undecided about how much weight to be given to race in affirmative action. But then there are people (you) who think the US would be better without certain races and they can either be sterilized or have their social safety net pulled out from under them. "Genetic inquiry" is used to rationalize racism.

Eugenicists have used that argument since the early 1900's.

I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock. But the possibility of excess and error is still no proof of the incorrectness of these laws. Adolf Hitler

 

I do think whites in the United States would be better off in the United States if there were virtually no Negroes here. The crime rate would be much lower. The cost of our criminal justice and welfare systems would be much lower. The downtown areas of our cities would not be asphalt jungles of crime and moral depravity. They would be centers of civilization, known for art galleries, museums, libraries, book stores, theaters, symphony concert halls, and atmospheric restaurants and taverns. It would be possible to attend a play, a movie, a symphony concert, or a ballet that ended at 10:00 pm, and walk safely two miles to get home.

This does not mean that I think we should exterminate Negroes. Moreover, I think it would be unwise to try to repeal the civil rights legislation that was passed during the 1960's. I would like for it to be interpreted narrowly, so as to prohibit forced school busing and affirmative action, and to allow racial profiling. This does mean that I do not think whites owe blacks anything. I think they owe us for the advantages of living in a civilization far superior to anything they have been able to create on their own.

 

----------

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".[2][3] That is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends.

Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,[2] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.[4] He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.[2] It is now applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric[5][6] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwi...r Godwin's rule,Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".

----------

A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-...ciation fallacy,be listened to about anything.

----------

Speaking for myself, I will say that I think that is unfortunate that the Nazi effort to exterminate the most superior race in existence has led to the belief, or at least the pretended belief, that there are no inferior races. For years I had hoped that as the Holocaust faded from living memory it would become safe to do research into the connection between genes, intelligence, crime and race, and to report on the results of the research. The sympathy shown for the recent wave of black ghetto riots has left me with the fear that we may be entering a long intellectual dark age when one must lie in public in order to remain employable.

 

There is no genetic basis of intelligence. Intelligence is a function of synaptic pathways .. how 'firm' they are determines how fast information can be processed. Like good road surfaces allow cars to travel faster. The ONLY way to trigger firming of synaptic pathways is focused eye to eye engagement with a specific primary carer, from birth. The more focused the carer is, the smarter the kid will be. If the carer focuses using full face to face and protracted eye contact PLUS lots of voice, the kid will be very bright. Babies respond primarily to a specific human face, eyes, and voice in the first months of their lives .. and this is when pathways are built. Every tiny sound, eye movement, and facial gesture is a trigger.

If kids are turning out 'dumb', it's because whoever cared for them just did the physical stuff, and didn't bother with the mind. Happens with full blown neglect, AND in well to do and 'loving' families. Plenty of otherwise excellent parents choose to bottle feed, put baby in a room by itself, never do the hours a day of focused engagement necessary, and hand baby off to various babysitters and the like .. all activities associated with unrealised intellectual potential.

 

I still pretend your basic premise about genetically limited intelligence in certain groups is valid. In order to compare intelligence levels, we use a highly subjective standard called "IQ test" (I hope you understand why it's subjective - IQ tests are made by people based on knowledge at a given moment in a given place, not some entities naturally arising from under rocks).

However, you introduced a new unproven premise, one that I did not agree to pretend it's valid. You classify organisms in "superior" and "inferior". Superior to what, and inferior to what, exactly? What is the standard for comparison? We need an objective standard here, since human thought is completely irrelevant in this case.

Evolution doesn't require anything. Biologically speaking, evolution means "change", not "progress". Evolution doesn't discriminate. To imply, as you do, that less intelligent people are inferior on the evolutionary scale to more intelligent people (based on what standard?) is scientifically incorrect, given the definition of evolution.

I'd like to know how you reached the conclusions in your post. Absent any scientific data, or at least empirical evidence, there's not much to debate here. All I can tell is that I grew up in a totally non-welfare far left society, in which naive females behave exactly the same as the unmarried welfare mothers you describe. It must be human nature, welfare has nothing to do with it. Such things happen even in the most repressive tribal societies, by the way, otherwise there wouldn't be so many restrictive rules to avoid exactly that. No welfare there either, only objectification of women.

 

one tell tell an athlete by looking at them but one cannot tell an intellect by looking at them, therefore its subjective.

 

The genetic basis of intelligence is obvious. If you make a statement like that you are beyond the range of rational discussion.

 

Intelligent people tend to have high foreheads, but that is not really important. What matters is that intelligent people are able to learn complex skills quickly and well and unintelligent people are not. Intelligence can be reliability be evaluate by an IQ test.

 

Good luck getting that. You're supposed to just buy the narrative, and not demand what they claim to actually be true. There is more evidence that Bigfoot exists.

 

right....

so trimming ones fringe makes one intelligent!

 

It has become a smear accusation, to demean an ideological enemy.

PROVING 'racism', is not easy, as it is a judgment on the motives of a person.

Was someone arrested, asked to leave, barred entry, etc, because of skin color, or were other factors the primary cause?

If a person or group were barred entry for improper attire, or obnoxious behavior, or intimidation, that is not 'racist!' If a cop shoots back at an armed perp, that is not 'Racist!'

Guilt by accusation, is the progressive Way, not due process, presumption of Innocence, or Justice.

Thr race card has become a tired cliché, for marxist revolutionaries. They use the indoctrinated ignorant, to promote their collectivist fantasies.

 

Racism is assuming things about people based solely on their race that are not factually necessarily part of their race. "Black people have darker skin" isn't racist. "Black people are poor" is, even though the average wealth for black people is lower than the average for white people.

 

States have Civil Rights Commissions that enforce civil rights laws. They investigate complaints of discrimination by education organizations, companies, landlords, associations, and individuals. They are not idle.

 

Yes, I've seen the results of that first hand. Companies have to be extremely careful if they decide to fire a POC for fear of being sued.

But the fact that these agencies exists does not prove any form of systemic racism. I'm sure they find individual acts of racism here and there, but finding something Systemic? If such a thing existed nowadays, you'd have no problem posting proof. Plus it would be huge headline news, so even I would have heard about it living in my cave. But the good news out of that is there is nothing keeping POC down, nothing blocking their path to success if they want it. The opportunity is equal for all.

 

Some people live in a self made bubble.
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/minorities-who-whiten-job-resumes-get-more-interviews
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbes...m-exists-in-us-housing-policies/#437572416959
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...nequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/how-to-get-a-mortgage-racial-bias-in-lending-2020-6
https://news.temple.edu/news/2020-06-25/systemic-racism-has-led-education-disparities
https://observatory.tec.mx/edu-news/systemic-racism-in-education

I could go on....

 

I agree, you do seem to live in a bubble if you take these opinion pieces as proof of "systemic racism".

I was hoping you could point to a law, or policy, or something that actually discriminates against POC. In fact the opposite is true, there are laws and policies in place that favor POC over caucasian. I'd say that gives a leg up to POC who want to better themselves, and wish more would take advantage of it. Being heavily involved in real estate and the mortgage industry, I can tell you that the only laws in place are all against any discrimination of any sort, racial, sex, age, etc. And they are harsh penalty laws, should you decide to go rogue and break one, your career in that field is over. Even if you just say something inadvertently that offends someone, you're done. I've seen it happen.

So rather than take the gospel of opinion pieces, I go with real world experience. Thanks.

 

Nope, there is much statistical analysis involved not just opinion, if you read any of the citations. It's called evidence which I consider over preconceived "notions"..
Now, it's your turn to prove that "systemic racism" does not exist, outside of some old white guys opinion of course.
Otherwise case closed.

 

Systemic racism is the current alibi for the fact that blacks still tend to be less prosperous than whites, and more likely to have felony convictions.

 

Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know. -Michel de Montaigne

 

What did I say that is not true?

 

"Systemic racism is the current alibi for the fact that blacks still tend to be less prosperous than whites, and more likely to have felony convictions."

 

I'm one of those people that she has done that way. People like to bandy about that term "systemic racism" as if had any meaning or relevance. It doesn't. Accusing people of discrimination is a meaningless accusation as well; however, some people try to use it as a way to insult, humiliate, or hurt those who say to social liberals, take ownership in your own failures. Step up to the plate.

 

Those who complain about "systemic racism" do not present evidence that blacks are discriminated against because of race. The facts that blacks are more likely to be poor and in prison is the evidence they present. That would only be a legitimate argument if the white race and the Negro race were congenitally alike non cosmetically, but they are not.