Why is racism wrong?

[Ryantology]

I've noticed the opposite. Egalitarians bring forth every alternative to genetic factors that they can think of and insist that racial differences must be caused by one of them, or by several of them in combination, but on no account can genetic factors be an important contributory cause. The egalitarians never say why this must be so. The racists, on the other hand, usually disprove (or provide good reasons for doubting) each of the alternatives proposed by egalitarians and say that genetic factors have not yet been disproved by any similar criticism. The egalitarians, say the racists, never disprove; they merely rule out.

Whereas, racists never choose to weigh their results based upon these outside factors. None of yours did. And, there is a distinct agenda behind that: domination of one race over another.

Individual metrics are the only ones which should matter.

[David Sims]

But I have not, so far, made any assertions.

This:

"First, racists often rely far more extensively on empirically derived facts than their opponents do. That is, racists don't "just make it up" and then rantingly insist upon their narrative. Instead, they do quite a bit of research before they write."

is an assertion. You're not off to a very good start.

Edit: Of course, I see I wasn't the first to note this.

If you will carefully examine some of my other posts, you will see that I give examples of racist/egalitarian debates in which my claim is illustrated. When I tell you that "racists don't 'just make it up' and then rantingly insist upon their narrative," I'm reporting what I have seen.

Besides the examples I've already given, I have others. A great many, in fact. I'll provide them hereafter as seems proper.

---

But I have not, so far, made any assertions.

If one is going to logically deduce your position from what you have already mentioned in your original post, it is that you seemingly have no problem with racism due to the egalitarian position.

When I was younger, I was an egalitarian. All the way through college, where I majored in physics and in astronomy, I held egalitarian views on race. Mostly because, I think, I just didn't have any reason to think much about the subject. The significance of the fact that my college was in southern Georgia, where about a third of the population is black, and yet not one black student majored in astronomy or in physics during my four years there, just didn't light any bulbs in my brain.

And I stayed like that, more or less, for about 12 years following my graduation from college. I was a liberal in general political opinions, and I was a egalitarian on race. But, most of all, I was unusually honest in the sense that I'd not intentionally cheat to win a debate.

So when in 1995 - or thereabout - I entered a debate on the subject of racial equality, on the egalitarian side, against a racist opponent, with the Microsoft Network's early intranet being an unwitting host to the discussion, I was sure that I would win. I was smart. I was articulate.

But I was wrong. And my racist opponent made sure that I knew that I was wrong.

So I had a choice to make. Would I retreat under a cloud of ad hominems and misdirection in order to save face, and then forget that the entire debate ever happened so that I could remain egalitarian? Or would I change sides in order to pursue the truth wherever it might take me? I did the latter. Just as I'd done it 20 years previously when, at the age of 15, I decided that the truth wasn't to be found in Christianity and became an atheist.

What self-respect would I have, if I would not acknowledge having been persuaded by the side with the better arguments and the claims more likely to be true?

[Something completely different]

Nope.

Anyway, there's nothing inherently wrong with racism.

And as typical with your replies you provide nothing backing your nonsence up other than your word.

The word of an inmature troll who masturbates over comics.


Racism always leads to the conclusion that a certain group of people is inherently infiror and a other one supirior - which leads to the conclusion that the supirior group either has to "take care", ignore or destroy the infirior group. Meaning that the very notion of someone being infiror leads to the conclusion that the infiror person is incapable of taking the same responsibilities as the supirior one and therefor should not be in the possition of taking such responsibilities and therefor has his or her rights denied.

---

If you will carefully examine some of my other posts, you will see that I give examples of racist/egalitarian debates in which my claim is illustrated.

You dont.

I am making the assumption that you are a christian sock.

Like Vinny, who joined the forum claiming to be atheist and proposed social darwinism. Besides showing utter disregard for wmen in general.
I guess sooner or later you will also be proposing other disgusting things which christians associate with atheism.

[David Sims]

Whereas, racists never choose to weigh their results based upon these outside factors. None of yours did.

That isn't true, Ryantology. Racists often spend a lot of effort showing why those "outside" factors aren't as important as the egalitarians say they are. I had just shown you an example in which a racist proves that equally poor blacks and whites don't commit murder at the same per capita rate. In that example, the racist controlled for socio-economic status by confining his sample group to only "poor people" and then demonstrating that blacks commit about three times more murders than expected.

Now, I happen to know from my own investigation (I checked up on this racist's claims about what the FBI Uniform Crime Reports said about Crime in the United States in 1995) that the racist didn't go as far as he might have. Because, you see, most of the 55% of US murders in the United States in 1995 having "black" perpetrators were committed by black males between the ages of 14 an 34, of which there were 8 million in the United States that year. In other words, 3% of the population perpetrated half of the murders in the whole country.

And, there is a distinct agenda behind that: domination of one race over another.

The racists might have an agenda, but I'm pretty sure that it isn't a desire to dominate other races. Most of the white racists living today aren't supremacists, as whites were 200 years ago.

The media calls white racists "supremacists" because the media are full of leftists who deliberately use as much pejorative language against racists as they can. But most racists today are nationalists. They don't want to enslave blacks; they do want a racial homeland, a place where there are only white people living together as a white racial nation.

Individual metrics are the only ones which should matter.

Certainly, I can accept that. But individual traits, if those are the only ones allowed to matter, will not lead to equal outcomes for all races. If the YouTube Racist is right about the IQ distributions of whites and blacks, and an employer living in a demographically typical part of the United States is hiring, without the slightest racial prejudice, for a job he believes requires a minimum IQ of 130 to do well, then he will hire 1925 whites for each black hired, to fill his available positions. The NAACP would scream about discrimination, even though no bias had been used in choosing which persons were hired.

[Something completely different]

That isn't true, Ryantology. Racists often spend a lot of effort showing why those "outside" factors aren't as important as the egalitarians say they are. I had just shown you an example in which a racist proves that equally poor blacks and whites don't commit murder at the same per capita rate. In that example, the racist controlled for socio-economic status by confining his sample group to only "poor people" and then demonstrating that blacks commit about three times more murders than expected.

Now, I happen to know from my own investigation (I checked up on this racist's claims about what the FBI Uniform Crime Reports said about Crime in the United States in 1995) that the racist didn't go as far as he might have. Because, you see, most of the 55% of US murders in the United States in 1995 having "black" perpetrators were committed by black males between the ages of 14 an 34, of which there were 8 million in the United States that year. In other words, 3% of the population perpetrated half of the murders in the whole country.

Gang culture is a social phenomenon not only attributed to american suburbs.

It occures In Neaples, Sau Paulo, Marsaille, Karachi, Tokio and everywhere else in the world. And also has in the past in some place which would be considered to be the "whitest possible" like Hamburg.

How can you attribute a social phenomenon to one single group alone and then claim to have done "research"??????

The racists might have an agenda, but I'm pretty sure that it isn't a desire to dominate other races. Most of the white racists living today aren't supremacists, as whites were 200 years ago.

Tell that those alive who still suffered from racist supremecy, such as those who had to live in appartheit South Africa.

The media calls white racists "supremacists" because the media are full of leftists who deliberately use as much pejorative language against racists as they can.

another assumtion which you cannot back up with facts.

But most racists today are nationalists. They don't want to enslave blacks; they do want a racial homeland, a place where there are only white people living together as a white racial nation.

Or create Lebensraum.

Or are you denying that? And other than that, it doesn`t matter anyway if you want to create a "pure" society when your society is mixed.

Certainly, I can accept that. But individual traits, if those are the only ones allowed to matter, will not lead to equal outcomes for all races. If the YouTube Racist is right about the IQ distributions of whites and blacks, and an employer living in a demographically typical part of the United States is hiring, without the slightest racial prejudice, for a job he believes requires a minimum IQ of 130 to do well, then he will hire 1925 whites for each black hired, to fill his available positions. The NAACP would scream about discrimination, even though no bias had been used in choosing which persons were hired.

Laconic.

Hence your arguments collapse and are worthless.

[David Sims]

I had said: If you will carefully examine some of my other posts, you will see that I give examples of racist/egalitarian debates in which my claim is illustrated.

Then "The Germans are coming" said: You dont.

Yes. I did. You can't have missed those examples, either. And I am certainly an atheist.

Then "The Germans are coming" said: Gang culture is a social phenomenon not only attributed to american suburbs. It occures In Neaples, Sau Paulo, Marsaille, Karachi, Tokio and everywhere else in the world. And also has in the past in some place which would be considered to be the "whitest possible" like Hamburg. How can you attribute a social phenomenon to one single group alone and then claim to have done "research"??????

True, I lack data on gang activity/membership in European countries. I can't say anything on matters of which I am ignorant. So I speak only of what I know.

Questions to be answered by research would include: What fraction of white youths in Europe belong to gangs, and how does that fraction compare with the fraction of blacks who belong to gangs?

Also: What is the ratio in the per capita murder rates between white gang members and black gang members? Repeat this question, except substitute robbery, rape, vandalism, arson for the word murder.

No racist seriously claims that all the bad guys are black and that all the good guys are white. Instead of all-and-nothing, it's a question of more-and-less. That is why, among racists, the customary metric for comparisons is the ratio of the per capita rates (for whatever) between two specified races.

(Edit: As it happens, I have heard a few things about gang activity in Europe/UK. I've heard that in the UK there is an extensive criminal network of Muslim pedophiles who are kidnapping British children all across the country and using them for the purpose of child prostitution. For several years, the police were either in denial, or were informed but were deliberately looking the other way, fearing to be accused of racism. I have also heard that all, or almost all, of the rapes in Scandinavia are perpetrated by non-white immigrants to Sweden/Norway. Of course, since I don't live in Europe, and especially since the media often don't carry news of this kind, there is undoubtedly much that I don't know regarding the distribution of criminal acts by race in Europe. I don't deny that I am largely ignorant of the matter.)

Then "The Germans are coming" said: Tell that those alive who still suffered from racist supremecy, such as those who had to live in appartheit South Africa.

You mean the white South Africans whose ancestors stopped the Bantu and the Mbele from slaughtering each other by the hundreds of thousands year in and year out? The South Africans who paid their taxes, only to watch their government spend more to benefit the blacks than to benefit themselves? The South Africans who rebuilt hospitals and schools for blacks every time the blacks decided to burn down what they were given before? What kind of racial supremacy is that?

The South Africans didn't want to be displaced in their country for the same reason the Israelis don't want to be displaced by the Arabs who live in Palestine. But whereas the Israelis continue to hold out, thanks to apartheid, the South Africans voted their apartheid away, gave the vote to blacks, and now they are being destroyed.

I very much doubt that the Afrikaaners wanted to enslave the blacks. They just didn't want to happen what eventually did come about: the genocidal domination of black racists in their government.

Then "The Germans are coming" said: Or create Lebensraum.

Oh, is that a Hitler reference? I should invoke Godwin's rule, then, I suppose. But I won't. Yes, the idea is to create a white living space. And, no, that's not a bad idea (even if Hitler had it too). It's a good idea.

Then "The Germans are coming" said: Laconic.

That's your contrary argument? Somehow, I find it unimpressive. It means "using few words," and, whereas it's true that good writers use no more words than they need to, you appear to have used somewhat fewer than you should have.

And here's yet another thing I've noticed when racists and egalitarians debate. The egalitarians always, incessantly demand that the racists support everything they say with documented facts, with appropriate citations of scholarly and scientific reference material. And, to an extent, the racists do just that. However, the egalitarians almost never do as much to support their own opinions. Or, at least, I've not seen them do much of it. They appear to think that their assumption of racial equality is some sort of default idea, with a privileged status, such that it can be accepted without evidence. As if it needed none.

I've found an exception, in that debate between the racist and the egalitarian on YouTube. The egalitarian demanded that the racist explain why the (black) country of Sierra Leone had a higher average IQ than the white country of Croatia. The racist checked some reference material and found out that the average IQ of Sierra Leone is only 64, with only two countries in the world (both of them black: Eithiopia and Equatorial Guinea) having average IQs less than that. Meanwhile, the average IQ of Croatia is 90. The racist asked the egalitarian where he'd come by his information, and the egalitarian told him "IQ and the Wealth of Nations," by Richard Lynn et. al. It was the very same reference that the racist had found. The one time during that debate when the egalitarian bothered to cite an authoritative source, he lied about what was in it.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@David Sims, the data you presented about genetic difference between races. Was the study international or within one country? Also interested in recruitment criteria. What sort of genetic markers btw? Because you can trace your ancestry genetically, no doubt, so if you go for that type of markers i won't be surprised if races within one country would show some significant results. If you go for the marker you're looking for, white people of different countries would likely have statistically different markers as well. Since you haven't said what these biomarkers are, they could very well only affect cosmetics appearance, not saying that's what's going on, but you must be careful what you conclude from a set of data and not overreach.

[Faith No More]

That isn't true, Ryantology. Racists often spend a lot of effort showing why those "outside" factors aren't as important as the egalitarians say they are. I had just shown you an example in which a racist proves that equally poor blacks and whites don't commit murder at the same per capita rate. In that example, the racist controlled for socio-economic status by confining his sample group to only "poor people" and then demonstrating that blacks commit about three times more murders than expected.

Do you understand that comparing white poor people to black poor people is not controlling for socio-economic factors? The cultures between a trailer park and and an urban ghetto are drastically different. You are comparing apples to oranges and then claiming the one factor you want to be relevant as the relevant one. If you truly want to control for race, which is ultimately impossible but one can control to a certain point, you would have to measure how two different races behaved in the same geographic and cultural area with similar economic statuses. You would also have to control for factors such as home-life and other life experiences.

So, what were you saying about racists properly using studies and statistics?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

There are too many things to control for to conduct a proper study. Even if you conduct a study, after presenting the result, you must dissect the weaknesses of the study. That's common practice in science and is never done when these studies are cited to support arguments. But it's more crucial than anything because more often than not, after reading the limitations of the study and all the confounding factors, it becomes unreasonable to think that the study results represent reality in a reliable manner.

Because you're studying race, it's extremely difficult to control for, like FNM said, and I'm very skeptical of anyone who pulls ONE study and then say, therefore, this.

[Kayenneh]

David, since this is a touchy subject, I'm (and probably many others) are not going to settle with text between quote tags. Who made the study? How many participants? What year? In other words, do you have a link to the original study, or at least the abstract?