RSS
An absolute immigration moratorium and reparations for American blacks and American Indians who are verifiably able to prove they are at least third-generation in residency, with a sunset provision that takes effect in twenty years if and only if the official poverty rate is under 10.0%. The annual reparation amount per eligible adult is $1,000 a month, indexed to the CPI over the twenty-year period, an amount that comes to more than half the contemporary difference in median incomes between white and black/American Indian households. With around 30 million people eligible, this comes to $360 billion annually–less than 10% of the current federal budget.
Could a Republican win on this? It seems conceivable to me. It takes the leading issue of concern for the Republican electorate and pairs it with a real benefit for the rest of Old America that would generate a lot of vociferous support from American blacks, making it exceedingly difficult for the left to attack.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
The left doesn’t need to attack the proposal. Instead they can come up with an even more radical proposal. This is just admitting defeat, trying to make short term gains(one election) while taking long term losses. All you would be doing here is possibly creating bi-partisan support for reparations, and making immigration restriction tied up with other issues.
It’s worthless to make compromises with blacks. Lie to them, try to discredit Democrats in the hopes of harming black turnout, but don’t show weakness towards them. They don’t respect that and will view it (correctly) as an opportunity to extract more in the future.
Basically those who want reparations will keep voting for the Democrats, but it'll perhaps dent the enthusiasm of Republican voters who would want none of it. It's not a winning platform for conservatives/racialists/alt-right/white nationalists/whoever.
Treat the African American group (and most sub saharan africans) the way you would treat a dog.
If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don't train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don't assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.
You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially. They can't do facts or logic. It's either give them what they want, or tell them to take a hike.Replies: @anon, @Audacious Epigone
Hard to say if the GOP can out-reparation the Dems. Any reparations would presumably be paid for by significant cuts to the Pentagon, and a presumable racial tax on whites (Jews presumably exempted as the revived MENA category).
Logistically, I don’t see the Dems being capable of enacting this even if the win in 2020. Its rube bait designed to replicate the “agitate and humiliate” of BLM or “crybully” method. Any GOP attacks on reparations presumably trigger the Tribal Gun, spiking turnout. Without court-packing, reparations is only possible when another vacancy arises (presumably Thomas, ironic)
The existence of this reparations demand will also piss off the “white college” voters the Dems need, as the older moderates will resent being taxed. Indebted Millennials presumably don’t care about reckless spending, as the Dems are promising to wipe their debts out.
There is also the third dimension of reparations: A shooting war breaking out as “white separatism” becomes more than a ADLbb fever dream.
From a conspiratorial perspective, we might reckon that reparations talk is designed to get a neutered Trump back over the top in 2020, rather than risk a right-wing backlash to an unprepared Dem Admin that immidiately would go for a gun ban and amnesty.
O/T
Hugbox
Like it or not, Manners maketh man.
Continued relevancy of the Right depends upon our understanding that “edgelord” behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies. By and large our movements are despised by most white Millennials.
Whenever we act up, even worse through IRL violence, the hammer comes down hard. There is not going to be any EO coming out of the WH, or any FCC actions that will force Big Social to allow outright Neo-Nazism back on to their sites.
Cat-ladies usually keep to themselves, and their numbers are dwindling due to generational die-off. They have been replaced by dog-ladies who are mostly extroverts. But males tend to overlook the dog-lady threat because they are comfortable with canine servility and believe dog is God spelled backwards.
Once there is an acceptances of the main premise – that of reparations – those conditions aren’t going to obtain. The eligible pool will likely expand.
Associate and tie Immigration with ‘Genocide’ of the Indians.
And do the same with Hawaii, a very blue state that takes pride its Diversity.
Tie Diversity with Imperialism. Native Hawaiians lost their beloved homeland to whites and Asians who came as immigrant-invaders. Worse, these degenerate whites and their imitative yellow dogs have spreads globo-homo PC garbage all over.
Also, mention what became of Palestine due to endless Jewish immigration.
Even though a great nation was created by Immigration-Invasion, its great victims were the indigenous folks of America and Hawaii. THEREFORE, all immigration-invasion must be halted and the main mission of America must be to revive the Indian and Hawaiian communities.
It’s about time to associate immigration with shame and blame. Immigrant-Guilt. Emma-Lazarusism or Emma-gration led to Indians being reduced to wretched huddled masses in Reservations.
At least white immigrant guilt was mitigated by having created a great nation. So, whites have earned some right to the New World.
But all these non-white losers coming to mooch off Indian lands and White achievement, they must be stopped. Immigrant-Moocher Guilt.
aren’t you a little old to still believe in santa claus, AE?
Haven’t we already paid reparations? I am sure there has been a huge transfer of wealth from white America to Black America since the 1960s. Has anyone ever tried to quantitate it?
But the problem is that those subsidies were indicative of conditions in the now and were distributed among whites as well. So they would't really classify. You don't get government distribution of welfare until around 1960. The New Deal was distributed to whites first. Let's eschew the contend that whites deserved because they were white.
Whenever the economy takes a hit, those on lower rungs get hit worse.
Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine. So much for preserving history! Read it if you can find it.Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone
Save a copy while it's still there. The analysis alone should be examined as a study in how to extract information that the gatekeepers want locked up.Replies: @Mr. Rational
It's worthless to make compromises with blacks. Lie to them, try to discredit Democrats in the hopes of harming black turnout, but don't show weakness towards them. They don't respect that and will view it (correctly) as an opportunity to extract more in the future.Replies: @reiner Tor, @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
My thoughts exactly. Reparations will become the default for both parties (once you promised it, it’ll be hard to backtrack on the technicality that you only promised it in exchange for no immigration), while immigration enforcement just won’t happen.
Basically those who want reparations will keep voting for the Democrats, but it’ll perhaps dent the enthusiasm of Republican voters who would want none of it. It’s not a winning platform for conservatives/racialists/alt-right/white nationalists/whoever.
That’s not a bargain. The Americans that do not qualify get nothing in exchange for reparations. The rest of America should get quotas, affirmative action set-asides and all proactive attempts at “diversity” by any governmental unit made illegal. The use of disparate impact as a legal doctrine should be prohibited. Actually, we need a constitutional amendment that prohibits the collection or use of data by any metric of group characteristics by any governmental unit of any kind.
You did not address the non-enforcement of immigration laws which is what the Republican Party sewer pond scum leaders (most) prefer. We should also get immigration law reform, for instance, a sane policy with regard to “refugees.”
- Founding FathersReplies: @iffen
Would the reparations payments result in many blacks no longer qualifying for welfare ?
Would Blacks under the age of 18 qualify for reparations ? A mother with 3 kids would be raking in 3,000 per month…could she still live in public housing ? Still collect welfare and food stamps ?
I'm not American, but if I were, I'd very much want no immigration, so much so that paying whatever amount of welfare payments to the descendants of slaves would be worth it for me.
But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there's no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They'd take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they'd take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.
Also while it's a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won't vote for you anyway.Replies: @Rosie
In the legislative process, the immigration limit would of course be dropped.
Would Blacks under the age of 18 qualify for reparations ? A mother with 3 kids would be raking in 3,000 per month...could she still live in public housing ? Still collect welfare and food stamps ?Replies: @reiner Tor, @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone
These are details to be worked out.
I’m not American, but if I were, I’d very much want no immigration, so much so that paying whatever amount of welfare payments to the descendants of slaves would be worth it for me.
But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there’s no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They’d take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they’d take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.
Also while it’s a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won’t vote for you anyway.
Personally, I would have no great objection to Republicans making this offer, but it will never happen, because it presupposes a recognition of legitimate White ethnic interests.Replies: @obwandiyag
Charming, that you think the race conflicts in America can be solved.
I would be for blacks paying whites reparations. They should pay reparations for the decline in white property values due to high levels of black crime. Not only have whites in many cities seen these declines over the last sixty years, many houses in cities have been completely abandoned by whites at great financial loss in order to flee to safer suburbs. In addition to these losses in property value, the whites who stayed should also be given reparations for the times they’ve been victims of black crime and also for the additional cost of black crime prevention measures like locks, fences, guns and burglary alarms. In addition to this, blacks should pay reparations for all the jobs lost by whites due to affirmative action. Blacks should also pay reparations to whites for the billions in welfare provided to blacks who didn’t bother to complete school, get a job and only have children they could support.
I take it you mean both whites and blacks in this category.Replies: @Mark G., @C. ThunderCock
There was a third party candidate who advocated slavery reparations funded by a financial transaction tax combined with a moratorium on immigration.
https://www.starktruthradio.com/?cat=618
There is no need for reparations for blacks.
Compared to living in Africa they hit the jackpot when their ancestors were brought to America (and generally not by white Americans.)
If they want reparations they should ask the blacks back in Africa who sold their ancestors or the descendants of those who financed the slave ships.
However, many white countries should ask oil-rich ME countries for reparations for all their slaving activity in the past!
What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole "African Slave Trade" thing was a hoax?
What if "go back to Africa" could no longer be honestly uttered?
There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that's going to be a gamechanger.Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @SunBakedSuburb
They can be solved, but the solutions will be bloody.
An honest accounting of which race has hurt/benefited the other more would leave blacks owing whites.
I'm not American, but if I were, I'd very much want no immigration, so much so that paying whatever amount of welfare payments to the descendants of slaves would be worth it for me.
But the issue is, you cannot make a deal with these people. They accept nothing short of your destruction, so there's no point in trying to come up with reasonable bargains. They'd take what you give them, and then not deliver their side of the bargain. Here, they'd take the reparations, and then not give you immigration restriction anyway.
Also while it's a nice mental exercise to think of a thousand ways you could give better deals for certain leftist constituencies, they won't vote for you anyway.Replies: @Rosie
Indeed. The dissident Right picks on boomers quite a bit, and much of it is very justified, but they have their own side of the story. Specifically, Whites agreed to end de jure segregation, provide generous welfare benefits, accept affirmative action, and pay lip service to egalitarianism in response to the Civil Rights Movement. All blacks had to do was accept the existence of the White majority and remain loyal to the implicitly White USA. They have refused, instead choosing to side with you-know-who, agitating for endless displacement-level, non-white immivasion.
Personally, I would have no great objection to Republicans making this offer, but it will never happen, because it presupposes a recognition of legitimate White ethnic interests.
I suppose no whites are on this "generous" welfare. Only a majority.Replies: @Mark G., @Rosie
It's worthless to make compromises with blacks. Lie to them, try to discredit Democrats in the hopes of harming black turnout, but don't show weakness towards them. They don't respect that and will view it (correctly) as an opportunity to extract more in the future.Replies: @reiner Tor, @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
I’m not saying out of cruelty, but out of necessity.
Treat the African American group (and most sub saharan africans) the way you would treat a dog.
If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don’t train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don’t assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.
You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially. They can’t do facts or logic. It’s either give them what they want, or tell them to take a hike.
jews, black, brown, mooslims - all got to goReplies: @Audacious Epigone
why don’t they go after the individuals and companies that got rich off slavery?
for example the Monsantos just sold their toxic chemical business for $66 billion
You will not be allowed anything, so you might as well self-deplatform
Get off of Big Social
Thot status: patrolled
BTW, something I've been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term "thot"?Replies: @216, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone
The only thing that matters is remediating the demographic ballot box stuffing by “New Americans” that vote for greater centralization of social policy.
An immigration moratorium won’t do it.
The 1924 immigration moratorium was too late. We got FDR stuffing the Supreme Court to the point that a farmer couldn’t grow feed for his own animals and “America First” being denounced as Nazi so we could sacrifice, in Europe, the sons of those farmers for the high purpose of saving Soviet lives.
Trump’s election did only one thing to delay the day of reckoning:
Appointing Supreme Court judges with enough lifespan to prevent “hate speech” and “gun control” laws from being passed and enforced for a few more years.
After that grace period is over…
https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1115279949550817281
Get off of Big SocialReplies: @Rosie
I’m proud of you, 216, for not saying…
Thot status: patrolled
BTW, something I’ve been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term “thot”?
Treat the African American group (and most sub saharan africans) the way you would treat a dog.
If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don't train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don't assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.
You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially. They can't do facts or logic. It's either give them what they want, or tell them to take a hike.Replies: @anon, @Audacious Epigone
not just blacks, we have to say it to all non-whites except NE Asians, who are the one group that’s not a huge drain on us
jews, black, brown, mooslims – all got to go
Just over thirty years ago, President Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986. We refer to it today as the Reagan amnesty. Amnesty was granted to millions of illegal aliens in return for effective border control and penalizing employers who hire illegal aliens. We are still waiting for those two parts of the bargain to be fulfilled.
Compared to living in Africa they hit the jackpot when their ancestors were brought to America (and generally not by white Americans.)
If they want reparations they should ask the blacks back in Africa who sold their ancestors or the descendants of those who financed the slave ships.
However, many white countries should ask oil-rich ME countries for reparations for all their slaving activity in the past!Replies: @Truth
What if there were no slave ships, and they weren’t brought here from Africa?
What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole “African Slave Trade” thing was a hoax?
What if “go back to Africa” could no longer be honestly uttered?
There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that’s going to be a gamechanger.
There were slave ships and slaving run both into Europe and Slavic lands by Muslims as well as to West Africa by various others.
The moon landing doesn't look too impossible.
There were lots of Jews slaughtered in places north of Poland, but it seems unlikely the Germans operated ovens at Auschwitz.
Do you always traffic in nonsense?Replies: @Truth
How about "go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?" It doesn't have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.Replies: @iffen, @Truth, @Mr. Rational
Thot status: patrolled
BTW, something I've been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term "thot"?Replies: @216, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone
In the interest of civility I will refrain from using it, even though it is deserved.
Yes, I have seen numbers in the 20 trillion range. I’ll look for the source.
There are some stats on those subsidies. I think it was in this blog. Though which article I cannot recall. There was even an attempted to strategy to quantify by tax revenues.
But the problem is that those subsidies were indicative of conditions in the now and were distributed among whites as well. So they would’t really classify. You don’t get government distribution of welfare until around 1960. The New Deal was distributed to whites first. Let’s eschew the contend that whites deserved because they were white.
Whenever the economy takes a hit, those on lower rungs get hit worse.
“Blacks should also pay reparations to whites for the billions in welfare provided to blacks who didn’t bother to complete school, get a job and only have children they could support. ”
I take it you mean both whites and blacks in this category.
I know you're just being a disingenuous little prick as usual, but you're dreaming if you think an honest accounting on an individual basis as per your request wouldn't be a massive net loss for Blacks (hence the obvious utility of using Race as the standard).Replies: @EliteCommInc.
I can think of anyone further from whoredom than Faith Goldy. Drop-dead gorgeous with intelligence to back it up. I’m quite sure she could do a great deal better for herself in any other business than White advocacy! I will always have a special admiration for the innocent way in which she entered this movement. She went to a rally and provided fair and neutral coverage to White men asserting their rights, and for that she was put out on the street. I distinctly remember Millennial Woes telling her not to worry because she had “new friends now” in one of his videos. Unfortunately, her treatment has often been disgraceful. (I’m looking at you, Matt Parrot. I saw your tweet about her a few weeks ago.)
It's always fun being at the right wing rallies. People like Goldy and others are very nice people. Lots of funny people too. I was with some buddies and we were shit talking the antifa, and talking to the cops about immigration and crime.
There are some cops that are *very* friendly to us, obviously trying to make the point that they agreed with our signs and flags.
Anyways, my point is. The "white nationalists" like myself and Faith Goldy are just average guys. Some rednecks, some working class, some educated. We don't hate people, we just want a homeland. The other side, antifa, is quite disgusting. Full of trannies, drug addicts and communists. The deplatforming is wrong, but there hasn't been *any* direct WN action against anybody other than some random Muslims in New Zealand so....Replies: @216
Fuck reparations!
Terrible bargain. Reparations are a farce and Republicans who entertain the idea seriously may as well stick a gun in their mouth.
Think about it: There is no one left alive by several generations that either owned slaves or was one. There are millions of European descendants currently in the US who do not have ancestors that lived in the US during the period of legal slavery, or were a part of the conquering of the Amerindians. Why are they accountable?
Further is the precedent set: Now, we are all accountable for the sins of our ancestors? Your grandfather killed (or robbed, or raped, or swindled, etc) my grandfather so now you are financially liable to me?
As someone said – reparations have already been paid out in the trillions, in the form of welfare entitlements, money spent in attempts to close the achievement gap, affirmative action, and finally, countless white vaginas that have been offered up to the god of the irresponsibly insatiable negro sex drive, willing or otherwise, so that fatherless mulatto bastards can go forth continue the good work of violent criminality and or poor work ethic.
Here’s what I propose:
I take it you mean both whites and blacks in this category.Replies: @Mark G., @C. ThunderCock
Much more welfare flows to blacks than whites. Liberals are often disingenuous and point out that whites receive sixty percent of welfare versus thirty percent of welfare going to blacks while ignoring the fact that non-hispanic whites make up sixty three percent of the population while blacks make up fourteen percent. That means blacks get double the amount of welfare than their percentage of the population and are individually twice as likely to get welfare as whites. Social Security is often included under welfare but you have to consider that people pay into that before receiving benefits so it is not really in the same category as other welfare programs. If you strip out Social Security, then the disparity in welfare between whites and blacks is even larger with blacks using many welfare programs at the same rate as whites even though their numbers are only one fourth of whites.
I met Faith Goldy in person. She seems like a smart, upbeat, friendly lady. I certainly have no problem with her. I think most of the screeching about her is fake, ginned up by online trolls to discredit her.
It’s always fun being at the right wing rallies. People like Goldy and others are very nice people. Lots of funny people too. I was with some buddies and we were shit talking the antifa, and talking to the cops about immigration and crime.
There are some cops that are *very* friendly to us, obviously trying to make the point that they agreed with our signs and flags.
Anyways, my point is. The “white nationalists” like myself and Faith Goldy are just average guys. Some rednecks, some working class, some educated. We don’t hate people, we just want a homeland. The other side, antifa, is quite disgusting. Full of trannies, drug addicts and communists. The deplatforming is wrong, but there hasn’t been *any* direct WN action against anybody other than some random Muslims in New Zealand so….
https://twitter.com/10M_a_day/status/1115327359094280192
BTW, dehumanization is a bad look.Replies: @EldnahYm, @Audacious Epigone
What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole "African Slave Trade" thing was a hoax?
What if "go back to Africa" could no longer be honestly uttered?
There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that's going to be a gamechanger.Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @SunBakedSuburb
I can’t help it if there are stupid people in the world.
There were slave ships and slaving run both into Europe and Slavic lands by Muslims as well as to West Africa by various others.
The moon landing doesn’t look too impossible.
There were lots of Jews slaughtered in places north of Poland, but it seems unlikely the Germans operated ovens at Auschwitz.
Do you always traffic in nonsense?
1) There were slave ships although not one has ever been recovered.
2) The moon landing "doesn't look too impossible."
3) The holocaust was only half-hoax.
4) I traffic in nonsense.
Thot status: patrolled
BTW, something I've been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term "thot"?Replies: @216, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone
Yes, what we need are more banned words because shut up.
All that said, it's AE's blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone
This “grand bargain” reminds me of the 1986 Reagan “bargain” on immigration.
How did that work out?
Hugbox
https://twitter.com/triketora/status/1114890731783507970
Like it or not, Manners maketh man.
Continued relevancy of the Right depends upon our understanding that "edgelord" behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies. By and large our movements are despised by most white Millennials.
Whenever we act up, even worse through IRL violence, the hammer comes down hard. There is not going to be any EO coming out of the WH, or any FCC actions that will force Big Social to allow outright Neo-Nazism back on to their sites.Replies: @Issac, @SunBakedSuburb
They should be encouraged to purity spiral as often as possible. The right is effectively gone from polite society online and off. The utility of social media is to encourage the hard left to put lead in their own feet by goring the center.
Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. They don’t advance the argument in any way, but only hinder it by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient.
All that said, it’s AE’s blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.
Subjective. Your list will vary from anyone else's.
"by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient."
The word bully has no intellectual content. As with the term racist, its use means to stifle discussion, not assist it. Even so, you have the ignore feature. I make careful use of it.
"There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***."
Sure there is. One cannot choose to be a negro or a(n) (ethnic) Jew, but one has a choice about whether she is a whore or not.
"He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. "
The only truly consistent word moderation requires banning all words, or banning none.
I prefer to ban no words. Allowing people to communicate uncensored provides readers with a better sense of who they are dealing with.Replies: @Rosie
nigga please
I won’t even contend the numbers or the strange analysis for the moment. Your comment is nonresponsive. I presume you mean whites and blacks in the category you reference.
Silly, no one is offering the bargain that you write about. If you are offering it, I do not think you will have any takers. Suppose black people by a majority said, sure give me reparations and it is OK with me closing the border and ending all immigration. So what? Black people do not control immigration so they cannot stop it no matter what they want.
The people who do control immigration are basically indifferent to reparations. They may support it as a political wedge, but it is not like they support immigration as part of a gigantic fairness and ethical package where higher taxes on hedge funds allow them to ease up on immigration and maintain the same amount of virtue in the world or something.
You are getting some really nasty comments. I am a 1st amendment guy but somehow isteve avoids the really nasty stuff. Maybe you need to moderate comments “at whim”.
The bargain would never work. They’d get their reparations and we’d get some Marxist 9th circuit justice ruling that the immigration ban was unconstitutional. Furthermore, bargaining with con artists like Sharpton is like trying to appease SJW’s. It will only increase their “gimme” demands.
Exactly!
Perhaps one could, but we’d never see the immigration moratorium and the sun would never set on the reparations. Our enemies have no honor. They cannot be bargained with. Either we destroy them, they destroy us, or we separate*.
* Eternal vigilance required if we manage to separate.
It's always fun being at the right wing rallies. People like Goldy and others are very nice people. Lots of funny people too. I was with some buddies and we were shit talking the antifa, and talking to the cops about immigration and crime.
There are some cops that are *very* friendly to us, obviously trying to make the point that they agreed with our signs and flags.
Anyways, my point is. The "white nationalists" like myself and Faith Goldy are just average guys. Some rednecks, some working class, some educated. We don't hate people, we just want a homeland. The other side, antifa, is quite disgusting. Full of trannies, drug addicts and communists. The deplatforming is wrong, but there hasn't been *any* direct WN action against anybody other than some random Muslims in New Zealand so....Replies: @216
The media narrative says otherwise, regardless of what you personally believe.
https://twitter.com/10M_a_day/status/1115327359094280192
BTW, dehumanization is a bad look.
Candace Owens did a great job. Anytime antifa is called out is good, and she's laid the groundwork for people to start responding to "white nationalist!" with "nice campaign slogan, good luck with that". It's already lost its sting.
There were slave ships and slaving run both into Europe and Slavic lands by Muslims as well as to West Africa by various others.
The moon landing doesn't look too impossible.
There were lots of Jews slaughtered in places north of Poland, but it seems unlikely the Germans operated ovens at Auschwitz.
Do you always traffic in nonsense?Replies: @Truth
So let me see if I get this straight:
1) There were slave ships although not one has ever been recovered.
2) The moon landing “doesn’t look too impossible.”
3) The holocaust was only half-hoax.
4) I traffic in nonsense.
This “grand bargain” is out. An immigration moratorium would require enforcing existing immigration law to stop illegals, and that needs to be in place BEFORE engaging in any further discussion. Otherwise you’re just gently asking permission for something that shouldn’t even be negotiated in the first place.
Re: the moon landing, the thing to note here is that (((lies))) always are targeted at breaking down white/western culture and achievements and making whites feel bad about themselves. They are NEVER designed to make whites feel proud of themselves or to inspire them with achievements to emulate or surpass. Take a look at the moon landing “debate” and ask yourself which side achieves one result, and which side achieves the other.
As much as I see that comment as a bit over-the-top, Schlomo, as far as your last part:
AGREED.
It ain’t like we’d be taking taxpayers’ money and giving it to people who have been wronged. Not a one of the Grandparents/Great-Grandparents of the people you’d be stealing from working people to give cash to, were wronged by anyone alive today, for the case of Indians/Blacks, respectively.
To hell with this idea.
Yes, Ronnie should not have signed it, and he had big regrets later on about this.
All that said, it's AE's blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone
I don’t know what “thot” is. Maybe you or Mike could explain. What are you people talking about? I should keep up more, but I’m NOT on social freaking media, so …
H (hoe)
O (over)
T (there)Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
It still doesn't mean I'd ban it.
You did not address the non-enforcement of immigration laws which is what the Republican Party sewer pond scum leaders (most) prefer. We should also get immigration law reform, for instance, a sane policy with regard to “refugees.”Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Audacious Epigone
Hey!
You are quite welcome.
– Founding Fathers
What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole "African Slave Trade" thing was a hoax?
What if "go back to Africa" could no longer be honestly uttered?
There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that's going to be a gamechanger.Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @SunBakedSuburb
Yes, for the State Hospitals. Indeed, it may give just them the boost in enrollment that they need to become viable Institutions again.
Personally, I would have no great objection to Republicans making this offer, but it will never happen, because it presupposes a recognition of legitimate White ethnic interests.Replies: @obwandiyag
“Generous” welfare benefits. Hahaha.
I suppose no whites are on this “generous” welfare. Only a majority.
Wrong. You don’t know what “more” means.
It would be easy to fund reparations. The US Forest Service and the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Land Management control millions of acres of land in the United States. Simply deed over $100,000 ($200,000?) of land to each eligible person.
National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wildlife Refuges and other scientifically, culturally or envronmentally senitive land would not be subject to exchange.
This would return land to productive use, spuring the economy, and drive a wedge between environmentalists and a large portion of the Democrat Party coalition.
No, they ain't getting no $100,000 piece of land, because there is not now anyone eligible - no slaves that I've seen, even on the back roads, and no Indians dependent on Buffalo meat.
I suppose no whites are on this "generous" welfare. Only a majority.Replies: @Mark G., @Rosie
Whites don’t need blacks. If every black person in the United States suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke whites would be better off overall. If every white person disappeared blacks would be in trouble. Whites are always trying to move away from blacks and blacks are always trying to follow them and move into their neighborhoods and into their schools. Blacks claim they are oppressed by whites but it’s a strange kind of oppression if you are trying to follow your oppressor instead of trying to get away from him. Blacks are not able to create desirable societies on their own. The first step to doing so would require blacks to admit their shortcomings and try to improve and the majority of blacks are incapable of doing that. They would rather blame white people for their self-inflicted problems.
I take it you mean both whites and blacks in this category.Replies: @Mark G., @C. ThunderCock
Anti-white parasite in favor of rewards by Ethnic group when there’s a net benefit to non-whites, against it in favor of “individuality” when there’s a net benefit for whites, IMAGINE MOI SHOCK.
I know you’re just being a disingenuous little prick as usual, but you’re dreaming if you think an honest accounting on an individual basis as per your request wouldn’t be a massive net loss for Blacks (hence the obvious utility of using Race as the standard).
---------------------------------------------
It never ceases to amaze turn on the personal. Be that as it may, I am unclear what evidence exists that I am "anti-white". But if you can locate some I would be happy to address it.
If by rewards to ethnic group, I don't think I have a stated position on reparations if that os what you are on about. And I am not clear what is meant by
"when there’s a net benefit to non-whites, against it in favor of “individuality” when there’s a net benefit for whites, IMAGINE MOI SHOCK."
I am unclear where the argument fits and muchless. I am sure you have it clear in your mind, I am just unclear how to respond. I don't know if an individual accounting would yield the outcome you suggest. I have my doubts. But what I know for sure is this, if I am managing a loss, then I am going to be more concerned who creates that loss the most, regardless of the proportionality issue. Which from the originator of this question has provided some baffling analytics. His analysis seems to suggest that individual blacks are getting twice as much or some percentage more than whites in assistance programs based on proportional assessments. Now that is not what proportionality outcomes mean, but if you care to tackle the matter explaining how that is the case, I am certainly willing to hear it.
-----------------
Laughing.
Now about this personal reference, I guess opinions vary.
Huh? What nasty comments? Not everyone agrees with the post every time, but not agreeing is not necessarily being nasty.
National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Wildlife Refuges and other scientifically, culturally or envronmentally senitive land would not be subject to exchange.
This would return land to productive use, spuring the economy, and drive a wedge between environmentalists and a large portion of the Democrat Party coalition.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
Some things are much more important to the environmentalists on the left than some little thing like the environment, Hank. That’s why they won’t mention overcrowding and destruction of the environment as results of immigration.
No, they ain’t getting no $100,000 piece of land, because there is not now anyone eligible – no slaves that I’ve seen, even on the back roads, and no Indians dependent on Buffalo meat.
T (that)
H (hoe)
O (over)
T (there)
That Hot-Assed Nubile Kinky Skank (?)Replies: @Audacious Epigone
I suppose no whites are on this "generous" welfare. Only a majority.Replies: @Mark G., @Rosie
Non-whites understand proportional relationships when they are on the losing side (disparate impact), but then play dumb when their own dysfunction is noticed.
One good place to start is The Racial Tithe, which found that each black in the USA received an average of no less than $7700 per year in taxpayer-paid benefits not including the benefit of military defense. That only counted welfare programs and taxes paid, I believe. If the burden of the criminal justice system on non-blacks was added I’m sure it would top $12,000 per head per year.
Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine. So much for preserving history! Read it if you can find it.
That's the message there. It's new to me. I guess the Wayback Machine isn't a safe repository.
There is some discussion at https://www.discussionist.com/10151534952
but the page they link to has been scrubbed as well.
You can see the beginning at https://neoreactive.curiaregis.net/2016/05/12/the-racial-tithe/
You can see Disqus comments at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/therightstuffbiz/the_racial_tithe_25/
Does anyone have a copy?
This looks similar: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/
Is it just the same article with a different title? The beginning is the same. The Wayback Machine has copies of this as well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/16/the-biggest-beneficiaries-of-the-government-safety-net-working-class-whites/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3a0ab0d82952
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/03/real-welfare-problem-government-giveaways-corporate-1Replies: @Mr. Rational
H (hoe)
O (over)
T (there)Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
THANKS.
That Hot-Assed Nubile Kinky Skank (?)
When mystified about a slang term, Urban Dictionary is your friend.
Ah, found The Racial Tithe at archive.is.
Save a copy while it’s still there. The analysis alone should be examined as a study in how to extract information that the gatekeepers want locked up.
We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa. Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their "prison", it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; "inmates" would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served. I'm sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.
For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently. This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.
Best of all, their families might move to Africa to be with them and get out from under "racist oppression". ;-)Replies: @Truth
Save a copy while it's still there. The analysis alone should be examined as a study in how to extract information that the gatekeepers want locked up.Replies: @Mr. Rational
Given that blacks have ALREADY received massive “reparations” (even without including the deadweight losses of affirmative action overhead and minority business set-asides) and are still complaining it’s not enough, it’s time to crack down on them. Hard.
We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa. Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their “prison”, it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; “inmates” would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served. I’m sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.
For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently. This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.
Best of all, their families might move to Africa to be with them and get out from under “racist oppression”. 😉
Hugbox
https://twitter.com/triketora/status/1114890731783507970
Like it or not, Manners maketh man.
Continued relevancy of the Right depends upon our understanding that "edgelord" behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies. By and large our movements are despised by most white Millennials.
Whenever we act up, even worse through IRL violence, the hammer comes down hard. There is not going to be any EO coming out of the WH, or any FCC actions that will force Big Social to allow outright Neo-Nazism back on to their sites.Replies: @Issac, @SunBakedSuburb
“… ‘edgelord’ behavior is increasingly unacceptable to the growing number of cat-ladies.”
Cat-ladies usually keep to themselves, and their numbers are dwindling due to generational die-off. They have been replaced by dog-ladies who are mostly extroverts. But males tend to overlook the dog-lady threat because they are comfortable with canine servility and believe dog is God spelled backwards.
Would Blacks under the age of 18 qualify for reparations ? A mother with 3 kids would be raking in 3,000 per month...could she still live in public housing ? Still collect welfare and food stamps ?Replies: @reiner Tor, @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone
“Would the reparations payments result in many blacks no longer qualifying for welfare?”
No. Blacks will still be entitled to welfare benefits, but under the new reparations law their parties will become longer, louder, and more extravagant.
What if like the Moon Landing and the Holocaust, the whole "African Slave Trade" thing was a hoax?
What if "go back to Africa" could no longer be honestly uttered?
There are a growing group of Americans that believe these things, and that's going to be a gamechanger.Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter, @Achmed E. Newman, @SunBakedSuburb
“What if ‘go back to Africa’ could no longer be honestly uttered?”
How about “go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?” It doesn’t have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.
I think that you are missing it. Quite a few Caribbeans immigrate to the US.
Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine. So much for preserving history! Read it if you can find it.Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone
“This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.”
That’s the message there. It’s new to me. I guess the Wayback Machine isn’t a safe repository.
There is some discussion at https://www.discussionist.com/10151534952
but the page they link to has been scrubbed as well.
You can see the beginning at https://neoreactive.curiaregis.net/2016/05/12/the-racial-tithe/
You can see Disqus comments at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/therightstuffbiz/the_racial_tithe_25/
Does anyone have a copy?
This looks similar: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/11/fiscal-impact-of-whites-blacks-and-hispanics/
Is it just the same article with a different title? The beginning is the same. The Wayback Machine has copies of this as well.
We should begin by housing ALL black felons and black illegal aliens off our shores, preferably in Africa. Since they would not be a danger to US residents if they escaped their "prison", it could be an open-air affair with nothing more than a 4-foot cyclone fence to mark the boundary; "inmates" would only have to be counted at morning muster to get credit for their time served. I'm sure both Liberia and Ghana would love to have themselves some of that business, and it would cost the US taxpayers quite a bit less than keeping them in cells here.
For a bonus, after they are released make them pay their own way back, and offer them a nice cash bonus to surrender their US citizenship so we can keep them out permanently. This also eliminates the problem of having them on voter rolls electing Democrats.
Best of all, their families might move to Africa to be with them and get out from under "racist oppression". ;-)Replies: @Truth
Are you asleep, dreamwriting at your desk again, Rational? Wake up and get the lead out, old Sport, your boss warned you last week, and that code is not going to write itself.
- Founding FathersReplies: @iffen
Good luck with executing.
How about "go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?" It doesn't have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.Replies: @iffen, @Truth, @Mr. Rational
the Caribbean looks pretty nice.
I think that you are missing it. Quite a few Caribbeans immigrate to the US.
Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine. So much for preserving history! Read it if you can find it.Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone
Alt-Hype wrote about this
We were discussing the degeneracy in modern day rap on the other thread, I hadn’t been able to put my finger on a trend that I had noticed over the years and how themes had changed, but did some digging and this guy has one of the best articles analyzing the emergence of certain themes in rap and its connection to the disappearance of Muslim influences on the genre starting around 9/11 - worth a read:
“For proof, look no further than the chest of your favorite rapper. Odds are the messiah is hanging in the form of a gaudy, diamond-encrusted pendant called a Jesus piece, first worn by Ghostface Killah in 1994—or at least that’s what he says. Biggie was the Jesus piece’s biggest fan until Kanye made the pendants really popular by releasing his own line in 2004. The Game gave the movement another push in 2012 when he named his album Jesus Piece and declared there was nothing wrong with smoking weed, going to strip clubs, eating fried chicken and still believing in God.“
https://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/islam-hip-hop/index.html
Wa salaam.
I don’t know why you give that Nigerian troll replies lol
https://twitter.com/10M_a_day/status/1115327359094280192
BTW, dehumanization is a bad look.Replies: @EldnahYm, @Audacious Epigone
Eliot Engel is a Jew of course.
For the record, I don’t use the term “thot.” It’s a staple over at Heartiste’s. I just use the term “whore” if the situation calls for it. Adding “that, over.” and “there” doesn’t make the point any better.
It still doesn’t mean I’d ban it.
All that said, it's AE's blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone
“Actually yes, some words should be banned because they have no intellectual content. ”
Subjective. Your list will vary from anyone else’s.
“by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient.”
The word bully has no intellectual content. As with the term racist, its use means to stifle discussion, not assist it. Even so, you have the ignore feature. I make careful use of it.
“There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.”
Sure there is. One cannot choose to be a negro or a(n) (ethnic) Jew, but one has a choice about whether she is a whore or not.
“He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. ”
The only truly consistent word moderation requires banning all words, or banning none.
I prefer to ban no words. Allowing people to communicate uncensored provides readers with a better sense of who they are dealing with.
That said, of the word "whore" or any of its variations, including "thot" were used according to the actual dictionary meaning, as in prostitution, that would be an entirely different matter. Unfortunately, these words are not so used in the dissident right. Rather, they are often used to insult and humiliate people who bear no resemblance whatsoever to an actual prostitute, and indeed may well be the very opposite of same.
According to these dissident right misogynists, the way to make women non-whores is to force them into unwanted marriages in order to survive. IOW, to save women from prostitution, we have to force them into prostitution.
A race doesn’t bargain its way off the exit ramp of history. The Romans made many deals with the Goths and other Germanics, but the Western Empire still ended in a Dark Age, and in the process, our Germanic ancestors laid the roots of our civilization.
The vector of power is all that matters. As others have noted, what about the naked evil that is AA, with it’s obvious unearned benefits to blacks and especially, mestizos, let alone its far greater, but far less obvious, benefits to Jews? If we had the power and vitality to enforce this proposal, without the further compromises that would inevitably be urged, we wouldn’t need to offer it in the first place.
Blacks are the least beneficiaries of AA. The primary beneficiaries of the policy and practice have been whites. This is complaint about AA has never been accurate about who benefits the most.
Now undoubtedly some one will pipe in that history as to policy doesn't matter or that the impacts of little consequence or that despite having the history correct the rationales are incorrect. They don't venture how, they just make the claim, note some contemporary numbers as though that settles it.
Affirmative Action has always primarily benefited whites. That was the case in 1993 when I first checked the labor departments numbers and that is the case today some 26 years later. The policy was officially engaged by Pres Johnson, though the Admin of Pres. Kennedy first proposed it. And while as policy various attempts have been made to balance out the matter, by attending to qualified candidates in years prior to address very specific practices barring certain citizens access as far back as the 1930's. It was not uncommon for these attempts to change discrimination to result in riots against anything that smacked of equality for the same.
I will leave you to investigate who engaged in said riots and who were the targets.
And nothing about the initial policy pressed against qualifications. That was instituted primarily to benefit women -- and again, I leave it to you yo figure which set of the population were under consideration.Replies: @res
Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine. So much for preserving history! Read it if you can find it.Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone
I’m afraid it doesn’t work that way, Old Sport.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/16/the-biggest-beneficiaries-of-the-government-safety-net-working-class-whites/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3a0ab0d82952
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/03/real-welfare-problem-government-giveaways-corporate-1
How about "go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?" It doesn't have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.Replies: @iffen, @Truth, @Mr. Rational
But if the true insult is “go back to Southern New Jersey” because that’s where the ancestors were before The Mayflower?
Only complete imbeciles think welfare is “generous.” Imbecile.
Subjective. Your list will vary from anyone else's.
"by allowing loudmouth bullies to run off any commenters whose arguments they find inconvenient."
The word bully has no intellectual content. As with the term racist, its use means to stifle discussion, not assist it. Even so, you have the ignore feature. I make careful use of it.
"There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***."
Sure there is. One cannot choose to be a negro or a(n) (ethnic) Jew, but one has a choice about whether she is a whore or not.
"He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. "
The only truly consistent word moderation requires banning all words, or banning none.
I prefer to ban no words. Allowing people to communicate uncensored provides readers with a better sense of who they are dealing with.Replies: @Rosie
I disagree completely. There is such a thing as fair play in a debate, to wit: don’t use ad hominems.
I have learned that ignoring dissident right misogynists does not make them go away, unfortunately. You have to take them on and RIP them a new a$$h0le.
Those ethnic slurs do not refer merely to ancestry but rather conduct, as you well know.
That said, of the word “whore” or any of its variations, including “thot” were used according to the actual dictionary meaning, as in prostitution, that would be an entirely different matter. Unfortunately, these words are not so used in the dissident right. Rather, they are often used to insult and humiliate people who bear no resemblance whatsoever to an actual prostitute, and indeed may well be the very opposite of same.
According to these dissident right misogynists, the way to make women non-whores is to force them into unwanted marriages in order to survive. IOW, to save women from prostitution, we have to force them into prostitution.
I know you're just being a disingenuous little prick as usual, but you're dreaming if you think an honest accounting on an individual basis as per your request wouldn't be a massive net loss for Blacks (hence the obvious utility of using Race as the standard).Replies: @EliteCommInc.
Again, nonresponsive. Again, I will eschew the assumptions and peculiar analysis. But to the point of the matter, of repayment, I am sure the intended comment is for people who engage in this distinction you make regardless of skin color.
———————————————
It never ceases to amaze turn on the personal. Be that as it may, I am unclear what evidence exists that I am “anti-white”. But if you can locate some I would be happy to address it.
If by rewards to ethnic group, I don’t think I have a stated position on reparations if that os what you are on about. And I am not clear what is meant by
“when there’s a net benefit to non-whites, against it in favor of “individuality” when there’s a net benefit for whites, IMAGINE MOI SHOCK.”
I am unclear where the argument fits and muchless. I am sure you have it clear in your mind, I am just unclear how to respond. I don’t know if an individual accounting would yield the outcome you suggest. I have my doubts. But what I know for sure is this, if I am managing a loss, then I am going to be more concerned who creates that loss the most, regardless of the proportionality issue. Which from the originator of this question has provided some baffling analytics. His analysis seems to suggest that individual blacks are getting twice as much or some percentage more than whites in assistance programs based on proportional assessments. Now that is not what proportionality outcomes mean, but if you care to tackle the matter explaining how that is the case, I am certainly willing to hear it.
—————–
Laughing.
Now about this personal reference, I guess opinions vary.
Soreu Rosie, Obie-one is correct here.
Boy this never get tiresome.
Blacks are the least beneficiaries of AA. The primary beneficiaries of the policy and practice have been whites. This is complaint about AA has never been accurate about who benefits the most.
Now undoubtedly some one will pipe in that history as to policy doesn’t matter or that the impacts of little consequence or that despite having the history correct the rationales are incorrect. They don’t venture how, they just make the claim, note some contemporary numbers as though that settles it.
Affirmative Action has always primarily benefited whites. That was the case in 1993 when I first checked the labor departments numbers and that is the case today some 26 years later. The policy was officially engaged by Pres Johnson, though the Admin of Pres. Kennedy first proposed it. And while as policy various attempts have been made to balance out the matter, by attending to qualified candidates in years prior to address very specific practices barring certain citizens access as far back as the 1930’s. It was not uncommon for these attempts to change discrimination to result in riots against anything that smacked of equality for the same.
I will leave you to investigate who engaged in said riots and who were the targets.
And nothing about the initial policy pressed against qualifications. That was instituted primarily to benefit women — and again, I leave it to you yo figure which set of the population were under consideration.
2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not.
Please try to do better on both your grammar and content. Your comments are tiresome to read. Especially the long ones.
P.S. If you actually want to continue arguing this point please provide data supporting your position. Since I asked for data, here is some of my own. See Table 2 which gives logistic regression coefficients (as odds ratios) showing the large advantage African Americans have in college admissions all else being equal:
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf
The corresponding numbers for Harvard (which I have presented in other threads) are even larger.
How about "go back to Africa with this bag of reparations cash?" It doesn't have to be Africa; the Caribbean looks pretty nice.Replies: @iffen, @Truth, @Mr. Rational
The Caribbean is too nice to waste on Africans. Send them back to their own continent and society; they are the only ones who created it, or deserve to suffer it.
Plenty awake, TYVM.
I am my own boss, I don’t write code for anyone but myself, and I may yet indulge fantasies about shutting down electoral machinery in un-American enclaves in the USA. I grew up on science fiction and I have seen it turn into reality; beware the day I decide to turn my own narrative into reality, because you SAF will not like it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/16/the-biggest-beneficiaries-of-the-government-safety-net-working-class-whites/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3a0ab0d82952
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/09/03/real-welfare-problem-government-giveaways-corporate-1Replies: @Mr. Rational
Says the guy who doesn’t know the meaning of “per capita”, thereby proving with his handle that SJWAL.
Somewhat off-topic and somewhat not, since a lot of this stuff was and is discussed in the hip-hop scene…
We were discussing the degeneracy in modern day rap on the other thread, I hadn’t been able to put my finger on a trend that I had noticed over the years and how themes had changed, but did some digging and this guy has one of the best articles analyzing the emergence of certain themes in rap and its connection to the disappearance of Muslim influences on the genre starting around 9/11 – worth a read:
“For proof, look no further than the chest of your favorite rapper. Odds are the messiah is hanging in the form of a gaudy, diamond-encrusted pendant called a Jesus piece, first worn by Ghostface Killah in 1994—or at least that’s what he says. Biggie was the Jesus piece’s biggest fan until Kanye made the pendants really popular by releasing his own line in 2004. The Game gave the movement another push in 2012 when he named his album Jesus Piece and declared there was nothing wrong with smoking weed, going to strip clubs, eating fried chicken and still believing in God.“
https://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/islam-hip-hop/index.html
Wa salaam.
I keep hearing about this “Per Capita” guy, how many benefits did he get last year?
Blacks are the least beneficiaries of AA. The primary beneficiaries of the policy and practice have been whites. This is complaint about AA has never been accurate about who benefits the most.
Now undoubtedly some one will pipe in that history as to policy doesn't matter or that the impacts of little consequence or that despite having the history correct the rationales are incorrect. They don't venture how, they just make the claim, note some contemporary numbers as though that settles it.
Affirmative Action has always primarily benefited whites. That was the case in 1993 when I first checked the labor departments numbers and that is the case today some 26 years later. The policy was officially engaged by Pres Johnson, though the Admin of Pres. Kennedy first proposed it. And while as policy various attempts have been made to balance out the matter, by attending to qualified candidates in years prior to address very specific practices barring certain citizens access as far back as the 1930's. It was not uncommon for these attempts to change discrimination to result in riots against anything that smacked of equality for the same.
I will leave you to investigate who engaged in said riots and who were the targets.
And nothing about the initial policy pressed against qualifications. That was instituted primarily to benefit women -- and again, I leave it to you yo figure which set of the population were under consideration.Replies: @res
1. Learn what per capita means.
2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not.
Please try to do better on both your grammar and content. Your comments are tiresome to read. Especially the long ones.
P.S. If you actually want to continue arguing this point please provide data supporting your position. Since I asked for data, here is some of my own. See Table 2 which gives logistic regression coefficients (as odds ratios) showing the large advantage African Americans have in college admissions all else being equal:
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf
The corresponding numbers for Harvard (which I have presented in other threads) are even larger.
When you don’t have a leg to stand on, bring the snark. I guess that explains why your comments are so snark filled.
I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg
A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:
I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
-John Henrik Clarke
If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar
Well no, Old Sport, my comments are “snark filled” because that is the level of intellect that tyour comments demand.
I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg
A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:
I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
-John Henrik Clarke
If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.
But, we have WiFi and on-demand porn...so all's good!
Peace.Replies: @Truth
Perhaps I would be well advised to take Clarke's quote to heart. Thanks for the tip.Replies: @Truth
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/sub-saharan-african-immigrants-united-states
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/haitian-immigrants-united-states
I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg
A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:
I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
-John Henrik Clarke
If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar
Honestly, this has been one of the greatest swindles in world history. In the past, if the elite wanted to rip you off this badly, they would have to raise taxes so high that they would have to also cover the cost of the financing the boots willing to carry out the bloody slaughter of the people who would rise up in protest.
But, we have WiFi and on-demand porn…so all’s good!
Peace.
I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg
A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:
I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
-John Henrik Clarke
If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar
The cost of corporate welfare has been estimated at between $90 and $170 billion per year while social welfare costs $50 billion. However, you have to consider that corporations paid $440 billion in federal taxes last year. So they are actually receiving much less in benefits than they are paying in taxes. Poor people on welfare don’t pay anything close to that in taxes so social welfare is much more of a drain on society.
Someone a few years ago came up with the brilliant idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax so that "everyone will pay his fair share..." Ok, so I will leave it up to you; what is the upshot of this plan?Replies: @Audacious Epigone
The corporation is comprised of many composite parts; shareholders, employees, officers, etc.
Which of the parts is paying the cost of the taxes and which of the parts are receiving the benefit of the welfare? Is there an official breakdown somewhere (even something showing averages across industries) or is this all a black box and we are supposed to trust that the ones who pay into the cost of the taxes are the same ones that benefit from the welfare?
Peace.
But, we have WiFi and on-demand porn...so all's good!
Peace.Replies: @Truth
Bread and circuses and then they rob you blind.
"Mighty indeed were the plots which they made, but their plots were (well) within the sight of Allah, even though they were such as to shake the mountains." (14:46)
Peace.
My friend, you have fallen for this ridiculous, make-believe libertarian foolishness.
Someone a few years ago came up with the brilliant idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax so that “everyone will pay his fair share…” Ok, so I will leave it up to you; what is the upshot of this plan?
They used to have more obvious schemes in the past, you know, like clipping the edges of coins and stuff. Now they just have money they can float in and out of the ether and inflate in “derivative” and speculative markets that nobody but they pay attention to until the SHTF and then…well, we can just have the money run into some commodity or currency as a safe-haven and who cares if some South American country goes up in flames because its people can’t afford bread – they’re just lesser men anyway.
“Mighty indeed were the plots which they made, but their plots were (well) within the sight of Allah, even though they were such as to shake the mountains.” (14:46)
Peace.
The corporations who are receiving the benefits are not always the same ones who are paying the taxes. I would be against corporate welfare. The ones who benefit would be the ones with the best political connections. Those would usually be the largest ones so it would make it more difficult for small businesses who were competing against them. You would have situations where corporations in the same industry are competing against each other but one has an advantage over the other because the government is giving it tax breaks or subsidies. That seems unfair to me that someone would get something like that just because of political pull. In the case of social welfare, whites receive more than blacks along the lines of 60% to 30%. However, whites make up 63% of the population versus 14% of blacks so, per capita, blacks receive twice as much as whites. People who say whites get more than blacks are just looking at the total amounts involved. Also, blacks are more likely to vote for politicians who are pro-welfare and whites are more likely to vote for politicians who are anti-welfare. If it was really true that whites get more welfare do you really think it is plausible that whites and blacks would be voting for the opposite of their own self-interest? I don’t think so. I think that both blacks and whites correctly perceive that blacks get more welfare than whites.
Has Biden come out in support of reparations?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/us-election-polls-2020-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-democrats-primaries-running-a8861036.html
I’ll make an effort to remember that site, Mr. R. Thanks.
I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg
A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:
I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
-John Henrik Clarke
If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar
I think my comments on unz.com do a quite good job of demonstrating that I am an equal (well, at least if you add the proviso “or better”). For some reason I don’t think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark.
Perhaps I would be well advised to take Clarke’s quote to heart. Thanks for the tip.
The point is that for every mouth-breathing talking point, there is a level of depth well beneath it, that only some are equipped to, willing to, or interested in accessing.
But this is what I will do, I will make a mental note of your handle, and we will play this game for a while.
Remember, you asked for it.Replies: @res
The only reparations I support are a one way cruise ship back to West Africa. But make it a nice ship, unlimited fried chicken included.
You did not address the non-enforcement of immigration laws which is what the Republican Party sewer pond scum leaders (most) prefer. We should also get immigration law reform, for instance, a sane policy with regard to “refugees.”Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Audacious Epigone
The moratorium legislatively enacted first, then the reparations, with said reparations being stipulated as such rather than as tribute. IOW, the putative debt owed to blacks is considered to have been made good on twenty years on.
Would Blacks under the age of 18 qualify for reparations ? A mother with 3 kids would be raking in 3,000 per month...could she still live in public housing ? Still collect welfare and food stamps ?Replies: @reiner Tor, @SunBakedSuburb, @Audacious Epigone
It’d have to be for those aged 18+ or it’d be considerably more expensive.
https://www.starktruthradio.com/?cat=618Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Interesting, thanks.
Treat the African American group (and most sub saharan africans) the way you would treat a dog.
If you give a dog scraps he will beg at the table every night. If you don't train your dog he will be rambunctious and destructive. If you don't assert yourself as master, he will not listen to you.
You have to tell blacks to fuck off, essentially. They can't do facts or logic. It's either give them what they want, or tell them to take a hike.Replies: @anon, @Audacious Epigone
They did well enough even vis-a-vis whites in the middle part of the 20th century. Certainly better than dogs could ever do.
Thot status: patrolled
BTW, something I've been wondering, how does schoolmarm feel about the term "thot"?Replies: @216, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone
It’s trashy but it’s not dehumanizing so she tolerates it.
jews, black, brown, mooslims - all got to goReplies: @Audacious Epigone
Not going to happen. Possession is 9/10ths of the law, as they say.
All that said, it's AE's blog. He can choose to moderate or not, ideally in a principled, consistent manner. There is no argument for banning n***** and k*** but allowing t***.Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @MikeatMikedotMike, @Audacious Epigone
Does “thot” run people off the same way N- or K- does? I don’t think so, but I may be incorrect.
https://twitter.com/10M_a_day/status/1115327359094280192
BTW, dehumanization is a bad look.Replies: @EldnahYm, @Audacious Epigone
The “white nationalist” hearings were probably an own-goal by the left, fortunately. I’ve talked to normies about it over the last couple of days and it has been 100% lampooning.
Candace Owens did a great job. Anytime antifa is called out is good, and she’s laid the groundwork for people to start responding to “white nationalist!” with “nice campaign slogan, good luck with that”. It’s already lost its sting.
That Hot-Assed Nubile Kinky Skank (?)Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Oh brother.
Note that said essay does not come up in most search engines and has been purged even from the Wayback Machine. So much for preserving history! Read it if you can find it.Replies: @res, @BengaliCanadianDude, @Truth, @Audacious Epigone
Was it originally Ryan Faulk’s?
Someone a few years ago came up with the brilliant idea of replacing the income tax with a national sales tax so that "everyone will pay his fair share..." Ok, so I will leave it up to you; what is the upshot of this plan?Replies: @Audacious Epigone
Illegal aliens have to pay more in taxes than they do now? Saving favored over spending?
Now, if you are only taxing on consumption, who do you think is benefited more by this, the billionaire with the Ferrari and the Lake house in Colorado, or the plumber with the Ford and the condo?
Perhaps I would be well advised to take Clarke's quote to heart. Thanks for the tip.Replies: @Truth
Well my friend, sometimes, and this may be my personal problem, but sometimes, what one man thinks is “substantive” is, to others in viewership, somewhat derivative.
The point is that for every mouth-breathing talking point, there is a level of depth well beneath it, that only some are equipped to, willing to, or interested in accessing.
But this is what I will do, I will make a mental note of your handle, and we will play this game for a while.
Remember, you asked for it.
If you were serious about only now making a note of my handle you might want to revisit this exchange for some perspective.
https://www.unz.com/article/captain-marvel-hates-you/#comment-3081380
This is a good example of how you deal with substantive comments (not mine in this case):
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068253
Along with your followup:
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068347That whole exchange gives a decent idea of what a "debate" (more a discussion) between us looks like. Do you really not think I demonstrated I am at least an equal there and in the rest of that thread?
P.S. That exchange also shows that my "I don’t think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark" above was unfair. You made a serious point there (even if framed in a snarky fashion), but just without much support.Replies: @Truth
The point is that for every mouth-breathing talking point, there is a level of depth well beneath it, that only some are equipped to, willing to, or interested in accessing.
But this is what I will do, I will make a mental note of your handle, and we will play this game for a while.
Remember, you asked for it.Replies: @res
Bring it on. I have been aware of your handle for a while (your comments are…distinctive, and we had a couple of exchanges recently). There is also plenty of comment history to work with if we want to play this game looking backwards as well as forwards.
If you were serious about only now making a note of my handle you might want to revisit this exchange for some perspective.
https://www.unz.com/article/captain-marvel-hates-you/#comment-3081380
This is a good example of how you deal with substantive comments (not mine in this case):
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068253
Along with your followup:
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068347
That whole exchange gives a decent idea of what a “debate” (more a discussion) between us looks like. Do you really not think I demonstrated I am at least an equal there and in the rest of that thread?
P.S. That exchange also shows that my “I don’t think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark” above was unfair. You made a serious point there (even if framed in a snarky fashion), but just without much support.
The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today ("Quantavious" for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.
Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.
As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can't make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.
Hemmingway, here, gives a good example on why he feels brevity is important in communication.
https://writingcooperative.com/the-hemingway-rule-ffab4851be80?gi=b909d1aa5c96
Now, my friend, I am sorry if you feel that I insulted you and you are probably a smart man. However to be perfectly frank, your comments have not, in the past given me cause to bookmark your name in for future discussion, or individual snark, although I will spend more time with your comments now.
All that I do on this site is try to educate people in the art of logic. It is sorely lacking here. I tend to use Socratic responses in order to bring forth real thought. I am generally unsuccessful as for the hoi-polloi here, it is too late. They are too arrogant, too brainwashed from 30, 40, 50, 60 years of TV, public education, and American life. It's pointless and I realize it, so I entertain myself by making jokes.
But, the young guys here that just peek in from time to time... still potential.Replies: @res
And do the same with Hawaii, a very blue state that takes pride its Diversity.
Tie Diversity with Imperialism. Native Hawaiians lost their beloved homeland to whites and Asians who came as immigrant-invaders. Worse, these degenerate whites and their imitative yellow dogs have spreads globo-homo PC garbage all over.
Also, mention what became of Palestine due to endless Jewish immigration.
Even though a great nation was created by Immigration-Invasion, its great victims were the indigenous folks of America and Hawaii. THEREFORE, all immigration-invasion must be halted and the main mission of America must be to revive the Indian and Hawaiian communities.
It's about time to associate immigration with shame and blame. Immigrant-Guilt. Emma-Lazarusism or Emma-gration led to Indians being reduced to wretched huddled masses in Reservations.
At least white immigrant guilt was mitigated by having created a great nation. So, whites have earned some right to the New World.
But all these non-white losers coming to mooch off Indian lands and White achievement, they must be stopped. Immigrant-Moocher Guilt.Replies: @tamo
What a stupid comment from an asshole who might be a low-iq subhuman Armenian monkey who tries to pass himself as whitey, LOL !!!
Yes it was. His updated replacement article is here (thanks to whoever dug it up for me).
Yes, and what about or the other 90% of the American population?
Now, if you are only taxing on consumption, who do you think is benefited more by this, the billionaire with the Ferrari and the Lake house in Colorado, or the plumber with the Ford and the condo?
If you were serious about only now making a note of my handle you might want to revisit this exchange for some perspective.
https://www.unz.com/article/captain-marvel-hates-you/#comment-3081380
This is a good example of how you deal with substantive comments (not mine in this case):
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068253
Along with your followup:
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068347That whole exchange gives a decent idea of what a "debate" (more a discussion) between us looks like. Do you really not think I demonstrated I am at least an equal there and in the rest of that thread?
P.S. That exchange also shows that my "I don’t think I have ever seen you engage with one of my substantive comments with anything other than snark" above was unfair. You made a serious point there (even if framed in a snarky fashion), but just without much support.Replies: @Truth
Well, regarding the Flynn effect thing, I asked “was Quantavious smarter than your Grandparents?” to follow a simple thread of thought to it’s conclusion.
The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today (“Quantavious” for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.
Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.
As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can’t make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.
Hemmingway, here, gives a good example on why he feels brevity is important in communication.
https://writingcooperative.com/the-hemingway-rule-ffab4851be80?gi=b909d1aa5c96
Now, my friend, I am sorry if you feel that I insulted you and you are probably a smart man. However to be perfectly frank, your comments have not, in the past given me cause to bookmark your name in for future discussion, or individual snark, although I will spend more time with your comments now.
All that I do on this site is try to educate people in the art of logic. It is sorely lacking here. I tend to use Socratic responses in order to bring forth real thought. I am generally unsuccessful as for the hoi-polloi here, it is too late. They are too arrogant, too brainwashed from 30, 40, 50, 60 years of TV, public education, and American life. It’s pointless and I realize it, so I entertain myself by making jokes.
But, the young guys here that just peek in from time to time… still potential.
BTW, I suspect this helps explain why you don't find my comments memorable. You either don't read or don't understand the most useful ones.
Regarding:Let's see, I made some responses to that point in the original thread. For example see this one (only 300 words, most of that quoting my source):
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068882
Salient point being (this is the Cliff Notes version since that seems to be what you prefer): "Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution."
So assuming the Flynn Effect applies full strength to my grandparents might not be a good assumption. Remember, IQ is heritable and I (unlike you) know what my grandparents did in life.
In the original thread I stated that your estimate of 15 points per generation was high, but did not offer support (probably because it was covered by the link I gave for my previous point). So let's correct that omission. The wiki page on the FE looks like a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Two of the more useful data points there are:So to expand a little (I guess the terse answers I gave in the earlier thread weren't detailed enough for you to get my points, funny how that works).
Based on the data above (and note that that data covers 3 generations, not 2) I would estimate the full FE operating between my and my grandparents generations was about 15 points (and since we are not at the low end, probably lower, but let's be conservative). I seemed to be a bit of an outlier so for the sake of argument assume their mean was another SD (15 points) lower. This would mean Q would have to be within 2 SD (30 points) of me to be smarter than a reasonable estimate of the mean for my grandparents.
As I said before, I think that is unlikely if Q is near the black average. As I also said before, you would have a better chance.
One thing I think is interesting is how so many here seem to assume anyone who talks about issues like this is simply a mouth breathing, low IQ racist. I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can't do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.Replies: @Truth
The Flynn effect says that over the last 100 years the average (white) person has achieved an increase of IQ of roughly 30 points. That would mean that in 1918 the average white person had, what would be today, an IQ of 70. Your average black person today ("Quantavious" for illustrative purposes) has an IQ of 85, therefore one could make a fair assumption that if we were to put your fine, Oklahoma-farmer, salt-of-the-earth Grandfather in a time machine and bring him to our current age, he would not be as smart as Quantavious.
Now I could be wrong, this is why I ended my querry with a question mark, and invited a response, but the data seems fairly certain here.
As for your other point with substanitive comments, I think one thing many people do (not just you) is to conflate activity with achievement. If one can't make your point in 500 words or less, one is, generally, the literary equivalent of an uninteresting blowhard who likes to hear himself talk.
Hemmingway, here, gives a good example on why he feels brevity is important in communication.
https://writingcooperative.com/the-hemingway-rule-ffab4851be80?gi=b909d1aa5c96
Now, my friend, I am sorry if you feel that I insulted you and you are probably a smart man. However to be perfectly frank, your comments have not, in the past given me cause to bookmark your name in for future discussion, or individual snark, although I will spend more time with your comments now.
All that I do on this site is try to educate people in the art of logic. It is sorely lacking here. I tend to use Socratic responses in order to bring forth real thought. I am generally unsuccessful as for the hoi-polloi here, it is too late. They are too arrogant, too brainwashed from 30, 40, 50, 60 years of TV, public education, and American life. It's pointless and I realize it, so I entertain myself by making jokes.
But, the young guys here that just peek in from time to time... still potential.Replies: @res
You must love Twitter. Making a detailed argument with supporting references (and much of my word count is quotes from those) requires words. I generally try to make my point up front in relatively few words and then support and expand on it further down. Perhaps I should include an abstract for people who don’t like to read?
BTW, I suspect this helps explain why you don’t find my comments memorable. You either don’t read or don’t understand the most useful ones.
Regarding:
Let’s see, I made some responses to that point in the original thread. For example see this one (only 300 words, most of that quoting my source):
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068882
Salient point being (this is the Cliff Notes version since that seems to be what you prefer): “Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution.”
So assuming the Flynn Effect applies full strength to my grandparents might not be a good assumption. Remember, IQ is heritable and I (unlike you) know what my grandparents did in life.
In the original thread I stated that your estimate of 15 points per generation was high, but did not offer support (probably because it was covered by the link I gave for my previous point). So let’s correct that omission. The wiki page on the FE looks like a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Two of the more useful data points there are:
So to expand a little (I guess the terse answers I gave in the earlier thread weren’t detailed enough for you to get my points, funny how that works).
Based on the data above (and note that that data covers 3 generations, not 2) I would estimate the full FE operating between my and my grandparents generations was about 15 points (and since we are not at the low end, probably lower, but let’s be conservative). I seemed to be a bit of an outlier so for the sake of argument assume their mean was another SD (15 points) lower. This would mean Q would have to be within 2 SD (30 points) of me to be smarter than a reasonable estimate of the mean for my grandparents.
As I said before, I think that is unlikely if Q is near the black average. As I also said before, you would have a better chance.
One thing I think is interesting is how so many here seem to assume anyone who talks about issues like this is simply a mouth breathing, low IQ racist. I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can’t do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.
BTW, I suspect this helps explain why you don't find my comments memorable. You either don't read or don't understand the most useful ones.
Regarding:Let's see, I made some responses to that point in the original thread. For example see this one (only 300 words, most of that quoting my source):
https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/more-race-denialism-the-poor-old-nyt-they-shoot-horses-dont-they/#comment-3068882
Salient point being (this is the Cliff Notes version since that seems to be what you prefer): "Some studies have found the gains of the Flynn effect to be particularly concentrated at the lower end of the distribution."
So assuming the Flynn Effect applies full strength to my grandparents might not be a good assumption. Remember, IQ is heritable and I (unlike you) know what my grandparents did in life.
In the original thread I stated that your estimate of 15 points per generation was high, but did not offer support (probably because it was covered by the link I gave for my previous point). So let's correct that omission. The wiki page on the FE looks like a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
Two of the more useful data points there are:So to expand a little (I guess the terse answers I gave in the earlier thread weren't detailed enough for you to get my points, funny how that works).
Based on the data above (and note that that data covers 3 generations, not 2) I would estimate the full FE operating between my and my grandparents generations was about 15 points (and since we are not at the low end, probably lower, but let's be conservative). I seemed to be a bit of an outlier so for the sake of argument assume their mean was another SD (15 points) lower. This would mean Q would have to be within 2 SD (30 points) of me to be smarter than a reasonable estimate of the mean for my grandparents.
As I said before, I think that is unlikely if Q is near the black average. As I also said before, you would have a better chance.
One thing I think is interesting is how so many here seem to assume anyone who talks about issues like this is simply a mouth breathing, low IQ racist. I can tell the difference between you and Q. That you can't do the same with me says a great deal about you IMHO.Replies: @Truth
So I am assuming an IQ gain of 30 points from 1918 to 2018. The honorable Mr. Neisser estimates an IQ gain of 20 points between 1932 and 1997. So what’s the problem?
So you seem to be taking personal offense to something; Again, my original post:
Now I would profer here that there was no personal reference to you, so why are you taking offense?
There is a old southern saying, maybe you heard it growing up; “if you throw a stick into a crowd of dogs, the only one who squeals is the one who got hit.
Lesson #1, men confident in their abilities are not sensitive. I didn’t insult your intellect, say anything about you being a racist or anything else. I just siad that your input is “undifferentiated.” Not bad, racist or dumb, just not setting themselves above the rest of the stuff here; and there is a lot of stuff here. You being “racist” is totally and completely insignificant. You are who you are. You being “unaware” is what I am concerned about. And this is our greatest problem in the world and is setting us up for ruin.
I’ll give you an example: Do we live on a flat-plane earth that stays in place and is circumnavigated by the sun and the moon, or do we live on a baal-earth that is bounding randomly through the universe, at 67,000 mph with a bunch of other concentrations of rock, gas, and whoever-else knows, while rotating at 1,220 miles an hour?
Accepting the latter means that you belive that mountins whipping through the atmosphere, continually at 1,200 mph would not create any winds. and that when you stand on the equator you are somehow standing at a 180 degree angle…without noticing it.
So the question here is, why (and I am assuming that you do) do you believe the latter? The answer is “because someone told you to.”
These are the questions in life that I am hoping to answer, I come here and read this 1940’s era racist silliness for relaxation. It doesn’t offend me in the least, I know who I am. I know of my capabilities. The question that you must ask is “am I confident of my capabilities?” But stick with me here, and maybe something will come of it.
OK, My Friend, you asked for substanative response, did you receive it?
2. During the latter part of your time frame the FE seems to have stopped or reversed.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdfI was quite clear about estimating the FE as 15 points over two generations in my earlier comment.Not so much offence as commentary on your lack of observational skills. And you actually included the more relevant part in your earlier excerpt:and trying to disavow your generic commentary which was obviously directed at me is weak.As for the rest (i.e. the bulk of) your comment, see "lack of substance" below.I don't think so. Lots of words, but little substance (and the word is "substantive "). Who is conflating activity with achievement now? It is amazing how well projection explains statements like the one you made about that.Replies: @Truth
Mark Twain: "the hit dog hollers."
1. I am using my own IQ as the comparison point so the relevant correction is only two generations. Say ~50 years. 50/65 * 20 = 15.4
2. During the latter part of your time frame the FE seems to have stopped or reversed.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdf
I was quite clear about estimating the FE as 15 points over two generations in my earlier comment.
Not so much offence as commentary on your lack of observational skills. And you actually included the more relevant part in your earlier excerpt:
and trying to disavow your generic commentary which was obviously directed at me is weak.
As for the rest (i.e. the bulk of) your comment, see “lack of substance” below.
I don’t think so. Lots of words, but little substance (and the word is “substantive “). Who is conflating activity with achievement now? It is amazing how well projection explains statements like the one you made about that.
2. During the latter part of your time frame the FE seems to have stopped or reversed.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2016-dutton.pdfI was quite clear about estimating the FE as 15 points over two generations in my earlier comment.Not so much offence as commentary on your lack of observational skills. And you actually included the more relevant part in your earlier excerpt:and trying to disavow your generic commentary which was obviously directed at me is weak.As for the rest (i.e. the bulk of) your comment, see "lack of substance" below.I don't think so. Lots of words, but little substance (and the word is "substantive "). Who is conflating activity with achievement now? It is amazing how well projection explains statements like the one you made about that.Replies: @Truth
OK my friend, it seems that, in my humble opinion only, you are not ready for this. This sort of “I’m so hurt” reaction is anathema to intellectual discourse, again IMHO only, obviously most of the Unzistas would disagree here, as that is all they do.
If your grandfather is, in fact, from Oklahoma, I guess that makes me a psychic as well (I do not work with the CIA, it was merely banter), I did not know so no offense to the Oakie side of your family.
I guess all that I can say is, keep swinging, and good luck.
And if you think you won that round...I guess we are using very different metrics. Which is kind of my point about contrasting snark with substantive.
Cheers.
I posted two links earlier, one that white people collect more social welfare than blacks, one that corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare $. Corporate welfare is close to %0 black.
With this is mind, I guess my one leg is doing me fine.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-flamingos-stand-one-leg
A wise professor made one of the brilliant statements of our time that I have adopted into my personal canon:
I only debate my equals, all others, I teach.
-John Henrik Clarke
If you want serious debate, prove that you are an equal.Replies: @Talha, @Mark G., @res, @Reg Cæsar
Hardly. Immigration is huge corporate welfare.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/sub-saharan-african-immigrants-united-states
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/haitian-immigrants-united-states
Really? And how many of these Hatians have filed for articles of incorporation?
I’m not hurt. Just bemused by the way you respond (or not) to the informative parts of my comments. It is quite telling that virtually all of your responses are focused on either me personally or the trivial parts of what I say.
And if you think you won that round…I guess we are using very different metrics. Which is kind of my point about contrasting snark with substantive.
Cheers.
Orly?
I don’t know if it does or not, but it seems well worth it to avoid the term and see if some more womenfolk don’t show up around here. I suspect certain people use the term precisely to avoid that outcome. They would prefer to lose than to win with the cooperation women of their own stock. All that said, I trust your judgment. Lord knows, it’s difficult to get along in our circles if you’re civil to women.
"People who feel a sense of oneness with something outside of themselves are more likely to be satisfied in life, according to a study....Those who believed in oneness were more satisfied with life, the study suggested. The data also revealed women were significantly more likely to believe in oneness than men."
https://www.newsweek.com/life-satisfaction-boosted-sense-oneness-regardless-religion-study-finds-1391618
Not surprisingly, Muslims topped the survey (the term Tawhid [the core pillar and coctrine of the religion] - translates pretty forwardly into "Divine Oneness" or "Divine Unity"):
"Muslims, on average, had the highest mean value of oneness beliefs, followed by Christians who don’t identify as Protestant or Catholic. This was followed by Buddhism, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, other non-Christian and finally atheists."
This would go fairly well in explaining why our converts skew so heavily toward females (between 2/3 to 3/4).
Again, any successful and long-term movement needs to be able to attract females. Of course, making a space where they feel welcome is a great start.
Peace.
Very interesting research that has come out (from Germany, at least) that focuses on some of the points I have been making about the nexus between females and spirituality and the need for any movement to provide a successful spiritual program to attract them:
“People who feel a sense of oneness with something outside of themselves are more likely to be satisfied in life, according to a study….Those who believed in oneness were more satisfied with life, the study suggested. The data also revealed women were significantly more likely to believe in oneness than men.”
https://www.newsweek.com/life-satisfaction-boosted-sense-oneness-regardless-religion-study-finds-1391618
Not surprisingly, Muslims topped the survey (the term Tawhid [the core pillar and coctrine of the religion] – translates pretty forwardly into “Divine Oneness” or “Divine Unity”):
“Muslims, on average, had the highest mean value of oneness beliefs, followed by Christians who don’t identify as Protestant or Catholic. This was followed by Buddhism, Hindu, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, other non-Christian and finally atheists.”
This would go fairly well in explaining why our converts skew so heavily toward females (between 2/3 to 3/4).
Again, any successful and long-term movement needs to be able to attract females. Of course, making a space where they feel welcome is a great start.
Peace.
No reparations for blacks or indians ever. NOT ONE CENT. As far as I am concerned they owe Whites for allowing them access to a level of civilisation they could never manage on their own.
Americans would NEVER go for that because it’s unfair, and whites hate unfairness. Descendants of slaves didn’t choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave.
Blacks can choose to accept "reparations" for the "historical crime" of bringing their ancestors here, and it's eminently fair for the ones who accept to return to Africa in exchange as this reverses the "historical crime". Those who stay implicitly agree that White America is a better place to live than Africa even with a pocket full of money, so the notion of "reparations" is BS.
Actually, it would be fair for blacks to have what amounts to a plebiscite on this issue: if more than 50% rejected the deal of "reparations" plus repatriation, the whole thing is scrapped... and any talk about reparations for or oppression against blacks is banned henceforth. (Punishable by repatriation WITHOUT compensation.)
Disagree. Those descendants are attempting to enslave the white population (most of who's ancestors were either not in the US or had no connection to slave owners) for eternity.
A battle for survival will ensue. That is the only alternative.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
You think it is? Explain.
Now, you have to understand that women take the whole matter of prostitution very seriously. It is an internal revulsion that most of us have in the fiber of our being. Indeed, it's quite remarkable that only circumstances of extreme deprivation will push more than 2% of women into prostitution. That is quite remarkable when you think about it. Here we are sitting on this tremendously valuable (ahem) asset, and yet precious few of us consider selling it absent the utmost desperation, such as drug addiction or hunger. We think of it as near total degradation to sell our bodies. It goes without saying that we are going to be offended by these terms of abuse.Replies: @Rosie, @Truth
The alternative might be a lot worse …
The trouble is that I can’t really say one way or the other without actually knowing what these words mean. Again, they clearly don’t mean “prostitute.” They are thrown about far too casually for that. Asking men who use the term what it means might be a better place to start. Of course, they won’t answer you, because terms of abuse, like “racist,” work better when they are vague. My suspicion, to be perfectly honest, is that “thot” means an unmarried woman with a job, though the thot-screechers would never admit as much.
Now, you have to understand that women take the whole matter of prostitution very seriously. It is an internal revulsion that most of us have in the fiber of our being. Indeed, it’s quite remarkable that only circumstances of extreme deprivation will push more than 2% of women into prostitution. That is quite remarkable when you think about it. Here we are sitting on this tremendously valuable (ahem) asset, and yet precious few of us consider selling it absent the utmost desperation, such as drug addiction or hunger. We think of it as near total degradation to sell our bodies. It goes without saying that we are going to be offended by these terms of abuse.
My sense is that men and women have very fundamental disagreements about "whoredom," and whether and how it is wrong. Many men don't actually have any moral objection to prostitution as such. They see it as merely transactional fornication, no better or worse than any other kind. Women see it much differently. We see it as a kind of self- abasement, rather like a politician who sells out his principles for votes or funding, whom we often refer to figuratively as "whores" of a kind.
For instance, if you and your husband go to the Honky-Tonk and Beckie is half naked, with bleached- blonde hait and is flirtinh with je and other shamelessly, she's a THOT.
The word is genergenerally preceded by 'random' to give yoi an idea.Replies: @Talha
Now, you have to understand that women take the whole matter of prostitution very seriously. It is an internal revulsion that most of us have in the fiber of our being. Indeed, it's quite remarkable that only circumstances of extreme deprivation will push more than 2% of women into prostitution. That is quite remarkable when you think about it. Here we are sitting on this tremendously valuable (ahem) asset, and yet precious few of us consider selling it absent the utmost desperation, such as drug addiction or hunger. We think of it as near total degradation to sell our bodies. It goes without saying that we are going to be offended by these terms of abuse.Replies: @Rosie, @Truth
https://www.thecut.com/2016/03/women-judge-prostitution-more-harshly-than-men.html
My sense is that men and women have very fundamental disagreements about “whoredom,” and whether and how it is wrong. Many men don’t actually have any moral objection to prostitution as such. They see it as merely transactional fornication, no better or worse than any other kind. Women see it much differently. We see it as a kind of self- abasement, rather like a politician who sells out his principles for votes or funding, whom we often refer to figuratively as “whores” of a kind.
Now, you have to understand that women take the whole matter of prostitution very seriously. It is an internal revulsion that most of us have in the fiber of our being. Indeed, it's quite remarkable that only circumstances of extreme deprivation will push more than 2% of women into prostitution. That is quite remarkable when you think about it. Here we are sitting on this tremendously valuable (ahem) asset, and yet precious few of us consider selling it absent the utmost desperation, such as drug addiction or hunger. We think of it as near total degradation to sell our bodies. It goes without saying that we are going to be offended by these terms of abuse.Replies: @Rosie, @Truth
LOL It is sometimes difficult to translate ebonics propperly for white folks, but the général meaning of THOT is a woman of no particular distinction who’s goal in Life is to be attractive to men.
For instance, if you and your husband go to the Honky-Tonk and Beckie is half naked, with bleached- blonde hait and is flirtinh with je and other shamelessly, she’s a THOT.
The word is genergenerally preceded by ‘random’ to give yoi an idea.
Peace.
For instance, if you and your husband go to the Honky-Tonk and Beckie is half naked, with bleached- blonde hait and is flirtinh with je and other shamelessly, she's a THOT.
The word is genergenerally preceded by 'random' to give yoi an idea.Replies: @Talha
Peace.
Felons chose to commit crime, so it’s fair to force them to leave.
Blacks can choose to accept “reparations” for the “historical crime” of bringing their ancestors here, and it’s eminently fair for the ones who accept to return to Africa in exchange as this reverses the “historical crime”. Those who stay implicitly agree that White America is a better place to live than Africa even with a pocket full of money, so the notion of “reparations” is BS.
Actually, it would be fair for blacks to have what amounts to a plebiscite on this issue: if more than 50% rejected the deal of “reparations” plus repatriation, the whole thing is scrapped… and any talk about reparations for or oppression against blacks is banned henceforth. (Punishable by repatriation WITHOUT compensation.)
Affirmative Action
I am zipping this off . . .
I had intended to take a break, but I opted to address this question, Which if examining the submitted data took more time (is taking) more time than I’d like. I have no idea why they would use a multiple regression when they don’t know the corresponding variables actually are or such a simple goal why it would matter.
There’s a simple solution to my comments. If there are a problem for you don’t read them.
I have read this research. I am going to reread a couple of times. There are problems with some methodologies to the outcomes, but in order to keep my comments brief I will immediately note a couple.
Simple answers:
1. There colleges are not a representative example of not only AA policies and practices among elite colleges, they are even less an example among colleges in general and they become further insignificant to national policy that addresses not only education but employment as well. Three schools of the 5300 colleges and universities is roughly 0.0566%. How much of that would reflect the policies of the other 5000 plus is questionable and almost useless when considering the vast scope of the policy we are talking about. Now the article notes that all other colleges other than elite schools admit everyone who applies. I would need to look at that source material. But it is a dubious suggestion.
Some Elite Schools: https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/admission-statistics/
Schools in general: https://www.collegesimply.com/guides/low-acceptance-rate/
So what constitutes and elite school is questionable. And though it is a side issue leaves serious doubt about whether these schools in this study spanning several years are representative of the whole.
2. You might want to read the conclusion as well as the other narratives. The researchers admit that even they are speculating about AA programs even among these three schools because as is the case among most schools the selection process is by design intended to be kept private because in selection there are various measures that do not include statistical measures, ie. SAT, ACT, Grades, what have you. But not having that data, it’s virtually impossible to determine how many whites were admitted via other variables besides their score.
3. But the conclusion in the research itself suggests your contention is nonsense because they indicate two very distinct variables outweigh all other preferences legacy and athletics. I suspect the legacy (preference) applicants Both programs exceed AA policies.
4. And I think you are missing this very important outlier, and where across the board, makes my case. Women are part and parcel the largest demographic of AA and most of those women by far are white. That alone surpasses the the black population admitted in total, even among these three schools.
____________________________
The area in which whites own AA is when one examines the demographic regarding gender. And that is where in college. employment and other areas they outstrip any other demographic. I have provided multiple sources for this and not inclined to dig them up again. White women to AA benefits 60% plus. Considering that in survey data both asians and hispanic populations are noted or note themselves as white that number shoots up to more than seventy. But taking those two groups, that’s another bite from the whole. Leaving the other 30% or so to be divided up among all other representative groups in which same sex practitioners qualify and whatever proportion of them are white would go in the white plus column, as would mental and physical disabled applicants.
There are a lot more issues with the study you intended to make your case, But on its face and by the conclusions and data in the research itself — even without a counter data sets. It is insufficient and in many ways contradicts you.
Your slide in by proportional measures is upended when looking at the sex and other preferences such as legacy and athletics. Note: any attempt to highlight black athletes would have to take into account that preferences to athletes existed long before the first black ever attended and institution higher learning. And for most higher education learning, that only included whites.
I have some other concerns, but the above is sufficient for now.
At the end of the day what matters is final count not proportionality. I remember when the annual police deaths increase by homicide were an issue. The percentages were high. I think they were as high as some 50%. That’s a shocking percentage, until you look at how many actual deaths that represented. I think the highest increase was five officers from one to another. Suddenly, that number was brought into relief (reality) out of nearly 900,000 officers the average number killed by homicide is about 100. And that number drops when considering how many of those killed are killed by an assailant. No less tragic, but the gambit of percentages to advance an agenda is often lost when it gets applied to outcomes. In the case of police the number of officers killed is roughly 0.0011%. That does not make deaths any less tragic. But it matters when designing policy.
So when people get to pushing proportional arguments about human constructs to behavior, I walk to actualities not merely proportions. What these schools are attempting to do is rebalance an artificial imbalance. But because AA as it was intended has included unexpected populations it has continued to benefit the dominant population on the matter of color.
There are other issues, but for now . . . that’s it.
I took a quick look at your two links and I see nothing about AA.
Do you think your word salad "arguments" are the least bit persuasive?
There's a simple solution to my comments. If there are a problem for you don't read them.I have read this research. I am going to reread a couple of times. There are problems with some methodologies to the outcomes, but in order to keep my comments brief I will immediately note a couple.
Simple answers:
1. There colleges are not a representative example of not only AA policies and practices among elite colleges, they are even less an example among colleges in general and they become further insignificant to national policy that addresses not only education but employment as well. Three schools of the 5300 colleges and universities is roughly 0.0566%. How much of that would reflect the policies of the other 5000 plus is questionable and almost useless when considering the vast scope of the policy we are talking about. Now the article notes that all other colleges other than elite schools admit everyone who applies. I would need to look at that source material. But it is a dubious suggestion.Some Elite Schools: https://www.ivywise.com/ivywise-knowledgebase/admission-statistics/
Schools in general: https://www.collegesimply.com/guides/low-acceptance-rate/So what constitutes and elite school is questionable. And though it is a side issue leaves serious doubt about whether these schools in this study spanning several years are representative of the whole.
2. You might want to read the conclusion as well as the other narratives. The researchers admit that even they are speculating about AA programs even among these three schools because as is the case among most schools the selection process is by design intended to be kept private because in selection there are various measures that do not include statistical measures, ie. SAT, ACT, Grades, what have you. But not having that data, it's virtually impossible to determine how many whites were admitted via other variables besides their score.3. But the conclusion in the research itself suggests your contention is nonsense because they indicate two very distinct variables outweigh all other preferences legacy and athletics. I suspect the legacy (preference) applicants Both programs exceed AA policies.4. And I think you are missing this very important outlier, and where across the board, makes my case. Women are part and parcel the largest demographic of AA and most of those women by far are white. That alone surpasses the the black population admitted in total, even among these three schools.
____________________________ The area in which whites own AA is when one examines the demographic regarding gender. And that is where in college. employment and other areas they outstrip any other demographic. I have provided multiple sources for this and not inclined to dig them up again. White women to AA benefits 60% plus. Considering that in survey data both asians and hispanic populations are noted or note themselves as white that number shoots up to more than seventy. But taking those two groups, that's another bite from the whole. Leaving the other 30% or so to be divided up among all other representative groups in which same sex practitioners qualify and whatever proportion of them are white would go in the white plus column, as would mental and physical disabled applicants. There are a lot more issues with the study you intended to make your case, But on its face and by the conclusions and data in the research itself -- even without a counter data sets. It is insufficient and in many ways contradicts you.Your slide in by proportional measures is upended when looking at the sex and other preferences such as legacy and athletics. Note: any attempt to highlight black athletes would have to take into account that preferences to athletes existed long before the first black ever attended and institution higher learning. And for most higher education learning, that only included whites. I have some other concerns, but the above is sufficient for now. At the end of the day what matters is final count not proportionality. I remember when the annual police deaths increase by homicide were an issue. The percentages were high. I think they were as high as some 50%. That's a shocking percentage, until you look at how many actual deaths that represented. I think the highest increase was five officers from one to another. Suddenly, that number was brought into relief (reality) out of nearly 900,000 officers the average number killed by homicide is about 100. And that number drops when considering how many of those killed are killed by an assailant. No less tragic, but the gambit of percentages to advance an agenda is often lost when it gets applied to outcomes. In the case of police the number of officers killed is roughly 0.0011%. That does not make deaths any less tragic. But it matters when designing policy. So when people get to pushing proportional arguments about human constructs to behavior, I walk to actualities not merely proportions. What these schools are attempting to do is rebalance an artificial imbalance. But because AA as it was intended has included unexpected populations it has continued to benefit the dominant population on the matter of color. There are other issues, but for now . . . that's it.Replies: @res
Who are you replying to?
That’s a good idea. I don’t believe in ignoring commenters in general (even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, and it’s good to rebut the most obvious nonsense), but perhaps I should make an exception in your case.
I took a quick look at your two links and I see nothing about AA.
Do you think your word salad “arguments” are the least bit persuasive?
The data that blacks are benefited more by AA than whites is nit supported.
It’s that simple.
Laugh. As I noted. I am off to other issues.
You can complain about the writing as you like. The problem with the study to make your case remains.
Further reasons why I left the default anti- AA bandwagon.
————————–
As for the hated of unfairness.
And I support and vote conservative
That is data for 10 elite universities. Table 2 indicates that the odds ratio for African Americans being admitted (compared to whites) is about 5 in all of their models which include both SAT scores and race.
I also alluded to Harvard data I presented in another thread (this is a product of the lawsuit over Asian admissions). That data is available at http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/1237/CEO%20Study%20Harvard%20Investigates%20Harvard.pdf
and I discuss it in this comment:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-are-people-paying-bribes-to-get-their-kids-into-usc/#comment-3138219
That model indicates the odds ratio for African Americans being admitted (compared to whites) is about 10 (e^2.37).
Those references seem far more persuasive to me than anything you have presented. And the odds ratios are very large.
I am pretty sure you neither know nor care what an odds ratio is, but for those interested here is an explanation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938757/
Also worth repeating from my comment 97:
It's that simple.
Laugh. As I noted. I am off to other issues.
You can complain about the writing as you like. The problem with the study to make your case remains. Further reasons why I left the default anti- AA bandwagon.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaObfhJUt18
--------------------------
As for the hated of unfairness.Replies: @ElitecommInc., @res
Emphasis on the Dr. Reeves data
And I support and vote conservative
It's that simple.
Laugh. As I noted. I am off to other issues.
You can complain about the writing as you like. The problem with the study to make your case remains. Further reasons why I left the default anti- AA bandwagon.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaObfhJUt18
--------------------------
As for the hated of unfairness.Replies: @ElitecommInc., @res
Let’s revisit some evidence. In comment 97 I linked to https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf
That is data for 10 elite universities. Table 2 indicates that the odds ratio for African Americans being admitted (compared to whites) is about 5 in all of their models which include both SAT scores and race.
I also alluded to Harvard data I presented in another thread (this is a product of the lawsuit over Asian admissions). That data is available at http://www.ceousa.org/attachments/article/1237/CEO%20Study%20Harvard%20Investigates%20Harvard.pdf
and I discuss it in this comment:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/why-are-people-paying-bribes-to-get-their-kids-into-usc/#comment-3138219
That model indicates the odds ratio for African Americans being admitted (compared to whites) is about 10 (e^2.37).
Those references seem far more persuasive to me than anything you have presented. And the odds ratios are very large.
I am pretty sure you neither know nor care what an odds ratio is, but for those interested here is an explanation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2938757/
Also worth repeating from my comment 97:
“Descendants of slaves didn’t choose to be brought to North America so it is not fair to force them to leave.”
Disagree. Those descendants are attempting to enslave the white population (most of who’s ancestors were either not in the US or had no connection to slave owners) for eternity.
A battle for survival will ensue. That is the only alternative.
Laughing. After a browse through the study
The first thing one tackles in reviewing a research is the methodology. And there are major problems as the researchers themselves admit.
Second, your choice of a study that comprises three schools simply has no little value because the sample size is to small and the sample is of a category that would not be consistent to the entire policy administered across the country, i.e. for employment. You are talking about two vastly different constructs. And as is clear even in the study provided even in the elite construct of academia the factors in relationship to explicating AA differ. If the methods of applying AA policy varies from school to school that impact results. Making the leap from the academic to hiring practices which will vary from employer to employer is in a word — bizarre.
Not even the researchers attempt such a leap.
One of the responses I left out and will include in a different response are the break out of women who are AA recipients. That number could be as high 100%. That seems to be the assumption regarding anyone who is not white. I would have to go back and take another look. But if your the paper there’s a reference to AA also being applied to low income populations. Given that whites make up a sizable portion of low income demographic. I would be curious to know how many whites were provided preferential status.
And the authors use a reference that is rather odd when indicating what elite schools do regarding acceptance. The reference says that all non-elite colleges accept essentially every candidate. That’s why I looked at the other schools acceptance rates — that contention is incorrect.
But at the end of the day the numbers matter and it’s pretty clear that even to this study when considering all variables — whites benefit the most. But in order to get that, one has to actually read the study, not merely look at the graphs and charts.
I tell you what, describe the non-statistical data, SAT scores, grades, etc. and give me me how they were rated for just the white students. I already know the answer.
——————————————-
“2. Learn what net means. White women may benefit, but white men most certainly do not.”
Laughing. Well, You are welcome to tell white women they are not white. I would love to hear that conversation. It would be worse than whites in congress telling their wives, girlfriends, mistresses, daughters, and granddaughters why the included women as an attempt kill the civil rights legislation.
You are also welcome to tell millions of men how their wives and daughters as primary recipients of AA policy don’t benefit them as well. I would include girl friends and mistresses, but that might be crossing the line.
AA action benefits whites more than blacks and has from its inception. You might want to do some homework on what AA was created to do and how. The AA policy you complain about which benefits whites more than blacks is not the policy intended. Not by a long shot.
As to your inclusion of ten elite school studies, since the policy is to 5000 plus other schools are far short. As for your tiresome per capita assail, most of the population of the US have not gone to college much less an elite college, if you think a per capita assessment is applicable across the board, well, let’s just say apples and oranges is not two peas in a pod.
Good grief.
Truth: There is a old southern saying, maybe you heard it growing up; “if you throw a stick into a crowd of dogs, the only one who squeals is the one who got hit.
Mark Twain: “the hit dog hollers.”
Disagree. Those descendants are attempting to enslave the white population (most of who's ancestors were either not in the US or had no connection to slave owners) for eternity.
A battle for survival will ensue. That is the only alternative.Replies: @Audacious Epigone
With birthrates below replacement for both white and black Americans, why must this be the case? Absent immigration, there is more than enough room for everyone.
Declining birthrates in the US are an artificially manufactured event. Black birth rates may be declining, but their total population continues to increase every year. It is the white population that is receding.
As for why it must be the case, where do we see blacks functioning autonomously within the US? Baltimore? Detroit? The correct answer is nowhere. Blacks require the presence of the white population to subsidize them with infrastructure, policy, economy, and order. This is the unfortunate reality. Which means the white population will never be free to find a nice place in the US where they can just be left the hell alone, plenty of room notwithstanding. Blacks will always seek out the whites.
Now, it has become apparent that I must add a disclaimer to these comments, because it seems that absolutism always gets assigned to them. Leaving the other factors aside for the moment, the US would largely return to its former levels of functionality if whites (and by whites I mean Western European) resumed 85% (90% would be better) of the total population. If the black population was returned to under 10 million of only their very best, who adopted the understanding that Heritage American culture and policy were dominant (as legacy Chinese Americans did, for example,) then we would have many fewer issues concerning race, identity, criminality, and policy. Until that happens (and it won't) then we should be preparing for the worst.
So for the record, I am not calling for (and never have,) the absolute entirety of every non white occupant of the US to be forcibly expelled.
Sure, there's "room," but not enough elbow room.
Which one? Did you fail to notice I linked two?
And where is your data?
But as I noted the second has the same prime issue. AA is national and it is nit limited to academia.
In a homogeneous country, declining birthrates might not necessarily be a bad thing, as long as an increase in birthrates compliments it down the line.
Declining birthrates in the US are an artificially manufactured event. Black birth rates may be declining, but their total population continues to increase every year. It is the white population that is receding.
As for why it must be the case, where do we see blacks functioning autonomously within the US? Baltimore? Detroit? The correct answer is nowhere. Blacks require the presence of the white population to subsidize them with infrastructure, policy, economy, and order. This is the unfortunate reality. Which means the white population will never be free to find a nice place in the US where they can just be left the hell alone, plenty of room notwithstanding. Blacks will always seek out the whites.
Now, it has become apparent that I must add a disclaimer to these comments, because it seems that absolutism always gets assigned to them. Leaving the other factors aside for the moment, the US would largely return to its former levels of functionality if whites (and by whites I mean Western European) resumed 85% (90% would be better) of the total population. If the black population was returned to under 10 million of only their very best, who adopted the understanding that Heritage American culture and policy were dominant (as legacy Chinese Americans did, for example,) then we would have many fewer issues concerning race, identity, criminality, and policy. Until that happens (and it won’t) then we should be preparing for the worst.
So for the record, I am not calling for (and never have,) the absolute entirety of every non white occupant of the US to be forcibly expelled.
there is more than enough room for everyone.
Sure, there’s “room,” but not enough elbow room.
You should go back to debating Truth.
Elite is a bot that can’t spell, doesn’t know the difference between elude and allude and tirelessly (AI attribute) writes vapid sophisty for our entertainment.
(BTW, I think that you likely have 10-15 points on Truth, but he probably has 1 to 2 inches on you, so it is a wash.)
I have only read the first.
But as I noted the second has the same prime issue. AA is national and it is nit limited to academia.
The problems with the first study are internal. No amount of rhetorical repositioning is going to resolve the misapplication to AA nationally or even to the constructs they chose.
Having me look at the Harvard study about Harvard is again a doubling down on the same errors as before.
You cannot make per capita assessments on compositions so vastly different.
Women carry the day in reaping the most from AA. And in this case it’s white women. A look at that history demonstrates that it was not an accident. Across the board whites continue to be the primary beneficiaries of AA. A look at the first study makes the case with along legacy and athletics. And then compounded by the number of women given preferential treatment, and then there are poor whites, which are not calculated.
Whites own AA. As I say, the numbers tell the story. Not the agenda.