Yup. "Murrica Has No Shortage of Deplorable Motherfuckers

[Mister Agenda]

It takes a real piece of shit to scream "FAKE NEWS" every time someone dares question their orange god.

Not surprised we have a few here, though.

No, it takes a real piece of shit to label someone as deplorable for saying something factually accurate.

I don't think 'blacks are less intelligent and more lazy than whites' is factually accurate, so there's that. They're not deplorable due to the occasions that they're factually accurate.

---

At least 40% of Trump supporters polled held that blacks are lazier than whites, more criminal than whites, more violent than whites, more rude than whites; and over 30% held that blacks are less intelligent than whites. That's not half of his supporters, but it's over a third, and I think 'deplorable' is putting it mildly. It's not their skepticism that makes this portion of the electorate deplorable, it's their racism. And supporters of Democrats with the same attitude are also deplorable, and that's 20-30% of that group, way too high, and shameful.

I think white people in Connecticut are probably smarter and less violent than white people in Alabama.  

Do you think that's true or could be shown to be true?

To answer the question as asked, I think it's true that you think it's true.

---

So you admit that there's a limit to your concern.  Tens of millions of other people have lower limits of concern than you.  Why are they wrong and you are right?

Resource limits do not equal concern limits.

[henryp]

I think white people in Connecticut are probably smarter and less violent than white people in Alabama.  

Do you think that's true or could be shown to be true?

To answer the question as asked, I think it's true that you think it's true.

If you want to answer the question as asked, do you think it could be shown to be true?  That white people from Connecticut as a group are smarter than white people from Alabama?

edit: I see you could be cutesy with that as well.

How about this, do you think White people in Connecticut are probably smarter in general than White people in Alabama.

Or, do you think Atheists are probably smarter than Theists in general?

[Napoléon]

No, it takes a real piece of shit to label someone as deplorable for saying something factually accurate.

I don't think 'blacks are less intelligent and more lazy than whites' is factually accurate, so there's that. They're not deplorable due to the occasions that they're factually accurate.

You’ve misquoted me here. The factually accurate comment is in reference to the OP calling Trump supporters deplorable for saying something factually accurate. Which is that news reports on this subject were fabricated.

Nothing to do with black people being less intelligent than whites.

[LadyForCamus]

You should know me well enough by now to know that I’m happy to be corrected on any factual errors that my positions are based upon.  Were they not implementing a “zero tolerance” policy on everyone crossing the border, including migrants with children in tow?  Were they not using cruelty as s deterrent?

I'm not convinced that "ALL cases" were a form of punishment and are more likely the result of bad application of a law/directive. I don't agree with the zero tolerance policy or it's apparent blanket application. Zero tolerance is stupid in almost any setting/condition/circumstance.  

From what I've read not everyone(ALL) was/were separated(one example): https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/c...ed-parents

As for cruelty as a deterrent, I'm not convinced that was the motive but a resulting outcome. And couldn't the "cruelty deterrent" point of view be applied to any illegal immigrant turned away, adult and child alike, claiming conditions of poverty, death threats, starvation, persecution............? I think there will always be some level of cruelty with regard to immigration. Most I will have sympathy for, some not.

While I take your point on the factual distinction between “all” and “not all” (though I think “most” is probably accurate), in context I think it’s a distinction without a meaningful difference.  There is a meaningful difference between occasionally having to separate a child from its family because it is what’s in the best immediate interest of the child, and taking children away as a matter of policy simply for their parents crossing illegally.  Those exceptions from the Vox article you cited were for Asylum seekers.  Why are Trump snd Co. separating kids from that population at all?  

You are right that speculating about motive is merely my opinion,  but it’s a fact that the resulting outcome is cruel to children. It is intentional, and in most cases, unnecessary.  Intentional harm to children is my personal line in the sand, anyway.

---

It is a demonstrable fact that taking young children away from their parents, and especially breastfed infants,  is cruel to the children. Would anyone like to argue that unnecessarily harming children is not cruel?  By all means, you have the floor.

Sorry did anyone dispute this? Straw man much?

That was in reply to Brewer.  I misinterpreted which point in my response he was challenging as a factual error.  Settle down Michael Scott.  😝

[Mister Agenda]

If you want to answer the question as asked, do you think it could be shown to be true?  That white people from Connecticut as a group are smarter than white people from Alabama?

edit:  I see you could be cutesy with that as well.

How about this, do you think White people in Connecticut are probably smarter in general than White people in Alabama.

Seems unlikely that there would be a significant difference. But if they are, it is likely due to differing average levels of educational attainment and differences in history that have affected their institutions, and possibly other environmental factors. I mean, it's obvious when you compare white people to white people that it's not really their race that's the relevant factor, isn't it?

Or, do you think Atheists are probably smarter than Theists in general?

Despite their tendency to be aware that the words 'atheists' and 'theists' aren't properly capitalized unless at the beginning of a sentence or when part of a proper name, such as 'American Atheists' when referring to that organization; the slight difference in the favor of atheists on IQ tests is virtually meaningless in real life and almost certainly due to local (might not get the same results in the PRC, for instance) and confounding factors (atheists in the USA tend to run a year or two more formal education, for instance) rather than 'inherent intelligence'. In other words, any difference (however insignificant) is likely due to different circumstances, not due to their differing opinions on one topic.

---

I don't think 'blacks are less intelligent and more lazy than whites' is factually accurate, so there's that. They're not deplorable due to the occasions that they're factually accurate.  

You’ve misquoted me here. The factually accurate comment is in reference to the OP calling Trump supporters deplorable for saying something factually accurate. Which is that news reports on this subject were fabricated.

Nothing to do with black people being less intelligent than whites.

I didn't claim to quote you at all, in the body of my post. I don't agree that Trump supporters are deplorable for saying factually accurate things, or for merely being Trump supporters. I think the 40% of Trump Supporters who are clearly racist are deplorable for their racism. Again, it's not being factually accurate that makes deplorable people deplorable.

[henryp]

How about this, do you think White people in Connecticut are probably smarter in general than White people in Alabama.

Seems unlikely that there would be a significant difference. But if they are, it is likely due to differing average levels of educational attainment and differences in history that have affected their institutions, and possibly other environmental factors. I mean, it's obvious when you compare white people to white people that it's not really their race that's the relevant factor, isn't it?

https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee...elates.pdf


So if you can show or if you believe people from Connecticut and Alabama can have differences because of environmental factors, educational attainment, and differences in history...wouldn't you also expect that black people and white people, who also have different environmental factors, radically different educational attainment, and radically different histories would also have different results?

A geographical location doesn't cause you to be smart or stupid.  Being black or white doesn't cause you to be more or less intelligent.  But the circumstances, and for black america, it was some pretty brutal fucking circumstances, are going to skew the numbers for each group.

As a group, black america got fucked over pretty hard for a few centuries.  This sort of data is a confirmation of that for the reasons you say.  In that it reflects environmental factors and historical differences.  And we can use that information as evidence that there is not an even playing field.  That affirmative action, particularly in regards to education, or criminal justice policies in urban neighborhoods, and things of this nature should take into consideration these differences.   The conclusions and follow through for believing the ideas you call racist don't have to be negative.

---

I guess the point I'm getting at, is I understand why racist Trump supporters would embrace these statistics, and draw racist conclusions.

What's confusing is why progressive non-racists would deny the statistics? Sticking your head in the sand, because some numbers aren't what you wish they were seems like a mistake to me. People just need to draw the right conclusions, which you've already recognized when comparing Connecticut and Alabama.

[Napoléon]

I didn't claim to quote you at all, in the body of my post. I don't agree that Trump supporters are deplorable for saying factually accurate things, or for merely being Trump supporters. I think the 40% of Trump Supporters who are clearly racist are deplorable for their racism. Again, it's not being factually accurate that makes deplorable people deplorable.

Then why did you quote me?

You took what I said out of context. I was talking in context of what the OP stated. I don't even disagree with your point.

[Mister Agenda]

I guess the point I'm getting at, is I understand why racist Trump supporters would embrace these statistics, and draw racist conclusions.

I doubt most of them are aware of the statistics.

What's confusing is why progressive non-racists would deny the statistics? Sticking your head in the sand, because some numbers aren't what you wish they were seems like a mistake to me. People just need to draw the right conclusions, which you've already recognized when comparing Connecticut and Alabama.

Again, race isn't the relevant factor. Oppression is.

[henryp]

Again, race isn't the relevant factor. Oppression is.

When the reason you're being oppressed for centuries is your race, race is going to be relevant.  

I feel like you're doing that thing, where there's one black guy and 9 white guys, and you point him out by calling him "the tall guy with the red shirt and blue shorts."

[Mister Agenda]

I didn't claim to quote you at all, in the body of my post. I don't agree that Trump supporters are deplorable for saying factually accurate things, or for merely being Trump supporters. I think the 40% of Trump Supporters who are clearly racist are deplorable for their racism. Again, it's not being factually accurate that makes deplorable people deplorable.

Then why did you quote me?

Because I was replying to you.

You took what I said out of context. I was talking in context of what the OP stated. I don't even disagree with your point.

Do you understand the difference between me using quote marks to indicate the words are not my own and using them to indicate that they are yours? I was indicating why I think certain Trump (and Clinton) supporters are deplorable (their racism). My opinion is not based on 'oh no, they are factually correct and that makes them deplorable!' (not your words). I don't really think anyone thinks someone is deplorable based on what they're factually right about. The conclusions they draw from being factually right about something, like 'this child was not actually in a cage so our government is not really keeping children behind chain link fences' (not your words) are another matter.

---

Again, race isn't the relevant factor. Oppression is.

When the reason you're being oppressed for centuries is your race, race is going to be relevant.  

I feel like you're doing that thing, where there's one black guy and 9 white guys, and you point him out by calling him "the tall guy with the red shirt and blue shorts."

I'm certainly not going to point him out by calling him 'the one statistically more likely to score lower on IQ tests and to have been incarcerated'.