ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Part IX

Moderators: nate33, montestewart, LyricalRico

User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,646
And1: 23,139
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#81 » by nate33 » Sat Apr 2, 2016 4:36 pm

dckingsfan wrote:A very nuanced article in the WSJ Friday opinion about why we should go ahead with the TPP. I have been on the fence on the agreement - it tilted me toward the agreement. Seems not to be blocked by the fire wall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lee-hsien-loongs-american-exceptionalism-1459464855

I hit the fire wall, but if you just link to it from google, you can get in:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Lee+Hsien+Loong%E2%80%99s+American+Exceptionalism

FWIW, I read the article and was unmoved. It says America would benefit from the TPP, but it doesn't say how. As I've pointed out before, they need us more than we need them. Without our consumers, they starve. Without their cheap widgets, we make them here at more cost but simultaneously save by reducing unemployment and welfare expenditures.

Finally, his point that all 11 TPP countries would much rather have America as their lynchpin instead of China was interesting. The way I look at it, they're admitting that we have negotiating leverage. If they all want America so much more than China, then clearly America is giving too much away in the deal and we have room to swing the deal more to our advantage.
User avatar
TGW
RealGM
Posts: 13,411
And1: 6,814
Joined: Oct 22, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#82 » by TGW » Sat Apr 2, 2016 5:36 pm

Simple question nate, since you think there's no white privilege in this country. If you had a choice tomorrow to wake up as a white male or a black male, which would you choose?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
Some random troll wrote:Not to sound negative, but this team is owned by an arrogant cheapskate, managed by a moron and coached by an idiot. Recipe for disaster.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,646
And1: 23,139
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#83 » by nate33 » Sat Apr 2, 2016 6:40 pm

TGW wrote:Simple question nate, since you think there's no white privilege in this country. If you had a choice tomorrow to wake up as a white male or a black male, which would you choose?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

That's an interesting and fair question, TGW.

I don't believe that I stated that there was no "white privilege" in this country. I think there is. I just don't think very much of it (if any) is attributable to slavery 7 generations ago.

I think there is prejudice against blacks in the country simply because people are rational human beings who, when faced with limited information, play the averages. If you are picking first on the basketball court and you don't know anybody, you take the black guy. This is clearly prejudice, but it's also rational since blacks tend to have, on average, a superior quick twitch athleticism and split-second kinetic intelligence that make them better basketball players. Obviously, one can still be wrong in choosing the black guy first, but in the absence of information, you make the best choice you can.

Obviously, those prejudices work the other way as well. The unfortunate truth, documented with lots of scientific research, is that blacks, on average, are more likely to be violent than whites (or Asians). We see this in crime statistics in every country in the world. Blacks, on average, are more likely to have a lower education. Blacks, on average, even have a lower IQ. Human beings are wired to recognize patterns. They are aware of these things. They see that blacks get in more fights than whites in high school, even the girls. They see that the smartest kids in the class tend to be East Asian or Indian, with some whites in the mix, and blacks tend to do worse. Many on this board will act shocked or indignant at these last few sentences. They will characterize it as blatant racism because I'm willing to say these things out loud; but every single one of them has privately noted these patterns and has adjusted their lives accordingly. How many of the good people on this board have moved away from predominately black neighborhoods to send their kids to "good schools"? How many have elected to pay massively higher prices for homes in white neighborhoods instead of cheaper black neighborhoods that are closer to where they work? At least I'm not a hypocrite.

Now, a sufficiently intelligent, rational person is well aware that statistics apply to groups and have much less predictive powers when dealing with individuals. A rational person with enough time to get to know any individual (such as a job interview) should be able to evaluate a person on his or her merits rather than on general racial statistics. Unfortunately, sometimes people don't have the time. And more importantly, lots of people are neither sufficiently intelligent or sufficiently rational to understand the fallacy of applying group statistical differences to individuals. The end result is white privilege, or outright racism - the default belief that whites are better able to do the job, or to be safer company, or better neighbors than blacks. I think most white people are able to set aside their prejudices after they get to know any individual black person, but the prejudices certainly exist before they get to know them.

So, the answer to your question is I would prefer to remain a white person. I readily cede that "white privilege" exists. I even support modest affirmative action policies designed to combat white privilege where it is most harmful to blacks. I just reject the notion that white privilege is inherently composed out of blind hatred of black people. It is a rational response when limited information is available.
DCZards
RealGM
Posts: 11,169
And1: 5,014
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#84 » by DCZards » Sat Apr 2, 2016 9:30 pm

I’ve been mulling this “black underperformance” topic since yesterday when it was initially raised. And it has made me reflect on two distinct groups of friends and associates. One are the very “successful” people I have had the opportunity to know in my life—black, white, Latino and Asian. Many of them have gone to the best colleges and universities, have multiple degrees and good jobs, drive nice cars, live in big houses in great neighborhoods and send their kids to the top private schools.

These men and women are indeed “successful” --at least by American (or European) standards.

Then there are my friends who are Garveyites. They are members of the United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) started by Marcus Garvey around 1920. (The current UNIA national president is a close friend.) Though these men and women do not possess anywhere near the material wealth that the previous group has, most Garveyites I know are talented, extremely self-aware and self-confident, and have a high-level of cultural and historical awareness. They also possess a peace of mind that many in the first group would die for.

What I’ve learned from Garveyites and others is that when black folks discover their “true” history and identity—which includes being the successors of those who built ancient African kingdoms—they develop a sense of self that typically leads to them being wiser and smarter (at least when measured by standards other than those developed and subscribed to by Europeans, such as IQ), more self-dependent than those friends and associates who have achieved what most Americans consider to be success. Maybe most importantly, these “learned” men and women are not interested in living up to the American/European standards of happiness and well-being.

One of the biggest problems for most black folks worldwide is that European dominance/culture results in many of us embracing standards of success (and beauty) that are unnatural and unhealthy (especially psychologically) for people of African descent.
cammac
General Manager
Posts: 8,757
And1: 6,216
Joined: Aug 02, 2013
Location: Niagara Peninsula
         

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#85 » by cammac » Sat Apr 2, 2016 9:47 pm

nate33 wrote:
pineappleheadindc wrote:Donald Trump is in trouble on his abortion answer and I have no idea why.

If I got this correctly, he says that he wants abortion to be illegal and that, when illegal, if a woman has an abortion she should be punished.

My side, the pro-choice side, don't like that. We think that's horrible. But we all know that's how my side would feel, so Trump shouldn't get any grief for that, right? There are just two sides of the debate and we hate Ted Cruz's position on abortion and he's not in trouble for his views like Trump is.

Apparently, the pro-life side is mad at him for his answer too and that gets me completely confused. Why? If you think abortion is murder, then the mother -- a willing participant in the fetus' murder -- should be punished just as much as a wife who hires a hit man to kill her husband. Right?

I don't know how much of this is a real controversy and how much of this is just (a) media hype, and/or; (b) Establishment Republicans looking to trip up Trump. But the bottom line is that of all the things that Trump has said, *this* seems like among the most UNcontroversial things to get worked up about.

My dos centavos.

The reason Trump is getting so much flak for the comment is that he is pulling the thread that completely unwinds the tapestry of the pro-life position. Pro-lifers believe they have the moral high ground because they are defending the life of the innocent. They even manage to get a minority of women voters to agree with them. They do so because nobody really considers the true ramifications of their position. It's one thing to beat your chest and claim that you are an advocate for innocent babies. It's quite another to actually enforce your position through the only logically consistent method: punishing those who commit abortion as accessories to murder.

When pro-lifers, particularly female pro-lifers think that through, many will shift to the pro-choice stance. Trump's truth-speak may have just dealt a crippling blow to the entire pro life movement.

I'm curious whether or not Trump was planning this all along. Blowing up the pro-life coalition is one more step to bringing more traditional conservatives to his more moderate, populist position. Trump has never really declared his policy on abortion clearly. He has labeled himself "pro-life", but he hasn't yet stated he would ban abortions except for third trimester abortions. He is maintaining the flexibility to be pretty moderate on abortion. He could easily state in a general election that he want's third trimester abortions banned, and he'll forbid federal funding of abortion, but he has no interest in making first trimester abortions illegal. That's a completely moderate position palatable to all but the most extreme feminists.


CANADA: Canada has a low rate of abortion compared to other industrialized countries. It’s also home to one of the lowest rates of abortion-related complications and maternal mortality in the world. Canada is the only democratic, industrialized nation in the world with no laws restricting abortion. The federal government and provincial jurisdictions have all indicated that they do not plan on returning to the abortion debate, signaling that current laws are suffice.

UNITED STATES: In a country where people’s opinions on religion, morality, and the status of women drastically differ, abortion is easily one of the most contentious issues that divide U.S. policymakers. Nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended and four in 10 of these pregnancies end up in abortion. But the Guttmacher Institute suggests these staggering numbers aren’t an anomaly and that other countries share similar abortion rates as developed nations’ families tend to want fewer children.

Canada puts a emphasis on education in preventing pregnancy rather than hide it between right wing mumbo jumbo with Sarah Palin the poster girl of terrible motherhood.
User avatar
pineappleheadindc
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 22,118
And1: 3,479
Joined: Dec 17, 2001
Location: Cabin John, MD
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#86 » by pineappleheadindc » Sat Apr 2, 2016 10:04 pm

nate33 wrote:
pineappleheadindc wrote:Donald Trump is in trouble on his abortion answer and I have no idea why.

If I got this correctly, he says that he wants abortion to be illegal and that, when illegal, if a woman has an abortion she should be punished.

My side, the pro-choice side, don't like that. We think that's horrible. But we all know that's how my side would feel, so Trump shouldn't get any grief for that, right? There are just two sides of the debate and we hate Ted Cruz's position on abortion and he's not in trouble for his views like Trump is.

Apparently, the pro-life side is mad at him for his answer too and that gets me completely confused. Why? If you think abortion is murder, then the mother -- a willing participant in the fetus' murder -- should be punished just as much as a wife who hires a hit man to kill her husband. Right?

I don't know how much of this is a real controversy and how much of this is just (a) media hype, and/or; (b) Establishment Republicans looking to trip up Trump. But the bottom line is that of all the things that Trump has said, *this* seems like among the most UNcontroversial things to get worked up about.

My dos centavos.

The reason Trump is getting so much flak for the comment is that he is pulling the thread that completely unwinds the tapestry of the pro-life position. Pro-lifers believe they have the moral high ground because they are defending the life of the innocent. They even manage to get a minority of women voters to agree with them. They do so because nobody really considers the true ramifications of their position. It's one thing to beat your chest and claim that you are an advocate for innocent babies. It's quite another to actually enforce your position through the only logically consistent method: punishing those who commit abortion as accessories to murder.

When pro-lifers, particularly female pro-lifers think that through, many will shift to the pro-choice stance. Trump's truth-speak may have just dealt a crippling blow to the entire pro life movement.

I'm curious whether or not Trump was planning this all along. Blowing up the pro-life coalition is one more step to bringing more traditional conservatives to his more moderate, populist position. Trump has never really declared his policy on abortion clearly. He has labeled himself "pro-life", but he hasn't yet stated he would ban abortions except for third trimester abortions. He is maintaining the flexibility to be pretty moderate on abortion. He could easily state in a general election that he want's third trimester abortions banned, and he'll forbid federal funding of abortion, but he has no interest in making first trimester abortions illegal. That's a completely moderate position palatable to all but the most extreme feminists.


Your post resonates with my suspicions, Nate.

I *guess* that on abortion, Trump sits exactly where much of America is -- don't think a collection of cells is killing a life, don't think that aborting a fetus that's near viability should be a woman's choice. Hard and unyielding lines of right or wrong in something that is so personal and so difficult to put a either/or context in is not logical IMO. I think, purposefully or accidentially, Trump is articulating the illogic of the conservative camp -- but I also think he's also indirectly shedding light on the illogic of the abortion in late term is okay camp too.

On abortion, I'm personally in the mushy, non-logical (to the believers on each side of the debate) middle. I'd honestly not like to think about it or discuss it. I AM for universal contraception on demand to help reduce unwanted pregnancies.

As a liberal, I've continued to find the Trump candidacy (and the Sanders candidacy, but at a lesser extent) to be interesting. The way the parties are aligned are illogical insofar as their policy positions and their self-described role of government in peoples' lives are concerned. I think Trump from the right and Sanders on the left are blowing that up.

This election cycle continues to fascinate me. I think political historians will be writing about this cycle for a long time.

My dos centavos only,

Pine
"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart."
--Confucius

"Try not. Do or do not. There is no try"
- Yoda
crackhed
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,403
And1: 66
Joined: Sep 27, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#87 » by crackhed » Sat Apr 2, 2016 11:07 pm

nate33 wrote:Obviously, those prejudices work the other way as well. The unfortunate truth, documented with lots of scientific research, is that blacks, on average, are more likely to be violent than whites (or Asians). We see this in crime statistics in every country in the world. Blacks, on average, are more likely to have a lower education. Blacks, on average, even have a lower IQ. Human beings are wired to recognize patterns. They are aware of these things. They see that blacks get in more fights than whites in high school, even the girls. They see that the smartest kids in the class tend to be East Asian or Indian, with some whites in the mix, and blacks tend to do worse. Many on this board will act shocked or indignant at these last few sentences. They will characterize it as blatant racism because I'm willing to say these things out loud; but every single one of them has privately noted these patterns and has adjusted their lives accordingly. How many of the good people on this board have moved away from predominately black neighborhoods to send their kids to "good schools"? How many have elected to pay massively higher prices for homes in white neighborhoods instead of cheaper black neighborhoods that are closer to where they work? At least I'm not a hypocrite.

is your argument that blacks are somehow inherently more prone to violence than whites? how about context? i've read a lot of european history, i recall a lotta whites killing whites
"I never apologize. I'm sorry but that's just the kind of man I am"
H. Simpson
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 35,275
And1: 20,670
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#88 » by dckingsfan » Sun Apr 3, 2016 2:01 am

nate33 wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:A very nuanced article in the WSJ Friday opinion about why we should go ahead with the TPP. I have been on the fence on the agreement - it tilted me toward the agreement. Seems not to be blocked by the fire wall:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lee-hsien-loongs-american-exceptionalism-1459464855

I hit the fire wall, but if you just link to it from google, you can get in:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Lee+Hsien+Loong%E2%80%99s+American+Exceptionalism

FWIW, I read the article and was unmoved. It says America would benefit from the TPP, but it doesn't say how. As I've pointed out before, they need us more than we need them. Without our consumers, they starve. Without their cheap widgets, we make them here at more cost but simultaneously save by reducing unemployment and welfare expenditures.

Finally, his point that all 11 TPP countries would much rather have America as their lynchpin instead of China was interesting. The way I look at it, they're admitting that we have negotiating leverage. If they all want America so much more than China, then clearly America is giving too much away in the deal and we have room to swing the deal more to our advantage.


There are pros/cons - one of the pros is that it would help us with farm and machinery exports. One of the cons is that it will help our professionals more than it helps our workers. So, I can see someone siding one way or the other on that.

But, I am pretty sure that if you read the deal:
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text

You will find that it is slanted to us. Because they don't want to ONLY be tied to China, we got a very sweet deal. Since our tariffs are relatively low and theirs would be coming down - that is good for us. And protecting our IP should be a high priority as well - and this agreement does a pretty good job of that. And I think Hsien's argument in the original article talks well to why it is slanted to us now and probably wouldn't be so in the future.
DCZards
RealGM
Posts: 11,169
And1: 5,014
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#89 » by DCZards » Sun Apr 3, 2016 3:28 am

Dub post.
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,646
And1: 23,139
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#90 » by nate33 » Sun Apr 3, 2016 3:53 am

crackhed wrote:
nate33 wrote:Obviously, those prejudices work the other way as well. The unfortunate truth, documented with lots of scientific research, is that blacks, on average, are more likely to be violent than whites (or Asians). We see this in crime statistics in every country in the world. Blacks, on average, are more likely to have a lower education. Blacks, on average, even have a lower IQ. Human beings are wired to recognize patterns. They are aware of these things. They see that blacks get in more fights than whites in high school, even the girls. They see that the smartest kids in the class tend to be East Asian or Indian, with some whites in the mix, and blacks tend to do worse. Many on this board will act shocked or indignant at these last few sentences. They will characterize it as blatant racism because I'm willing to say these things out loud; but every single one of them has privately noted these patterns and has adjusted their lives accordingly. How many of the good people on this board have moved away from predominately black neighborhoods to send their kids to "good schools"? How many have elected to pay massively higher prices for homes in white neighborhoods instead of cheaper black neighborhoods that are closer to where they work? At least I'm not a hypocrite.

is your argument that blacks are somehow inherently more prone to violence than whites? how about context? i've read a lot of european history, i recall a lotta whites killing whites

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.
AFM
RealGM
Posts: 12,649
And1: 8,887
Joined: May 25, 2012
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#91 » by AFM » Sun Apr 3, 2016 5:21 am

Nate would like this
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEAni9e1yMA[/youtube]
DCZards
RealGM
Posts: 11,169
And1: 5,014
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC
     

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#92 » by DCZards » Sun Apr 3, 2016 2:10 pm

AFM wrote:Nate would like this
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEAni9e1yMA[/youtube]


As the brother says in this clip:
"Y'all been hunting black folks for so long we just wanted to see what is was like to hunt white folks." :wink:
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 35,275
And1: 20,670
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#93 » by dckingsfan » Sun Apr 3, 2016 2:11 pm

User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,646
And1: 23,139
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#94 » by nate33 » Sun Apr 3, 2016 2:24 pm



Sanders can't win based on the at large delegates alone. His path to win is to convince some of the super delegates to change their minds. If Sanders has a clear majority of the delegates obtainable via popular vote, he'll be able to credibly argue that the people want him, not Hillary, and that if the elites force Hillary down their throat, the people might stay home on Election Day. That could be a powerful argument.
fishercob
RealGM
Posts: 13,922
And1: 1,571
Joined: Apr 25, 2002
Location: Tenleytown, DC

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#95 » by fishercob » Sun Apr 3, 2016 2:25 pm

nate33 wrote:
crackhed wrote:
nate33 wrote:Obviously, those prejudices work the other way as well. The unfortunate truth, documented with lots of scientific research, is that blacks, on average, are more likely to be violent than whites (or Asians). We see this in crime statistics in every country in the world. Blacks, on average, are more likely to have a lower education. Blacks, on average, even have a lower IQ. Human beings are wired to recognize patterns. They are aware of these things. They see that blacks get in more fights than whites in high school, even the girls. They see that the smartest kids in the class tend to be East Asian or Indian, with some whites in the mix, and blacks tend to do worse. Many on this board will act shocked or indignant at these last few sentences. They will characterize it as blatant racism because I'm willing to say these things out loud; but every single one of them has privately noted these patterns and has adjusted their lives accordingly. How many of the good people on this board have moved away from predominately black neighborhoods to send their kids to "good schools"? How many have elected to pay massively higher prices for homes in white neighborhoods instead of cheaper black neighborhoods that are closer to where they work? At least I'm not a hypocrite.

is your argument that blacks are somehow inherently more prone to violence than whites? how about context? i've read a lot of european history, i recall a lotta whites killing whites

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.


Africa being in a state of war doesn't nearly prove that blacks are more prone to killing than whites. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Mao -- not black.
"Some people have a way with words....some people....not have way."
— Steve Martin
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 35,275
And1: 20,670
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#96 » by dckingsfan » Sun Apr 3, 2016 2:32 pm

nate33 wrote:


Sanders can't win based on the at large delegates alone. His path to win is to convince some of the super delegates to change their minds. If Sanders has a clear majority of the delegates obtainable via popular vote, he'll be able to credibly argue that the people want him, not Hillary, and that if the elites force Hillary down their throat, the people might stay home on Election Day. That could be a powerful argument.

Possible... just don't think it is very probable unless he really surges in some of the "big" states. But that he is still in the mix shows you just how much voters are fed up with the status quo.

Normally that wouldn't be the case when the economy is doing so well.
AFM
RealGM
Posts: 12,649
And1: 8,887
Joined: May 25, 2012
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#97 » by AFM » Sun Apr 3, 2016 4:18 pm

DCZards wrote:
AFM wrote:Nate would like this
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEAni9e1yMA[/youtube]


As the brother says in this clip:
"Y'all been hunting black folks for so long we just wanted to see what is was like to hunt white folks." :wink:


Honestly maybe the greatest song I've ever heard :lol:
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,869
And1: 406
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#98 » by popper » Sun Apr 3, 2016 5:03 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
nate33 wrote:


Sanders can't win based on the at large delegates alone. His path to win is to convince some of the super delegates to change their minds. If Sanders has a clear majority of the delegates obtainable via popular vote, he'll be able to credibly argue that the people want him, not Hillary, and that if the elites force Hillary down their throat, the people might stay home on Election Day. That could be a powerful argument.

Possible... just don't think it is very probable unless he really surges in some of the "big" states. But that he is still in the mix shows you just how much voters are fed up with the status quo.

Normally that wouldn't be the case when the economy is doing so well.


I'm curious dcking, the economy is growing very slowly by historical standards even with interest rates held artificially low for years. The low rates prop up Wall Street and stimulate home and auto sales, etc. If all we can manage is 2% growth fueled by $13.5 Trillion in stimulus spending ($9 Trillion debt plus $4.5 Trillion Fed balance sheet over last 7 years) then what would the economy look like if we were living within our means? I think $2 Trillion of the $9 Trillion of debt was appropriate to mitigate the damage from the 08 recession. The remaining $7 Trillion in debt plus the $4.5 Trillion Fed printing is masking what our real economy would look like absent that stimulus. What's your take?
crackhed
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,403
And1: 66
Joined: Sep 27, 2005

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#99 » by crackhed » Sun Apr 3, 2016 5:16 pm

nate33 wrote:
crackhed wrote:
nate33 wrote:Obviously, those prejudices work the other way as well. The unfortunate truth, documented with lots of scientific research, is that blacks, on average, are more likely to be violent than whites (or Asians). We see this in crime statistics in every country in the world. Blacks, on average, are more likely to have a lower education. Blacks, on average, even have a lower IQ. Human beings are wired to recognize patterns. They are aware of these things. They see that blacks get in more fights than whites in high school, even the girls. They see that the smartest kids in the class tend to be East Asian or Indian, with some whites in the mix, and blacks tend to do worse. Many on this board will act shocked or indignant at these last few sentences. They will characterize it as blatant racism because I'm willing to say these things out loud; but every single one of them has privately noted these patterns and has adjusted their lives accordingly. How many of the good people on this board have moved away from predominately black neighborhoods to send their kids to "good schools"? How many have elected to pay massively higher prices for homes in white neighborhoods instead of cheaper black neighborhoods that are closer to where they work? At least I'm not a hypocrite.

is your argument that blacks are somehow inherently more prone to violence than whites? how about context? i've read a lot of european history, i recall a lotta whites killing whites

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.


yes i do want to go there. very convenient of u to take a single snapshot of history to come up with your racist beliefs.
why not turn the clock back a bit further... see what you find in europe, the americas, asia etc. and then tell me again that blacks are the most violent group. not to mention that much of the violence u see in africa today is - in part - an indirect consequence of white greed
"I never apologize. I'm sorry but that's just the kind of man I am"
H. Simpson
User avatar
nate33
Forum Mod - Wizards
Forum Mod - Wizards
Posts: 70,646
And1: 23,139
Joined: Oct 28, 2002

Re: Political Roundtable Part IX 

Post#100 » by nate33 » Sun Apr 3, 2016 5:39 pm

crackhed wrote:
nate33 wrote:
crackhed wrote:is your argument that blacks are somehow inherently more prone to violence than whites? how about context? i've read a lot of european history, i recall a lotta whites killing whites

You don't want to go there.

It doesn't get covered much, but Africa has been in a state of near constant war for 50 years. Africa has accounted for 88% of the world's war-related deaths since 1990. There are currently wars in Uganda, Somalia, Nigeria, Central African Republican, Sudan, Mali and Burundi. The 1998-2003 Congo War alone has taken more lives than any war since World War II.


yes i do want to go there. very convenient of u to take a single snapshot of history to come up with your racist beliefs.
why not turn the clock back a bit further... see what you find in europe, the americas, asia etc. and then tell me again that blacks are the most violent group

I could keep going back if you want. I just don't have the time to give a seminar on African history. But I'm sure that in the past century, even if you include World War II, blacks have killed more per capita in wars than whites. WWII took 30 million lives (excluding the Sino-Japanese War). So that's about 3% of the average number of whites in the past century. Sub-Saharan Africa has lost 10 million in just the past 20 years alone, that's about 2% of it's average population at the time. And wars during the 60's, 70's and 80's were just as deadly (while the population was substantially lower).

But I was simply being generous in indulging on this war=violence debate. Frankly, it's irrelevant to the topic being discussed. This was all brought up in the context of TGW's question on whether or not there is "white privilege" and whether or not it is justified. The fact that WWII killed 30 million people in an organized, declared war has no bearing on whether an individual walking down the street is going to consider an average white guy or an average black guy more dangerous, or whether or not one wants to move into a black neighborhood or a white neighborhood. In that context, violent crime rate is the relevant determinant, not war history from 75 years ago.

Return to Washington Wizards