Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Hilary: Hey Brazil, I'll give you lip service with regard to whatever government policy you want as long as you give me money

Trump: Hey Russia, I'll give you lip service with regard to whatever government policy you want as long as you leak Podesta's emails.

Funny, you think one of those is fine, and the other is treason.

It's also kind of ironic how the first thing actually happened, and you're fine with it. The second thing is barely supported by the most partisan speculation, and you think it's a constitutional crisis.

---

Haha, I don't think either one is fine. Where did I say that? Try not to imagine things you want to believe, but rather find out the real facts before you speak.

The issue with Trump also goes much deeper than 'lip service'. Even the least partisan speculator can see there is something fishy going on there. Even ignoring his multiple public pronouncements which have been all but tantamount to confessions, you have to be literally drowning in the Kool-Aid to think Trump is a legit business man who has legit reasons for trying to hide his dealings with Russians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The Dems official 2016 platform was written before separation gate.

---

I would have to fact check this but really can't be bothered. Let's just assume the Dems want no border patrol and baby rapists pouring into the country to vote illegally for them by the millions, if that will make you happy. Never mind that Obama went wild exporting illegals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The issue with Trump also goes much deeper than 'lip service'.

---

Yeah, he's also killed a few Russian soldiers and armed a few Russian enemies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ng-to-fbi.html

WOMP WOMP

Lol.....14 days. The guy must be rotten to the core!!!!

Big win for Trump fans I guess when someone gets off with a light sentence lol.

Quote:

---

Papadopoulos was also sentenced to 13 months supervised release, 200 hours community service and a $9,500 fine. Before his sentencing, the former adviser said he was “deeply embarrassed and ashamed.”

---

Happy days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Yeah, he's also killed a few Russian soldiers and armed a few Russian enemies.

---

You mean his staff, right? 'cause apparently they just ignore his orders and do what they want lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Why don't you tell me professor?

---

Ok sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And 1/10th the population.

I wonder if that matters?

---

It does, due to economies of scale. Here, let me help:

"Economies of scale refer to reduced costs per unit that arise from increased total output of a product. For example, a larger factory will produce power hand tools at a lower unit price, and a larger medical system will reduce cost per medical procedure."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e...iesofscale.asp

What that means is that it's more economical to do it for 10x the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoccoBill

What that means is that it's more economical to do it for 10x the population.

---

"Do it"

Pure socialist propaganda.

As if there is only "do" and "not-do". Sorry, its more subtle than that.

Lets see how your marxist cuckdom fares when your healthcare system is challenged to "do it" with a high level of effectiveness.

Lets see if your country can achieve the same 5 year cancer survival rate as the US, or allow people to see specialists without a 14 month wait, and not go bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Lets see if your country can achieve the same 5 year cancer survival rate as the US, or allow people to see specialists without a 14 month wait, and not go bankrupt.

---

Let's see if the US can pull up its socks on everything else.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...able-countries

Now, let's see how you justify that overall weak performance as a function of how much you spend per capita.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...-amount-health

Now, let's talk about which way works better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Let's see if the US can pull up its socks on everything else.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...able-countries

Now, let's see how you justify that overall weak performance as a function of how much you spend per capita.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...-amount-health

Now, let's talk about which way works better.

---

You're improperly assuming causation.

One of the side effects of being superbly great at just about fucking everything is that folks tend to lead a gluttonous and sedentary lifestyle. That's what's negatively affecting the charts you've cited.

And when we get heart disease, we REALLY get heart disease. That's the American way.

By all biological standards and common sense, the average american should weigh 400 lbs and die at 31. The fact that we don't is a testament to our miraculous level of medical treatment. Don't fuck that up with socialism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You're improperly assuming causation.

---

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't cite being good at treating cancer as a sign of the quality of your system and then cite being poor at treating everything else as a different sign of the quality of your system.

Spending 2x as much on health care per capita to die younger is not great. Unless you're a pharma company I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

One of the side effects of being superbly great at just about fucking everything is that folks tend to lead a gluttonous and sedentary lifestyle. That's what's negatively affecting the charts you've cited.

---

Sorry, but great countries don't encourage people to be fat and lazy. That's not being great, that's being shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Pure capitalist propaganda.

---

FYP.

Possibly, but like I said ask wuf, he knows more about that.

Quote:

---

William Galston (former economic adviser to President Clinton) published a study (twice, a decade apart, with identical results) that showed the following: If you A) Finish High school B) Don't have a kid out of wedlock and C) Don't have a kid before age 21 then the chances that you will live in poverty are less than 10%. That's it. It's really that simple. And that same study found that your chances of living in poverty were greater than 90% if you were missing even one of those three things. I know I've posted this before. And I know I'm off by a few %'s. But I think you get the point.

The teenage pregnancy rate, the highschool dropout rate, and the wedlock birth rate among blacks are absolutely abysmal compared to whites.

It's not racist cops getting teenage black girls pregnant.

It's not white privilege forcing black kids to drop out of high school.
...
Stay in school. Wear a condom. How hard is that, really?

---

There's something to be said about brevity. Of That whole wall of text you posted this is the only part that has any substance as far as I can tell, and the substance is that you're confused about causality. Basically what you're saying is: you avoid being poor by avoiding the symptoms of poverty. That is a circular argument.

But I'm not sure what the overarching point is. I don't see a point in arguing whether or not black people wear stupid pants if you can't tell me how that's even relevant to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Basically what you're saying is: you avoid being poor by avoiding the symptoms of poverty. That is a circular argument.

---

Teenage pregnancy, high school drop outs, and non-nuclear families are not symptoms of poverty. They're causes.

You know what's a stupid argument.....when one group of people has 30% of their babies while married, and another group has 70% of their babies while married....and expecting equal outcomes.

And you know Oskar.......you should really go fuck yourself.

You asked a question, I answered it. Rather than respond intelligently and debate in good faith, you just cherry pick which part of the argument you don't like, chastise it, and then don't even put a shred of a counter argument into the debate. You're just a cunt suffering from cognitive dissonance over the fact that DATA PROVES that white people are not the source of black people's problems. I'm sure life was a lot easier when you could just blame honkies for all the inequality in the world. I'm sure it was fun having political debates when all you had to do was cloak yourself in irrational compassion and virtue-signal. I hope you get AIDS.

Quote:

---

Teenage pregnancy, high school drop outs, and non-nuclear families are not symptoms of poverty. They're causes.

---

They are both causes and symptons of poverty. I mean, if you're poor and young, you're naive and resentful because rich kids have things you don't, and you're not old enough yet to understand why that is. So you feel detached from the real world, dick about at school, fuck girls, get them pregnant, and the next generation of povos are born while as adults they largely go on to claim benefits to feed their offspring since they are unemployable.

Poverty isn't a choice, for the most part. It's like a drug addiction. It's possible to drag yourself out of poverty, but you have to have the will. Some people just haven't got what it takes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Poverty isn't a choice, for the most part. It's like a drug addiction. It's possible to drag yourself out of poverty, but you have to have the will. Some people just haven't got what it takes.

---

Absolute bullshit.

I've already cited the study that clearly explains what you have to do to not be poor. Wear a condom, and stay in school. Everyone has what it takes. Everyone. Not just some people. Everyone.

Furthermore, I'll have to dig up the study so I can cite properly, but there is data that says if you A) Finish high school B) Don't have kids out of wedlock and C) have a job, then your chances of being middle class is above 90%. Not just "not poor", but squarely in the middle class.

Having babies out of wedlock and dropping out of high school are CHOICES.

The problem is you're trying to impress these values on naive stupid kids who don't really care about their future until it's too late.

So black people are both genetically inferior on the intelligence scale, but also fully capable ofreaching equal socio-economic status. How do you reconcile those two theories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

So black people are both genetically inferior on the intelligence scale, but also fully capable ofreaching equal socio-economic status. How do you reconcile those two theories?

---

I have no idea why you're asking me. That first theory isn't something I've ever thought. That second one is worded in a way that also misrepresents my views.

I said that there is data demonstrating a difference in average IQ between the races. I'm quite sure I emphasized my understanding that science has not yet determined to what degree IQ is influenced by environmental factors, and how much is heritable. It's entirely plausible that black people are genetically superior, and environmental factors drag them down more than a whole standard deviation.

So I'm not sure where you're getting "genetically inferior"

And I also don't know where you're getting "equal" socio-economic status? The information I've cited proves that every individual person, black or white, has equal opportunity to be 'not-poor'. All you have to do is do your homework and never make love without the glove.

Hey Oskar. You claim to want a world without racism. Yet you want so badly for me to be a racist. How do you reconcile those two theories?

What kinds of environmental factors do you think could "drag them down?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Hey Oskar. You claim to want a world without racism. Yet you want so badly for me to be a racist. How do you reconcile those two theories?

---

Above and beyond your vocabulary issues, you really have trouble linking two ideas logically for someone with a professed genius level IQ.

Lets' assume Oskar wants a world without racism. He never came out and said such, but it seems consistent at least with his stated opinions about racists. So let's presume that's true.

Now, why would he then WANT you to be racist? It would be completely the opposite to what he portrays as his views. In fact, it's not hard for an actual high IQ person to conclude that he doesn't WANT you to be a racist, but he THINKS you are a racist and what he WANTS is to get you to admit it either directly or indirectly.

Do you see the difference between those two very simple ideas? I hope so, because it's not at all subtle.

Now let's discuss your use of the word 'theories'. A theory is not about what someone WANTS, it's about what someone BELIEVES or hypothesizes. You may in fact WANT your belief to be true, but that is orthogonal to what your ACTUAL belief is.

I know you claim to be like a smart person, but please, I implore you, consult a dictionary once in a while. And please, try to understand at least the basics of logical thought. It will save you a lot of embarrrassment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

The information I've cited proves that every individual person, black or white, has equal opportunity to be 'not-poor'. All you have to do is do your homework and never make love without the glove.

---

This shows such a complete lack of consideration of any nuance that exists in the outcome of a given person's 'success' that it suggests you either don't understand the issue beyond the most basic level of complexity or that you're purposely ignoring it.

Correlation does not prove causation. So we don't know that it's staying in school, avoiding teen pregnancy, and being employed that are the prime movers in this equation. There may be other things that contribute to those three variables that in turn lead to poor outcomes. Some of those things may not be down to the individual, for example,the quality of the education system they're in for one. To give a concrete example, if you had gone to a better school, or stayed in school longer than it took to become a whiz at using Excel, you might not have ended up saying such simpleminded things.

Your ignorant, 'A --> B' view of how things work seems to be that the individual has not only the PRIME responsibility for how their life turns out (which I agree with in principle), but the SOLE responsibility (which cannot be true unless you subscribe to genetic -i.e., racist - views, and which as such, I disagree with in principle).

By this logic, because blacks in the US commit a greater number of these life follies than whites, there must be something instrinsically wrong with black people.

And then you wonder why someone challenges your views as racist.

Quote:

---

So we don't know that it's staying in school, avoiding teen pregnancy, and being employed that are the prime movers in this equation.

---

Employment is literally the best way out of poverty. Education is literally the best way to get employed. Not being a parent is literally the best way to find the time to study and work.

I might disagree with banana on a fair few points when it comes to poverty, but not this one. Doing these things gives you the best chance of not being poor. Where I disagree is that a lot of people in poverty have made poor life decisions before they begin to care about their future, that their path out of poverty is compromised by drugs or the burden of children. Does everyone have what it takes to avoid this path? I'm not as sure as banana. But for those who do take the path banana advises... well good for them, they're moving in the right direction for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Above and beyond your vocabulary issues, you really have trouble linking two ideas logically for someone with a professed genius level IQ.

Lets' assume Oskar wants a world without racism. He never came out and said such, but it seems consistent at least with his stated opinions about racists. So let's presume that's true.

Now, why would he then WANT you to be racist? It would be completely the opposite to what he portrays as his views. In fact, it's not hard for an actual high IQ person to conclude that he doesn't WANT you to be a racist, but he THINKS you are a racist and what he WANTS is to get you to admit it either directly or indirectly.

Do you see the difference between those two very simple ideas? I hope so, because it's not at all subtle.

Now let's discuss your use of the word 'theories'. A theory is not about what someone WANTS, it's about what someone BELIEVES or hypothesizes. You may in fact WANT your belief to be true, but that is orthogonal to what your ACTUAL belief is.

I know you claim to be like a smart person, but please, I implore you, consult a dictionary once in a while. And please, try to understand at least the basics of logical thought. It will save you a lot of embarrrassment.

---

Hair splitting vocabulary????? This is what you're reduced to now? LOL. MadMojoMonkey would be proud

If you're gonna play the "correlation is not causation" card when the correlation is over 90%, you're a fucking idiot. Plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Empoyment is literally the best way out of poverty. Education is literally the best way to get employed. Not being a parent is literally the best way to find the time to study and work.

---

You just missed the entire point.

It may be the use 'prime mover' that's confusing here. When I use that term, I'm referring to ultimate, not proximate causes.

Yes, I agree those things are fundamentally important. My point is that not everyone has equal access to employment, education, and positive life choices (this last is more subtle because it involves access to positive encouragement regarding life choices through role models, etc., rather than simply 'can i find a condom?')

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

If you're gonna play the "correlation is not causation" card when the correlation is over 90%, you're a fucking idiot. Plain and simple.

---

No, you're the fucking idiot. Very plain and simple. First, because you don't understand this year 1 statistical concept. Second, because you think correlations are expressed in percentages.

There's a >.9 correlation between how far away something is and how small it appears to be. By your logic, this proves the sun is the smaller than a basketball.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Hair splitting vocabulary????? This is what you're reduced to now? LOL. MadMojoMonkey would be proud

---

If you can't use even simple words properly, how can you make solid arguments?

I mean, even if you could use them properly, your arguments would still make no sense, but at least you'd look slightly less stupid.

Quote:

---

My point is that not everyone has equal access to employment, education, and positive life choices

---

Well they do here in the UK, I can't know if that's the case in USA. As a child, I was dragged through the care system. I had all the opportunities I could expect to get somewhere in life. I chose not to take them, and those choices were made as an adult. So if you're telling me poor kids don't have the chance to better themselves, it's simply not true in the UK.

People who consider themselves victims, they're the ones who don't have a chance. Their mindset is... I can't help myself, so others should do it for me. That's the problem. Mindset. If their mindset is... work hard to better myself, then they will better themselves. LOTS of people drag themselves from the slums of all over the world to succeed as footballers, businessmen, perhaps even presidents. If you blame other people for where you are in life, then you're ill equipped to take responsibility for your future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well they do here in the UK

---

This is ignoring a lot of the systematic racism that exists in this country. You only have to go count the number of asians working at petrol stations to see this. So either you think there's a different level of opportunity for people based on colour or you think asians have an aptitude for low-paying menial jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

By this logic, because blacks in the US commit a greater number of these life follies than whites, there must be something instrinsically wrong with black people.

And then you wonder why someone challenges your views as racist.

---

Why would that logic be racist? I believe there is something intrinsicially wrong with black culture. Thugs should not be role models. Political leaders should not be pushing a narrative of imagined victimization. There is not enough emphasis on education. there is an indifference to drugs and violence. Disrespect for women is tolerated at a level that is almost unimaginable. I could go on. But I don't see how any of this might influence my judgement of any individual black person in any given situation. None of these beliefs influence my behavior, except that it lessens the amount of sympathy of I have for narratives of victimization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

This is ignoring a lot of the systematic racism that exists in this country. You only have to go count the number of asians working at petrol stations to see this. So either you think there's a different level of opportunity for people based on colour or you think asians have an aptitude for low-paying menial jobs.

---

Do you know why there's lots of Asians working at petrol stations? Because their Asian fathers own them.

It has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with immigrants looking for business opportunities to justify their citizenship. Good for them.

BTW the quality of a school is a bullshit reason for dropping out. The Galston study made no distinctions for quality of school. It found that all you had to do was show up. It doesnt' have to be good. It doesn't have to teach you math. It doesn't have to get you into college. It just h has to be able to get you a diploma if you show up every day.

You're really telling me black teens are holding their noses and walking out of science class forever because the place doesn't meet their standards for a learning institution. Get fucking real.

Black kids are dropping out because there is another black guy outside the school offering him $1000 a week to peddle crack.

The black kid makes a bad decision, and for some reason, we're all ok with that.

The black recruiter is predatory and evil, but for some reason, that doesn't concern anyone.

The black kid's black parents don't seem to be helping the kid make good decisions, but for some reason, we don't seem to expect them to.

and when that black kid can't get ahead in society because he has no education and a criminal record......that's racism.

Just get the fuck out please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Why would that logic be racist? I believe there is something intrinsicially wrong with black culture. Thugs should not be role models. Political leaders should not be pushing a narrative of imagined victimization. There is not enough emphasis on education. there is an indifference to drugs and violence. Disrespect for women is tolerated at a level that is almost unimaginable. I could go on.

---

Wait for it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

But I don't see how any of this might influence my judgement of any individual black person in any given situation. None of these beliefs influence my behavior

---

/thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Do you know why there's lots of Asians working at petrol stations? Because their Asian fathers own them.

---

Uh huh. Moving on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It has nothing to do with racism,

---

You really think there's no systematic racism in the UK? I'm not saying we're on the level of America, but come on.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I said that there is data demonstrating a difference in average IQ between the races. I'm quite sure I emphasized my understanding that science has not yet determined to what degree IQ is influenced by environmental factors, and how much is heritable. It's entirely plausible that black people are genetically superior, and environmental factors drag them down more than a whole standard deviation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

What kinds of environmental factors do you think could "drag them down?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Uh huh. Moving on.

You really think there's no systematic racism in the UK? I'm not saying we're on the level of America, but come on.

---

Well Asian people at petrol stations is not evidence of systematic racism, on the contrary it demonstrates that immigrants are given equal opportunities to invest in community businesses.

Where is the systematic racism in the UK? Give actual examples, I'm open to persuasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

What kinds of environmental factors do you think could "drag them down?"

---

Teenage pregnancy. Also, see psot #734

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Wait for it...



/thread.

---

You're gonna have to explain that to me bro.

The existence of the Black Police Officer's Association, but not a white equivalent, that's systematic racism.

But I'm sure you're looking for examples that favour whites, rather than discriminate against them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well Asian people at petrol stations is not evidence of systematic racism, on the contrary it demonstrates that immigrants are given equal opportunities to invest in community businesses.

Where is the systematic racism in the UK? Give actual examples, I'm open to persuasion.

---

How many black kids go to Eton and Oxbridge?

Why do we actually need laws that say 'you can't discriminate' if no-one is discrminating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The existence of the Black Police Officer's Association, but not a white equivalent, that's systematic racism.

But I'm sure you're looking for examples that favour whites, rather than discriminate against them.

---

Not at all. I just don't think that's an example of racism.

A better question is why do they think they need a Black POA? Do you think they're getting together to plot against Whites, or does it have some more constructive purpose?

A black kid has a 6x better chance of getting into Harvard Medical school than an Asian kid with the same grades

Systemic racism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

A better question is why do they think they need a Black POA? Do you think they're getting together to plot against Whites, or does it have some more constructive purpose?

---

Trick question. The answer can be neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

How many black kids go to Eton and Oxbridge?

Why do we actually need laws that say 'you can't discriminate' if no-one is discrminating?

---

How many black kids go to Eton or Oxbridge? I have no idea. More than zero. How many white non-Mulsim kids are at the expensive Islamic schools? Maybe if they didn't exist, there would be more rich immigrants at Eton.

And why do we need a law? Because individuals need to be told what is and isn't illegal. An individual being racist is not systematic racism, it's just racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Not at all. I just don't think that's an example of racism.

A better question is why do they think they need a Black POA? Do you think they're getting together to plot against Whites, or does it have some more constructive purpose?

---

The point of the BPOA is it is a body that represents the interests of minorities in the police force. Why do minorities need representation but not majorities?

There's no plot, but it is discrimination against whites. What would happen if someone tried to create a white POA body? Outrage, and accusations of racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

You're gonna have to explain that to me bro.

---

Let me put this a way you might understand: If I said "I think New Hampshire culture is a bunch of white people running around in pickup trucks with confederate flags (ya ya i know) and sawed off shotguns, chewing tobacco and shouting the n-word. But whenever I meet one i just forget all that and treat them like anyone else."

Would you believe that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

but it is discrimination against whites.

---

Silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What would happen if someone tried to create a white POA body? Outrage, and accusations of racism.

---

The majority doesn't need protection by virtue of it being the majority. It's already protected by its majority-ness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Outrage, and accusations of racism.

---

I don't know about that. I think most people would just find it silly.

But let's say there was outrage. That for some reason, the police who are known for being at least a bit racist (or having some racists on their force) decide to form a WPOA would not sit well with a lot of people I guess wouldn't surprise me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Trick question. The answer can be neither.

---

You mean there's a less constructive purpose than plotting against whites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

A black kid has a 6x better chance of getting into Harvard Medical school than an Asian kid with the same grades

Systemic racism

---

If that's true, then I agree.

Ok forget the BPOA point, that's a side issue. You have failed to demonstrate there is systematic racism in the UK. Pointing to Eton and Oxbridge is naive, you're failing to realise that immigrants have a choice, and they tend towards schools that are better suited to their culture. The very existence of Islamic schools in the UK demonstrates that we actually give immigrants opportunities that other nations might not allow. I mean, try building a church in Pakistan. Pointing to petrol stations is also naive, they work there because their families own them. That's equal opportunity, the opposite of racism.

People who consider themselves victims, they are the ones denying themselves opportunities. Take fucking responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How many black kids go to Eton or Oxbridge? I have no idea.

---

I'll give you a hint. There's much less than their proportion of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

More than zero.

---

I'd be surprised if the number was much larger than zero for Eton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How many white non-Mulsim kids are at the expensive Islamic schools? Maybe if they didn't exist, there would be more rich immigrants at Eton.

---

Lol, dunno how many Jewish kids go to Catholic schools? What a stupid question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And why do we need a law? Because individuals need to be told what is and isn't illegal. An individual being racist is not systematic racism, it's just racism.

---

So you admit there's some racists here, just that they don't make a sizable proportion of the population or have undue influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The very existence of Islamic schools in the UK demonstrates that we actually give immigrants opportunities that other nations might not allow. I mean, try building a church in Pakistan.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_in_Pakistan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Pointing to Eton and Oxbridge is naive, you're failing to realise that immigrants have a choice, and they tend towards schools that are better suited to their culture.

---

lol this is a joke right? A black kid doesn't want to go to Oxbridge even though it's one of the top unis in the world because he PREFERS to go somewhere else.

Ok maybe he does because he doesn't want to stick out like a sore thumb.

Why do Oxbridge not accept people anonymously based on their performance? Why do they need to know if the person's name is Halburt Winthorp or Shaneille Jackson? Why interview them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The very existence of Islamic schools in the UK demonstrates that we actually give immigrants opportunities that other nations might not allow. I mean, try building a church in Pakistan.

---

Being more tolerant of religious diversity than Pakistan is hardly anything to wave the flag about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Pointing to petrol stations is also naive, they work there because their families own them. That's equal opportunity, the opposite of racism.

---

I'm pretty sure asians don't own every single petrol station. But whatever I can't prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_in_Pakistan

---

Heh, yeah that doesn't totally surprise me actually. I saw both churches and mosques in Iran. Didn't think Pakistan was quite the same, but...good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poop

I'll give you a hint. There's much less than their proportion of the population.

---

That's because of THEIR choices. There is nothing stopping black or Islamic people going to Eton, there is no policy that discriminates against minorities.

Quote:

---

I'd be surprised if the number was much larger than zero for Eton.

---

It doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Lol, dunno how many Jewish kids go to Catholic schools? What a stupid question.

---

Of course it's a stupid question. So why can't you realise that asking why there aren't many black kids at Eton isn't also a stupid question? Those that can afford Eton choose other schools, probably ones where there are no white kids. So how is Eton the racist school?

Quote:

---

So you admit there's some racists here, just that they don't make a sizable proportion of the population or have undue influence.

---

Of course we have racists. That's not what systematic racism is. Systematic racism is racism by policy, or by social norm. If Eton had a policy that said Islamic kids were not welcome, then we have systematic racism... but that isn't what's happening.

Quote:

---

lol this is a joke right? A black kid doesn't want to go to Oxbridge even though it's one of the top unis in the world because he PREFERS to go somewhere else.

---

We're arguing about black kids at Eton without either of us having the slightest fucking idea how many are there. Any more than zero is enough to demonstrate that they are indeed welcome.

Quote:

---

Ok maybe he does because he doesn't want to stick out like a sore thumb.

---

This is a choice based on victim mentality.

Quote:

---

Why do Oxbridge not accept people anonymously based on their performance? Why do they need to know if the person's name is Halburt Winthorp or Shaneille Jackson? Why interview them?

---

Why interview people for jobs? Why not just do it on paper?

Quote:

---

Being more tolerant of religious diversity than Pakistan is hardly anything to wave the flag about.

---

Well I'm giving you examples of systematic racism. That's what it is... it's racism supported either by policy or social norm.

Quote:

---

I'm pretty sure asians don't own every single petrol station. But whatever I can't prove it.

---

They don't, just like they don't own every corner shop. Again, well done for demonstrating that it's equal opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Of course it's a stupid question. So why can't you realise that asking why there aren't many black kids at Eton isn't also a stupid question? Those that can afford Eton choose other schools, probably ones where there are no white kids. So how is Eton the racist school?

---

Because Eton is a "white school" in everything but name. That's my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If Eton had a policy that said Islamic kids were not welcome, then we have systematic racism... but that isn't what's happening.

---

The fact that policy isn't written in their school constitution in blood doesn't change the fact it's basically their policy.

Prove it's their policy, don't just say it. And while you're at it, prove it's not the policy of elite Islamic schools to exclude non-Islamic students.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well I'm giving you examples of systematic racism. That's what it is... it's racism supported either by policy or social norm.

---

That's not actually racism. Aren't you the one who always says that?

I love how no matter the topic, you always try to steer it towards 'something something muslims'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Prove it's their policy, don't just say it. And while you're at it, prove it's not the policy of elite Islamic schools to exclude non-Islamic students.

---

This isn't a criminal court; I don't have to prove my arguments beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm just pointing out that under-representation of minorities at the top UK schools is present and ongoing. You can draw different conclusions than I do if you want, but to me it's a sign of systematic racism.

After a quick bit of googling, it appears that both Eton and Cambridge have been admitting black students for 808 years.

Just keep shouting racism like it means something to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

That's not actually racism. Aren't you the one who always says that?

I love how no matter the topic, you always try to steer it towards 'something something muslims'

---

Yeah fair enough, it's theoism. I'm glad we're actually agreeing on this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

They don't, just like they don't own every corner shop. Again, well done for demonstrating that it's equal opportunity.

---

You're the one arguing they only work there because their dad owns the place. I'm saying every asian must own their own petrol station if that's the case. And I kinda doubt that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

After a quick bit of googling, it appears that both Eton and Cambridge have been admitting black students for 808 years.

---

Well that's a good counter to someone who argued they were barred. Too bad that's not what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You're the one arguing they only work there because their dad owns the place. I'm saying every asian must own their own petrol station if that's the case. And I kinda doubt that.

---

I'm arguing that wealthy immigrants have a tendancy to invest in community businesses, with the idea that it will help them to integrate into their new country, and as such places like petrol stations and corner shops have a higher percentage of Asians working there than you might expect in a random world. I have no idea how this comes close to evidence of racism to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Well that's a good counter to someone who argued they were barred. Too bad that's not what I said.

---

Well I'm going to counter that both Eton and Cambridge have an admirable history of non-racism, since even in the days where it would be socially acceptable to be racist, they still admitted black kids in. Why would they do that? Obviously they were clever enough. So their values seem to be intelligence, not culture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm arguing that wealthy immigrants have a tendancy to invest in community businesses, with the idea that it will help them to integrate into their new country, and as such places like petrol stations and corner shops have a higher percentage of Asians working there than you might expect in a random world. I have no idea how this comes close to evidence of racism to you.

---

Without actually knowing who owns all the petrol stations and corner shops, it's impossible to say. That's why I'm happy to drop it.

It doesn't even matter who owns all the shops. You could buy a petrol station if you had the money, will and found a suitable venture that is for sale. So could a Zimbabwean, should he, or indeed she pfe ze or it, meet the same criteria.

Racism isn't nearly the problem you think it is. It's the left who keep insisting it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Let me put this a way you might understand: If I said "I think New Hampshire culture is a bunch of white people running around in pickup trucks with confederate flags (ya ya i know) and sawed off shotguns, chewing tobacco and shouting the n-word. But whenever I meet one i just forget all that and treat them like anyone else."

Would you believe that?

---

Maybe. It would help if there was some data backing up those claims. "bunch of white people" is probably self-evidently accurate. But the rest of it requires some extensive citations. Like why do you believe there is a disproportionate amount of pickup trucks? Why do you believe there is a higher prevalence of sawed off shotguns? Have you seen chewing tobacco sales figures by state? Or by state per capita? Is tehre something we all need to know about that? How many New Hampshire-ians have you heard utter the n-word?

Furthermore, it would be pretty unreasonable of you to treat anyone from new hampshire negatively because of this preconceived notion. You could meet someone driving a sedan, unarmed, with clean teeth, and not greeting you with racists pejoratives. You would know instantly that your preconeption was inaccurate, and then you could proceed accordingly.

That all seems reasonable. If you then continued to interact with that person as if they were an armed racist supporting the confederacy (in a union state?????), then you would be in the wrong. Or, if your preconception proves true, then also proceed accordingly. the preconception is bad but that doesnt' mean you have to feel guilty if it's confirmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

After a quick bit of googling, I decided to make some shit up about Cambridge admitting black students for 808 years and Eton doing the same despite being only 678 years old.

---

fyp.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-15386436

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/04/30/a...t-nigeria.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=Mm0cHBfgiwM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

fyp.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-15386436

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/04/30/a...t-nigeria.html

---

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a7861546.html

Dirty googling. 808 years or 678, we're splitting hairs here. We're still well before USA, let alone slavery, and blacks we're being allowed in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Maybe. It would help if there was some data backing up those claims. "bunch of white people" is probably self-evidently accurate. But the rest of it requires some extensive citations. Like why do you believe there is a disproportionate amount of pickup trucks? Why do you believe there is a higher prevalence of sawed off shotguns? Have you seen chewing tobacco sales figures by state? Or by state per capita? Is tehre something we all need to know about that? How many New Hampshire-ians have you heard utter the n-word?

Furthermore, it would be pretty unreasonable of you to treat anyone from new hampshire negatively because of this preconceived notion. You could meet someone driving a sedan, unarmed, with clean teeth, and not greeting you with racists pejoratives. You would know instantly that your preconeption was inaccurate, and then you could proceed accordingly.

That all seems reasonable. If you then continued to interact with that person as if they were an armed racist supporting the confederacy (in a union state?????), then you would be in the wrong. Or, if your preconception proves true, then also proceed accordingly. the preconception is bad but that doesnt' mean you have to feel guilty if it's confirmed.

---

So your claim seems to be that your description of black culture was accurate and evidence-based then, is that right? But when you meet someone who isn't talking like a gangbanger and hitting women you assume they're ok? What if they have a hat on sideways and droopy pants?

The same question would be what if I met the NH person without a shotgun and confederate flag, but chewing tobacco? Should I then assume they're also racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/e...-a7861546.html

---

Critical words there being "for the first time". That means EVER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Critical words there being "for the first time". That means EVER.

---

Whatever, you're nitpicking here. You're accusing two institutions of racism when they have a rich history dating back centuries that demonstrates the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Dirty googling.

---

it's not even plausible story to say it was cause you didn't read the pages closely. You didn't read them at all.

Eton's first black student was in 1964.

Cambridge has only been around 809 years. Hard to imagine where they'd have found a black student in 1209.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

they have a rich history dating back centuries that demonstrates the opposite.

---

In the case of Cambridge, 1800s.

In the case of Eton, 1964.

And still under-represented in both.

Oh. Well perhaps there was institutional racism pre 1964.

"under represented" is not necessarily anyone's fault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

supporting the confederacy (in a union state?????),

---

Since when does prejudice have to make sense? It's not about logic, it's about lumping people together based on preconceived notions. If I assume most white people in the US are tobacco-chewing, gun-toting racists, and racists on TV seem to like the confederate flag, then it seems obvious that a NH white person would have one too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So your claim seems to be that your description of black culture was accurate and evidence-based then, is that right? But when you meet someone who isn't talking like a gangbanger and hitting women you assume they're ok? What if they have a hat on sideways and droopy pants?

The same question would be what if I met the NH person without a shotgun and confederate flag, but chewing tobacco? Should I then assume they're also racist?

---

Maybe I'm just capable of making these distinctions because I have an incredibly high IQ.

You're doing some fucked up strawmanning here. You're talking about forming opinions. I don't know how you form opinions. Why are there rules on thought? It's my assertion that opinions don't have to influence behavior.

What might you do differently when you encounter the unarmed, union-supporting, tobacco chewer?


Side note: It appears I misspoke earlier when I said that I harbor a preconceived universal hatred for no one but for the single exception of the Amish. I had forgotten how deeply I hate tobacco chewers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Maybe I'm just capable of making these distinctions .

---

Maybe you are. But when you say black people succeed less in the US because of 'black culture' it suggests you're blaming their problems solely on themselves. It's not too big a leap, then, to conclude that you feel that it's something about them being inferior that makes them more likely to turn out that way.

Would you also say being taken into slavery was black peoples' fault? Or do you think Whites might have had something to do with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Maybe you are. But when you say black people succeed less in the US because of 'black culture' it suggests you're blaming their problems solely on themselves.

---

I wanna be clear about the words here, since that's your new thing. I didn't say "succeed less" because of 'black culture'. I said they experience poverty more. And the aspects of black culture that drive poverty, I feel, are entirely the fault of black people.

Quote:

---

It's not too big a leap, then, to conclude that you feel that it's something about them being inferior that makes them more likely to turn out that way.

---

I've been very explicit on what I believes makes poverty more prevalent in black society. I dont' know why you would conclude anything different.

Quote:

---

Would you also say being taken into slavery was black peoples' fault? Or do you think Whites might have had something to do with that.

---

What does that have to do with anything? You're going to tell me that european slave traders are the reason that 70% of black kids have unmarried parents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I wanna be clear about the words here, since that's your new thing. I didn't say "succeed less" because of 'black culture'. I said they experience poverty more.

---

It's the same thing, but anyways glad we're clear on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

And the aspects of black culture that drive poverty, I feel, are entirely the fault of black people.

---

That was the question, thanks for answering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

I've been very explicit on what I believes makes poverty more prevalent in black society. I dont' know why you would conclude anything different.

---

Right, you said it was for those reasons to do with early pregnancy etc., and that it was their own fault. Entirely.

The next logical question is what is it about black people that makes them do those things? And your answer seems to be 'black culture', which they alone are responsible for.

So, even if you don't come out and say it directly,you blame black people 100% for their own condition in the US.

Now, the next question you don't want to answer is: What is it inherent in a black person that makes them have a bad culture and do dumb things?

In other words, if there's something about black people that makes them propogate a bad culture then there must be some genetic component to their present condition. Wouldn't you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

What does that have to do with anything? You're going to tell me that european slave traders are the reason that 70% of black kids have unmarried parents?

---

I'm saying European slave traders contributed more than 0% to that, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

So, even if you don't come out and say it directly,you blame black people 100% for their own condition in the US.

---

Are you implying that this was ambiguous prior to now?

Quote:

---

Now, the next question you don't want to answer is: What is it inherent in a black person that makes them have a bad culture and do dumb things?

In other words, if there's something about black people that makes them propogate a bad culture then there must be some genetic component to their present condition. Wouldn't you agree?

---

NO!

Why does it just have to be genetic???

The problem is CULTURAL. The culture says that anyone who criticizes black culture for having too many babies out of wedlock, and having non-nuclear families, and being indifferent to street violence......is either a racist (if they're white) or an uncle Tom (if they're not). The culture says that black people are victims, and thus should not be held responsible for their problems. The culture says black people can solve their problems by demanding concessions from the oppressing class.

I suppose you could make an ironic claim that white people are somewhat responsible for black people's problems because they are enabling that victimized narrative and providing concessions. Acknowledging white privilege is probably the most racist thing a white person can do. The Al Sharptons of the world, and Black Lives Matter, and all the social-justice warriors out there have shaped the culture (of both races) so that it can be ruled by emotion, and not fact. It feels good to rage with resentment for the oppressor, and cloak yourself in compassion for the victim. That sentiment is WAY OUT OF CONTROL.

And because of that, black people are not looking inward for the solutions to their problems. And that's why their problems persist.

None of that is genetic.

Where does the culture come from? The trees?

If you're saying black people are responsible for their own culture, and their own culture leads them to do maladaptive (i.e., dumb) things, you have no other option than to believe that black people are maladptive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Where does the culture come from?

---

Where does black culture come from? It comes from black people.

Quote:

---

If you're saying black people are responsible for their own culture, and their own culture leads them to do maladaptive (i.e., dumb) things, you have no other option than to believe that black people are maladptive.

---

ok

Now what's the answer to that? If they're maladaptive, they can either get their shit together, or we can change the environment so that their maladaptive traits are not inhibiting.

So.....what's a more reasonable policy.....reduce teen pregnancy, or change society so that teen pregnancy doesn't bear any negative consequences. How would you even do the latter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

ok

---

Well, it's not ok. It's racist. That's the whole point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Now what's the answer to that? If they're maladaptive, they can either get their shit together,

---

If it's genetic, they can't. You may as well ask them to grow gills and go live in the sea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

or we can change the environment so that their maladaptive traits are not inhibiting.

---

Other options exist. One would be to treat them as though they have the same potential as any other people and try to change the environment so as to encourage them to reach that potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

So.....what's a more reasonable policy.....reduce teen pregnancy, or change society so that teen pregnancy doesn't bear any negative consequences. How would you even do the latter?

---

Don't think anyone's arguing for the latter, but doing the former is harder when people assume it's an ingrained tendency of the people involved to make inferior choices.

OTOH, if you assume they are inherently clever and human enough in total to respond positively to positive encouragement, you might try finding ways to give them that encouragement. Telling them they suck because they've made a culture out of sucking is pretty much the exact opposite of doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Well, it's not ok. It's racist. That's the whole point.

---

No it's not. "inferior" was racist. Maladaptive seems merely apt.

Quote:

---

If it's genetic, they can't. You may as well ask them to grow gills and go live in the sea

---

Who says it's genetic? Certainly not me. Sounds kinda farfetched to believe there could be a genetic predisposition to avoid condoms.

Quote:

---

Other options exist. One would be to treat them as though they have the same potential as any other people

---

This is not in dispute.

Quote:

---

and try to change the environment so as to encourage them to reach that potential.

---

The environment exists around the culture, for which black people are entirely responsible. Ergo, changes in the environment must come from them. Racial sensitivity training for white cops isn't going to result in less black teens getting pregnant.

Quote:

---

[Reducing teen pregnancy] is harder when people assume it's an ingrained tendency of the people involved to make inferior choices

---

Uh no. The first step to a solution is acknowledging you have a problem. it's harder to fix because it's an ingrained tendency of black people to deflect any legitimate criticism by declaring it racist.

Quote:

---

OTOH, if you assume they are inherently clever and human enough in total to respond positively to positive encouragement, you might try finding ways to give them that encouragement.

---

What crybaby bullshit is this??? The deal is.....stay in school, and don't fuck raw. Then in return, you'll prosper for life. That's not encouraging enough????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

A black kid has a 6x better chance of getting into Harvard Medical school than an Asian kid with the same grades

Systemic racism

---

What are the chances that a black kid taken at random achieves the same grades as an asian kid chosen at random? Why is this? Do asian kids that are taken from the same demographic of kids as poor black kids out perform them? Yes they actually do. Do they perform more like the black kids in that area or asian kids as a general? Black kids in that area? In the UK who is the worst performing demographic? Working class white kids.

The funny thing is what you're getting at is kind of true and certain cultures 100% benefit from the system. The thing that isn't spoken about is that weird groups of people benefit by far the most from certain schooling systems like asian kids in Australia crush it more than they alreay do in their home countries which out perform most massively.

In majoritively underperforming schools in the US the kids of all cultures massively underrachive. Yet kids that are from teh same areas that go to certain schools massively over perform regardless of race etc. The system is the important thing, in the UK for example working class white kids ruin your school yet BME groups are actually really good for your school. Inner London has some really top tier stuff going on.

It's almost like numbers are really mdae up and easily controlled to distort the political point you want to make.

Do 100x more asian kids apply to Harvard with top grades compared to black kids? Why does this happen in the first place?

Affimative action is mostly bullshit and white people wanking each other off over how progressive they are and how much they are helping and it's pretty cancer for society.

Great example of what I've been talking about over the weekend....

Serena Williams CHEATED at Tennis. I'm not familiar with the game, but apparently, you're not allowed to get coaching during a match. Serena's coach was sending hand signals, and she got a penalty for it. She denied it. Right there, fuck her, because she's lying. The coach later admitted that they were using hand signals. So she cheated, got caught, lied about it, and no one believed her lie.

So she throws a tantrum and smashes her racket on the ground. Apparently there are rules against that too. So she gets another, more severe penalty.

Now remember, all she had to do was follow the rules and act like a professional, and none of this would have happened.

Instead, she thinks that A) it's ok to cheat. B) It's unfair for her to be penalized for cheating. So in her mind, it's perfectly reasonable to act like an irate child, throw a tantrum, and insult the referee.

However, in reality, none of those things were ok, and she was further penalized, this time quite severely.

I don't know much about tennis, but what occurred on Saturday was a travesty of sportsmanship.

Serena CHEATED. And then had a shockingly unprofessional meltdown at being caught and penalized for it. Again, the cheating is not in dispute. The coach confessed.

And the headlines today are about how sexism and racism cost Serena the championship. IS THIS FOR FUCKING REAL???

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/us/se...rsy/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/opini...ove/index.html

Quote:

---

The controversy stemmed from Ramos accusing Williams of illegally receiving coaching from Patrick Mouratoglou. Williams shot back at the umpire and insisted she was not receiving coaching and that she would “rather lose” than cheat.

Williams received a second violation when she smashed her racket in frustration. She lost a point due to the violation, causing the player to argue with the umpire again about the initial penalty.

“I didn’t get coaching,” Williams said multiple times. “I don’t cheat! I didn’t get coaching. How can you say that? You owe me an apology. I have never cheated in my life!”

The third violation — verbal abuse — came when she called the umpire a “thief,” leading to an automatic game loss.

“You will never, ever, ever be on another court of mine as long as you live. You are the liar. When are you going to give me my apology? You owe me an apology. Say it. Say you’re sorry...And you stole a point from me. You’re a thief, too!” Williams yelled at Ramos.

---

That's what she said in response to being caught RED HANDED at cheating.

Further investigation proved that she did in fact cheat. The coach admits it.

And now it's hands across America for this CHEATER. WTF???

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/0...t-us-open.html

Maybe a MAN would just say "oh fuck, I got caught" and then just go about his business. Play like a fucking champion. What Serena did was a complete disgrace, and maybe that has something to do with the escalation of her penalty.

But no, that can't be it. It's obviously a sexist, racist, cabal out to whitewash pro women's tennis.

In her defence, the claim she was "cheating" is unfair for two reasons... coaches delivering signals is widespread, furthermore there is no evidence she was paying attention to her coach... it's the coach who was attempting to cheat. That's not to say it's ok, but to call it outright cheating is too far, and only serves to dilute the meaning of the word.

That said, she is a fucking cunt.

Pretty sure she never played the race card herself. It's not her fault if the media does it, so don't make it sound like she's trying to be a 'black victim'. She's claiming it wouldn't happen if she were a man, and she may well have a point. Male players routinely mouth off more than she did and don't get penalized for it.

Really, both Serena and the umpire were cunts. First, she shouldn't have had a hissy fit over the penalty, smashed her racquet, and then mouthed off. But, the umpire should have at least first given her a warning to cool down; instead he jumped right to a game penalty. That's pretty severe in a close match. I don't think what she said warranted it, and she's not doing anything wrong complaining about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

coaches delivering signals is widespread,.

---

This didn't work for Belichick. It didn't work for Lance Armstrong. But then again, they're white men, so maybe they just aren't allowed to make excuses the way black women are.

Quote:

---

furthermore there is no evidence she was paying attention to her coach...

---

That's not the standard here. There's no evidence that the referee was paying attention to her gender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

She's claiming it wouldn't happen if she were a man, and she may well have a point. Male players routinely mouth off more than she did and don't get penalized for it..... I don't think what she said warranted it, and she's not doing anything wrong complaining about it.

---

Look, I don't know much about tennis, so I'm open to correction here. But with regard to the male players to which you are referring....do they react this way after a bad call? Or do they react this way after a good call that affects them negatively?

Complaining is fine. If you don't like a call, you can argue with the ref. You see this in sports all the time. Mens and womens. It helps keep the ref honest, and lets them know that they are under scrutiny. That's all fine. "the ball was in" "he was safe" etc etc etc.

But there are rules, both written and unwritten, in all sports that require respect and decorum and sportsmanship toward the referee. If you dont' like a call....fine, argue it. But you can't name-call, and insult a person who is just doing their job. That should not be tolerated.

There's a big difference between McEnroe standing with his arms upon in a puzzled gesture saying "Are you kidding me" and Serena sticking her finger in ref's face and saying "you're a thief". One of those is an acceptable emotional outburst. The other is unsportsmanlike abuse.

And let's not avoid the source of the issue here. She wasn't arguing a subjective matter like a line call. She was objectively caught cheating. Not committing a foul.....CHEATING. That's bad enough, but her clearly fictitious denial is shameful on a level that should be considered insulting to the entire sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BananaStand

Great example of what I've been talking about over the weekend....

Serena Williams CHEATED at Tennis. I'm not familiar with the game, but apparently, you're not allowed to get coaching during a match. Serena's coach was sending hand signals, and she got a penalty for it. She denied it. Right there, fuck her, because she's lying. The coach later admitted that they were using hand signals. So she cheated, got caught, lied about it, and no one believed her lie.

So she throws a tantrum and smashes her racket on the ground. Apparently there are rules against that too. So she gets another, more severe penalty.

Now remember, all she had to do was follow the rules and act like a professional, and none of this would have happened.

Instead, she thinks that A) it's ok to cheat. B) It's unfair for her to be penalized for cheating. So in her mind, it's perfectly reasonable to act like an irate child, throw a tantrum, and insult the referee.

However, in reality, none of those things were ok, and she was further penalized, this time quite severely.

I don't know much about tennis, but what occurred on Saturday was a travesty of sportsmanship.

Serena CHEATED. And then had a shockingly unprofessional meltdown at being caught and penalized for it. Again, the cheating is not in dispute. The coach confessed.

And the headlines today are about how sexism and racism cost Serena the championship. IS THIS FOR FUCKING REAL???

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/us/se...rsy/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/09/opini...ove/index.html

---

Cool story.

Now tell me about Phil Helmuth constantly breaking the rules at WSOP and not even getting a warning.