Why is racism wrong?

[Ryantology]

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 we turn that around and castigate white men for being child molesters and serial killers? Both categories in the United States are overwhelmingly white males. Shall we profile all males because most rapists are males?

Poor whites and poor blacks are still not even. Black people face significant obstacles that no white person worries about, many of them the result of white racism against them. There are many other factors at work, and you're cherry picking.

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, their skin color is responsible for this, how? Correlation proves causation now?

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.

What the agenda is is rather beside the point.

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.

Then, let them get the fuck out and find some uninhabited island to populate. The rest of us can stay here in the 21st century.

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.

How is it not a racial prejudice to hire whites at such a large majority on the basis of nothing except their skin color?

Individual metrics won't lead to equal outcome to all races. That's the point. It demonstrates the invalidity of using race to categorize anything.

[max-greece]

The studies seem to raise rather more questions than they answer for me. I would ask the following (bearing in mind that I do not live in the US):

In comparing a poor white person with a poor black person are you more likely to be suspected of a crime if you are black?

Are you more likely to be accused of a crime if you are black?

Are you more likely to be convicted of a crime if you are black?

Are you more likely to receive a harsher sentence for a crime if you are black?

At the same time we would have to ask if any or all of the above hold true are you more likely to commit a crime if you are always the default suspect anyway?

Finally, in other countries with black minority populations how do the crime figures compare with the US?

Turning to the IQ question:

What impact does skin colour have on the quality of education you might expect to receive in the US?

Are there cultural biases in the IQ test itself?

Is an IQ test actually much of an indicator of suitability for any given rule in society?

Just to expand on the above a little I am not aware of any major contribution to humanity made by Mensa to date - an organisation that bases entry purely on the basis of performance in an IQ test.

At the same time I am struck by the fact that racial profiling is always in the negative when it comes from racists in reference to their chosen hate group. For example I rarely see reference to that fact that the highest scoring group on your precious IQ tests are Jews, or that Jews have won a massively disproportionate number of Nobel prizes. Further there is no reference made to that fact that black people appear to massively dominate track and field events, or the NBA, American football, the popular music industry......

[Something completely different]

Are ou to fucking stupid to use the quote tags!?

Yes. I did. You can't have missed those examples, either.

No you did not. All you quote is a "youtube racist" which does not qualify for a source.

And I am certainly an atheist.

We will see about that.

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.

Hardly a single country in Europe conducts research into which ethnical group is involved in most crime. Because that is discriminatory.
Gang culture is an urban thing usualy evolving out of poor urban ereas, which is why you wont find the average inbreed, jobless, racist, redneck without teeth, within any gang. And before you even ask: no, most european countries do not have a history of massive slavery which is why gang culture in most european cities evolves within poor white ereas.

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?

compare??????? What the fuck do you mean with compare?????

The membership in a criminal organisation is enought. And as far as everyone can see, Italian street gangs are only filled with Italians.

You base your entire argument on the idiotic notion that blck gang criminality somehow is unique in the history of the US and the world.
Thereby completly forgetting that when the Irish, Italians and other minorities where in impoverished condition gang culture also formed arround those groups within the US.

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.

Cime statistics are not based on race.

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.

Crime rates do not depend on race you disgusting son of a bitch!
The number of crime in a place is dependent of social factors such as poverty, political conflict, ethnic conflict and proximity to international criminality (drug trafficing).
Race plays no role whatsoever within this.

(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.

I have heard that pigs rape sheep, which is probably not true because I heard it


Show some case work and reports before slandering an entire minority.

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.)

You must be a special kind of idiot to believe that one can base an argument of " have heared"

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 who denied the right to self determination and the right to vote to blacks? The south Africans who murdered those who resisted that regime?

I can give backup to those claims, whilest you paint arpartheit as something really lovely.

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.

How are they 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.

The Apartheit regime used blcks to work for low wages in production whilest damning them to live in poverty from which there was no escape.

Now show some proof for the:

the genocidal domination of black racists in their government.

Oh, is that a Hitler reference? I should invoke Godwin's rule, then, I suppose.

No. Lebensraum was based on the racist theory that the infiror slavic people could be chased of their lands by the supirior germans. That is racism which contradicts your previously posted nonsence.

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.

So you defend the notion that it is alright to murder and dispalce an entire people?

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.

You dont even understand what I am writing about????

The first laconic phrase ever was used during the second punic war when the city state of Athens besieged the city of Sparta. The Athenians sent the Spartans a message which red "If you dond surrender, we will enslave your women and children, kill all men, burn your city down and erease Sparta from history" To which the Spartans sent back a message that read "If".

You based your entire argument on a "if" and therefor your argument is not an argument but worthless gibberish that fell appart when you used the word "if".

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.

You have not.

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 dont see a reason to post documented facts for someone who cant post documented facts.

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.

An idiotic example, because the state of education depends on an education system.

And again you do not post any sources.

Now fuck off and dont return you worthless sock.

[paulpablo]

I think it's fairly impossible to judge an entire race of people to be inferior or superior.
If I were to judge the races though I'd say white people and asians tend to have more money and a better way of living, longer lifespans and tend to not be in prison or jail as much, so on which in my opinion is a superior position to be in.
I also don't find most black girls as attractive as other races of girls usually although there are very specific exceptions to that. But that's all subjective, and none of these things are ultimatums on being superior.

[A Theist]

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.

Do you realize that you're debating an individual whose trivial knowledge about racism and racial issues is limited only to a selective Google education? I doubt that TGAC has actually ever seen a Black person let alone having ever experienced their own brand racism. And it's not just him alone but the naivety over racial issues extends to most of the far left individuals on this forum. Most of what these guys think they know on racial matters is something they either learned in a classroom or watched on a far left cable news network like MSLSD, or Google searches. The whole idea of egalitarianism may be well meaning in theory but it's definitely rife with naivety and with double standards and hypocrisy. The egalitarians claim to want a "Nation Wide Conversation" about race. But have you noticed that their conversation is only a one way conversation? It's all about the Racist Evil White People....and pity the Black Conservative who's condemned to epithets like, "Uncle Tom" or "Race Traitor". These so-called social justice egalitarians are hypocrites and they make judgements on things they never experienced. To the far left, Blacks can do no wrong, (unless they're conservative). My complaint is not with Blacks. My complaint is mainly with the hypocrisy of the naive lily white far-left egalitarian race baiters who hate their own skin color. If they're truly serious about wanting a national conversation about racism then they're going to have to dump their hypocritical and naive bullshit and come to terms that racism exists with every race, stop the games of racial agitation and division and stop playing the victim role.

[Tonus]

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.

Why do you feel that this is a good idea? If we allow for the belief that different races have differing capacities for aggression and intellect, you admit that these are not absolute in each individual. A nation that wanted to maintain a higher standard of behavior and learning would want to encourage citizenship based on the ability to excel in those areas, and excluding many sources of that in order to "play the percentages" seems shortsighted.

[Something completely different]

Do you realize that you're debating an individual whose trivial knowledge about racism and racial issues is limited only to a selective Google education?

I go to nightschool, speak two languages and invest alot of time in educating myself, especialy in biology.

And what kind of redneck education can I expect from the hillbilly cotton picker?

I doubt that TGAC has actually ever seen a Black person let alone having ever experienced their own brand racism.

Europes proximity to the African continent and the wide spread poverty within the African continent has lead to African imigration which created a substancial African community in Europe during the 1990s and today. Adding to that, nations such as Spain, France and the UK have a colonial history involving the African continent which created large African comunities in these countries during the 1960s and 1970s.
You have again displayed an utter lack of knowlege and your childish ignorance by writing on a subject of which you have clearly no knowlege at all. I know Blacks, almoust all of them are Etheopians and one a American immegrant. And I am fully aware of ethnical conflicts aswell as racist notions within certain Black communities.

Yet I am not the braindead inbreed redneck jerk who claims that the entire Black community is in the grip of a conspiracy to destroy whites.

And it's not just him alone but the naivety over racial issues extends to most of the far left individuals on this forum. Most of what these guys think they know on racial matters is something they either learned in a classroom or watched on a far left cable news network like MSLSD, or Google searches.

I am not leftwing, the way in which you simply disregard everyone who disagrees with you as "left wing" show the authoritarian mindset with which you judge over the entire human population whilest considering yourself the authority to do so. Despite you being nothing else but a worthless redneck.

If not, then provide evidence to confirm your assertions over me.

The whole idea of egalitarianism may be well meaning in theory but it's definitely rife with naivety and with double standards and hypocrisy. The egalitarians claim to want a "Nation Wide Conversation" about race. But have you noticed that their conversation is only a one way conversation? It's all about the Racist Evil White People....and pity the Black Conservative who's condemned to epithets like, "Uncle Tom" or "Race Traitor".

Can you prove that.

These so-called social justice egalitarians are hypocrites and they make judgements on things they never experienced. To the far left, Blacks can do no wrong, (unless they're conservative).

Prove that.

My complaint is not with Blacks. My complaint is mainly with the hypocrisy of the naive lily white far-left egalitarian race baiters who hate their own skin color. If they're truly serious about wanting a national conversation about racism then they're going to have to dump their hypocritical and naive bullshit and come to terms that racism exists with every race, stop the games of racial agitation and division and stop playing the victim role.

Can you actualy prove anything of that or do you simply enjoy repeating right wing american media punchlines?


You have realed your disgusting head back to add more racist bullshit and act as if you were some authority that stands above everything else again without ever providing anything that in any way backs up your claims.

Go back to your clan meetings, molestering relatives, fucking animals or whatever swamp people like your kind do.

[Ryantology]

I don't hate white people. Just white racists. As I stated above, individuals are all that matter to me. Their traits, their behaviors. My skin is lily white. It doesn't mean a goddamn thing. I am in no way representative of other people with people with a similar melanin content (thankfully, neither are you). The fact that melanin content does matter to so many indicates how much more maturing needs to happen for the human race.

As for what I know about black people, I know what I know from growing up in Richmond, Virginia. You're free to check the racial demographics of the city and its surrounding counties. When my sister gets married, I'm going to gain a large number of black family members. No doubt it makes me a race traitor that I'm okay with that.

[Jackalope]

@OP

I can tell you why it's wrong *for me*.

I am an individual, and I wish to be treated as one. I believe that if I desire to be treated as an individual, it is reasonable and right to treat others as individuals.

I'm a white male. Statistically, I am in the demographic that is more likely to be a serial killer. I am not a serial killer. Nor am I a rapist. Nor a misogynist, a racist, a family abuser, or any of the other things that I might be statistically likely to be.

I am not a statistic, and to be treated as one would be unjust. I couldn't care less whether you find my reasons convincing.

P.S. Fuck racism, and fuck racists, including you if you're one.

[Mister Agenda]

How is it that you know that racist arguments are based on "bad" science? I didn't notice any badness in the methods used by racists when I had a look at them.

Your claimed inability to notice something is not evidence of anything.

Let me tell you how a racist would answer your claim that "race itself is not a scientifically sound concept." Here goes.

That's how I would answer it, as well. Disagreeing that race is only a social construct isn't racism. Racism is the belief that one or more races is inherently inferior to another.

So, futilethewinds, in what way is the racist argument dependent on "bad science"?

So far it's just dependent on bad logic. Poverty alone doesn't explain differences between crime rates of whites and blacks in the USA. That doesn't mean the explanation must be race.

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.

Why should your hearsay trump mine?

I have not noticed that racists actually do this. Racist arguments are usually much better supported by facts than egalitarian ones are. The idea that racists "rely" on hasty generalizations and on fallacies is something egalitarians often say. But they seldom come up with examples (quotes) of racists doing this; they merely allege that racists do this.

Why should your bare assertions trump mine?

Not in my experience. Rather, egalitarians do most of the cherry-picking, while the racists continually point out that cherry-picking is what the egalitarians are doing.

Why should I believe you?

For example, I recently observed a discussion between a racist and an egalitarian on YouTube. The egalitarian identified Neil deGrasse Tyson, a black astrophysicist, as the reason the racist was wrong about blacks in general having inferior IQs. Here's what the racist said in reply (using several separate posts that I've strung together below).

Hasty generalization. An anecdote can't support a categorical claim.

Racist blah blah blah

Nothing the racist said supports the idea that the difference in IQ scores between races is because of race. Identifying a gene that tends to lead to lower IQ and proving it is more prevalent in people of black African descent and there is no different gene in Caucasians with the same effect would prove it...but he did not do that because he can't.

I haven't noticed that, either. Racists ask important questions and make challenges that their egalitarian opponents often find difficult to answer well. I have, just now, given you a taste of racist argument. If you find fallacies or falsehoods in them, please show me where with quotes.

I don't even have to go past what you've said. See above.

---

Racists attribute to race what can be explained by history, culture, and geography.

Right. Race.

"Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation."

Appeal to dictionary. Really?

Anyway, there's nothing inherently wrong with racism.

You are correct. Inherently wrong, no. Actually wrong, yes. For starters, belief that some particular race is inherently inferior to some other particular race isn't justified at this time.

---

You need to read the Racists Say The Darndest Things section of fstdt.com and you'll change your mind about this.

I bet he won't.