Curious to know what the social justice warriors around here think about this.
Who pays? And who gets paid?
And what happens after?
Printable View
Curious to know what the social justice warriors around here think about this.
Who pays? And who gets paid?
And what happens after?
15th amendment was in 1870
aint no one left alive that has a legitimate claim against the US gov't.
I'm not saying there weren't really, really ... awfully, terribly, horribly... bad things done to black people by the US gov't and for that to simply be ignored is not a very adult way of dealing with things when you screw up... but here we are.
Everyone who's responsible for this shit sandwich is dead. There's no one left to punish for the crap world they left us.
Just... ya know... try to leave a less shit world for the next generation, alright?
Reparations isn't a step toward a better world. It's a lost quest for justice that cannot be served, because the guilty are already dead.
MMM, both individuals and groups are often held responsible for the actions of their forbearers. If you run up a bunch of debt, then croak, your heirs would be burdened with that debt up to the sum of assets which they stand to inherit.
I haven't seen a convincing argument for how reparations would be a good move, but your argument against is piss.
To me, the strongest argument against is similar to the argument against simulation theory(the computing power needed would eclipse the amount of energy in the universe, or something along those lines); the bureaucracy to figure out who is deserving, and to what extent would not only be unreasonably expensive financially, but the shit it would stir up would be far more damaging to our society than the status quo.
Do light skinned people get more, because their black ancestors' relationship with the white ancestors were somewhere on the continuum from coercion to violent rape? Or maybe they should get less, because light skinned people have in many ways been more privileged. Or maybe they get less because they're part rapist.
Maybe worse yet, what happens if 5, 10, or 15 years on much of the money is gone and for any number of reasons black people are no better off. Then what? Is a check going to solve for ever deteriorating relationships between minority communities and police? Pay gaps? Education disparities? No, it's a mirage.
There's a debt that was never paid, but it's almost surely unwise to clear that debt monetarily at this point.
I think as a gesture of contrition reparations make sense in general. It's a formal way of acknowledging a country's wrongdoings and seeking forgiveness and making amends. It's good for the soul of the country. Both Whites and Blacks would be better for it.
I haven't heard any specific proposals on how it would work, but I doubt any viable proposal would require calculations at the individual level. Nobody is getting a check.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
What you might see is some enhanced redistribution from demographically white zip codes to black ones. But from my own brainstorming the most realistic proposal I can think of is some kind of affirmative action on steroids.
Like, right now AA says that if 25% of your qualified applicants are black, then 25% of your workforce needs to be black. They might just beef that up to 30%, and allow companies to have a lower proportion of white people. They'll do the same thing with college admittance and scholarships, and maybe some other stuff. That would result in wealth being transferred from white to black without having to go through all the silly red tape of trying to figure out if anyone actually deserves it.
Interesting.
Yeah, I'm not completely opposed to reparations that don't involve individual checks. But I'm more inclined to think that targeted investment and initiatives that seek to promote social mobility, reduce poverty and build cross cultural links are a better use of our resources (financial and political.)
On the latter point, I feel like the sage wisdom of the value of cultural exchange has long been narrowly focused on foreign exchange programs-- but imagine if we had a exchange program with high participation rates that had kids from urban areas spend a summer or a leap year in rural areas and vice versa? It'd be a fraction of the cost of many other proposals, yet in a decade we would have come a long way in healing the cultural divisions we're burdened with right now.
Why does the average black household have 1/15th the net worth of a white household?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The out of wedlock birth rate among black people is too highQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The high school dropout rate among black people is too high
The rate of teenage pregnancy among black people is too high.
It's really hard to point the finger at racism if those things can't be cleaned up.
Why am I unemployed and lacking in opportunity? Maybe it's because I dicked about at school, spent my time at college drinking and smoking weed, and generally can't be fucking bothered.
Am I a victim?
There's a difference between having opportunities and not taking them and not having opportunities.
Does every teenage girl have the opportunity to not get pregnant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Does every black kid have the opportunity to graduate high school?
Does every black kid have the opportunity to go to university, get a high paying job and great treated like an equal if they do those things?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
The legacy of racism is strong in our culture. There's no denying it. A simple look at the recent census data for St Louis shows that white and black communities are very much still a thing. It's like half the city is one color, the other half the other color (red and blue on the census map, but whatever).Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
The legacy of institutional racism is still strong.
All of this is deplorable.
However, not caused by any active tempering by the feds. So you can't point your finger at the US gov't and blame them for the current state of things in any direct manner.
They'd have a claim that they've been actively trying to stamp down racism in law. It is illegal to discriminate based on race for any national matter, AFAIK.
So while there is this legacy... it's not been actively supported by the gov't for almost 150 years.
Here in the UK, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What oppurtunity did I have that black kids didn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I say I dicked about at school, but better language would be to say I suffered behaviour problems because I lived in foster homes and children's homes, and kept moving school. I was a very unhappy child. I then left school and went to college, aged 16, living on my own. I made friends, drank alcohol, smoked weed, I was finally enjoying life.
Am I a victim now? I don't consider myself to be a victim, and that's because I live in a country where those who apply themselves, regardless of their background, can succeed. Had I applied myself, I would have a nice job and be well off. That was a choice I made, whether or not it was a conscious choice. My destiny was only ever in my own hands, just like everyone else. THAT is equal opportunity.
We were talking about black kids in America.
If black kids here have the same opportunities as you did (I say if) and don't take advantage of them, then no, they're not victims.
If black kids in the US have the same opportunities as white kids and fail to take advantage of them, then they're not victims either. The question I asked is whether they do have the same opportunities or not.
Well I don't know about USA, I haven't been there. What I can say is that there are a great many successful black people in USA, some of whom come from broken families, or are war immigrants, perhaps have been to prison. That doesn't happen in a country where black people do not have equal opportunity. If you're smart enough and motivated enough, you can achieve your goals.
Succeeding despite disadvantages does not prove the disadvantages don't exist. Yes, some people can overcome the disadvantages but a lot of people can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Caveat emptor, you are more likely to succeed when you start from an advantaged position than from a disadvantaged position.
So I am a victim after all?Quote:
Caveat emptor, you are more likely to succeed when you start from an advantaged position than from a disadvantaged position.
In case that's too cryptic for you, people aren't disadvantaged because they are black. They are disadvantaged because they come from broken families, poor families, traumatic childhood experiences... it just happens to be the case this is more likely if you're black. That isn't racism, it's social inequality that can affect anyone of any colour. Including me, a white child from a poor family, my Mom and Dad split up when I was 4, I was dragged through foster homes and childrens homes. I was disadvantaged, despite being white.
But I'm not a victim. I could have done better.
Slow down there Abe. Black people had separate drinking fountains and got firehosed in your grandparents' time.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I think we need a different word for an oppressive dynamic involving black people. "Racism" just doesn't do it. Chinese people don't like Koreans. That's racism. Black people were owned for hundreds of years. Completely different animal. So using such a generic term just doesn't sit right with me.
I can appreciate the fact that black people were severely disadvantaged generations ago, and I might concede that has a ripple effect that still influences things today. That's why we had things like the civil rights movement, affirmative action, and various other social movements. I'm not discussing whether or not those things are working right now. I'm merely pointing out that those things exist, and that they exist for that reason. Black people had it shitty hundreds of years, and we've tried to make it better over the last few decades
We seem to have worked pretty hard on that, and made some meaningful progress over the last 150 years. So it kind of irks me when all of a sudden, out of nowhere...in like 1990, all these central americans show up saying "Hey, let me have some of that civil rights!"
You'll see these social justice protesters and there will be a black girl, and a hispanic girl, and they'll refer to themselves as "people of color" and say that they're there to fight "racism". As if their plights are anything close to the same.
I mean, is it racist to say "you two are both some kind of brown, so you must be on the same team".
It should be
Probably. But it's not always that simple. Or the goal isn't that finite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Say you're a black person stuck at 0. And societal disadvantages are such that even if you worked your ass off, stayed in school, didn't get pregnant, and played your cards right, you still might not get very far. You might have to work two jobs and take 6 years to put yourself through community college one credit at a time. So you put in all that work and you get from 0 to 1.
Some people might say "Fuck, I did all that work and only got from 0 to 1?? Screw this. I'll just go back to zero and live off the gov't"
Others would say "Look, I know things aren't fair. I should be able to get higher than 1 with all this work. I could give up, but if I keep working, and I bust my ass, and I get from 0 to 1.......then maybe my kids can get to 4 or 5, and that would be worth it"
I feel like more of the latter is needed. But the government and social justice initiatives encourage the former
Talking about how some individuals either do/don't overcome obstacles to success is not really relevant when we are talking about population-level race issues. So, some advantaged kids fail and some disadvantaged kids succeed; also some advantaged kids are black and some disadvantaged kids are white. So what? The question is whether equal opportunities exist on a population level across races. If you believe they do, then there must be some other reason why whites as a group are better off than blacks. Once those reasons are identified they can be addressed.
The problems are somewhat addressed in the sense that the government forbids racist hiring, etc. But that isn't the only thing the government can do to address racial injustice. It's illegal to imprison people based on the colour of their skin too, but it seems to be happening if you look at incarceration rates. Are you more or less likely to succeed if your dad is in jail?
So more is needed than just having laws. A fair and just society is better for everyone. One of the problems is people see it as a zero-sum game where anything given to one group has to be taken from another group, and that doesn't have to be the case.
In the 1990's, an economic adviser to Bill Clinton named William Galston (google it) did a study. He also did the exact same study in 2007-ish, and got the exact same results.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He found that if a person graduates high school, doesn't have a baby in their teens, and doesn't have a baby before their first marriage, then there is almost no chance that they would be poor. Like, literally no chance unless you get cancer, or break your spine in an auto accident, or some other catastrophe befalls you.
That's it. Three criteria that can be summed up by saying "wear a condom and stay in school". If you meet those criteria.....there is almost no chance you will be poor.
The inverse is also true. Of the people who are currently poor, something like 90% of them are missing one of those three criteria.
That's the recipe for poverty. 90+% correlations don't lie.
Graduate high school
Don't have a baby before age 20
Don't have a baby with someone that you are not married to.
Can someone please tell me how systemic racism, or implicit bias has caused black people to break those rules? Yes white people break the rules too, but at HALF the rate of black people. All of those things are matters of individual choice, not systemic bias. The government can't make black kids stop fucking.
See my post above about poverty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Are poverty and crime linked?
And the answer is yes, because those who apply themselves, those with motivation and intelligence, they will succeed, while those who do not apply themselves, those who are unmotivated and not intelligent, they won't succeed.Quote:
The question is whether equal opportunities exist on a population level across races.
I'm not pretending racial prejudism doesn't exist, but there are laws in place to punish those who are prejudiced. So on a poulation level, yes equal opportunity exists.
Identity politics. If you are a person of influence, if you keep telling a demographic they are oppressed and disadvantaged, they might start to believe it, and instead of working hard to improve their lives, they cry victim and demand state action to improve their lives for them.Quote:
If you believe they do, then there must be some other reason why whites as a group are better off than blacks.
Stop telling people in a democratic nation with laws in place to protect people from discrimination that they are oppressed, and instead tell people that hard work and motivation are all that's needed to succeed.Quote:
Once those reasons are identified they can be addressed.
Black people commit more crimes than white people, per capita.Quote:
It's illegal to imprison people based on the colour of their skin too, but it seems to be happening if you look at incarceration rates.
Less. Whose fault is that? The state? White people? Or Dad?Quote:
Are you more or less likely to succeed if your dad is in jail?
Indeed. We need responsible politicians.Quote:
So more is needed than just having laws.
What if I told you that the average black person's IQ is a full standard deviation lower than the IQ of the average white personQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Would that explain inequality?
Is that fair?
1. That isn't always true.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
2. Even if it were true, it would not be evidence that equal opportunities exist at a population level across races.
The law does not prevent someone from having a racist hiring policy; it prevents someone from having a provably racist hiring policy. There's lot of subtle ways to be racist that won't get you thrown in jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Bullshit. They were told that because it was (and probably still is, though to a lesser extent) true. Further, being told that does not automatically keep someone from trying to improve your lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Why is lying to people good for them?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Hard work and motivation are not all that's needed to succeed. You also need ability, opportunity and variance.
They're also more likely to be imprisoned, and for a longer time, than a white person for the same crime. Explain how that is fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Again, talking about individual 'Dads' is not relevant when discussing population level effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If by this you mean don't pander to minorities, then sure. But that's not going to solve the problem of why the minorities are doing worse than the majority group.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Are you suggesting this is due to genetics?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Dude, the out-of-wedlock birthrate is over 70%. That IS a population level effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I just read the data. I'm not inferring anything about what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Stop answering questions with questions.
To answer your question you need to know why the IQ scores are lower for one group than another. If it's genetics, well too bad nothing can be done. If it's something else, then yes something can be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Good, now we're on the right level.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
So what causes a 70% out of wedlock birthrate?
Here's another population level effect: Native Americans have a lifetime 60% rate of alcohol dependency.
Is this a genetic problem with having some kind of alcoholic gene or something else?
The same applies to age, gender, gender identity, sexuality, hair colour, health, political persuasion, religious persuasion...Quote:
The law does not prevent someone from having a racist hiring policy; it prevents someone from having a provably racist hiring policy. There's lot of subtle ways to be racist that won't get you thrown in jail.
You cannot stop individuals from being prejudiced, You can try, and we do indeed try.
It's not bullshit. But you're right, being told you're oppressed doesn't mean you don't try to improve your life. That's why some black people succeed, despite being told by those in positions of influence that they are oppressed.Quote:
Bullshit. They were told that because it was (and probably still is, though to a lesser extent) true. Further, being told that does not automatically keep someone from trying to improve your lot.
Well I've already mentioned intelligence, ability is what you have when you combine intelligence and motivation. opportunity... you know we disagree here. Black people have opportunity, the same as I did. I went to college, I didn't apply myself, so I failed. Who is telling black people they can't go to college? Variance? That's another way of saying luck, and that applies to everyone, not just black people.Quote:
Hard work and motivation are not all that's needed to succeed. You also need ability, opportunity and variance.
It's not, but is it really happening? Or are these people going to prison for longer because their previous criminal history is more extensive?Quote:
They're also more likely to be imprisoned, and for a longer time, than a white person for the same crime. Explain how that is fair.
You mentioned an individual Dad. If you mean Dads in general, then you can read back my comment and also assume Dads in general.Quote:
Again, talking about individual 'Dads' is not relevant when discussing population level effects.
If Dad is in jail, chances are it's because Dad did something illegal. It's not because the state decided to oppress anyone.
I mean abandon identity politics. Yes, that includes pandering to minorities, convincing them they are victims so you can pretend you're there to help them.Quote:
If by this you mean don't pander to minorities, then sure. But that's not going to solve the problem of why the minorities are doing worse than the majority group.
What I mean is that we need politicians who care more about what's good for the country than they do about votes.
Did someone oppress them into drinking?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Do you think that's not possible to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Afaik, controlling for past record, it is still the case that the average black person is more likely to go to jail, and for longer, than the average white person for the same crime in the US, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So I smoke weed because oppression? I am a victim!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You can't help the country if you don't get voted in...Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This doesn't answer my question. Is it because previous criminal history is more extensive,on average? I would say probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Does smoking weed keep you from holding a job? Does it give your kids FAS? Are you really trying to equate using recreational drugs with alcoholism?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Of course you can. Nigel Farage did so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
"controlling for past record" means if you make the groups balanced on that variable, so you compare (say) first-time offenders who are white vs. first-time offenders who are black.
Are you really trying to say drug addiction and alcoholism are not related? I am addicted to weed, and I started smoking it when I was 16, just as I left a children's home and became an adult in charge of my own destiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yes, my weed habit has certainly cost me opportunities.
Show me that first time black offenders are getting longer sentences than white people, and I'll agree it's not fair and that the state is guilty of prejudism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
WRONGQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Let's play this out for a minute. Assume it is genetics. Does that mean we accept inequality? What happens in a world where we definitively determine that IQ is genetic, and black people lost the genetic lottery.
How would we deal with racism and inequality then?
Well, like you I'm not going to back up my arguments with evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Look it up.
are 60% of white people addicted to weed to the point they can't hold a job?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I don't know why you keep trying to make this about you.
Will you agree now?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...on-race-booker
Is this relevant? I chose to smoke weed, I chose to not give it up despite me being aware it was impacting negatively on my motivation and productivity. I'm not smoking weed as a 40 year old adult because I had a shit childhood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I have no idea why natives drink more. I imagine it's cultural. If your parents drink to excess, chances are you'll consider it normal.
Perhaps. I will dig more to find other sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Its' relevant because look at the title of the thread. It's "reparations" not "is Ong a victim?"Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You really act ignorant sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Huh? So I drifted off topic. You mean you didn't? Are you suggesting alcoholic natives deserve reparations?Quote:
Its' relevant because look at the title of the thread. It's "reparations" not "is Ong a victim?"
Explain to me why I'm wrong then.Quote:
You really act ignorant sometimes.
Are you going to genetically programme all the races to have equal IQ?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I don't think it is genetics. I think it's very unlikely that IQ differs by more than a couple of points between races, if at all, when environmental factors are controlled for.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
But, if it were that large an effect (one standard deviation) you would have to accept that yes, it's less likely for black people to attain higher levels of success. (hypothetically speaking).
Good question. But I don't think thinking about solving highly unlikely situations is very useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
I'll say this... if a black criminal can demonstrate that he has been treated differently to a white criminal of equal status, then he/she deserves compensation from the state.
But it does. That's due to education standards different in first world and third world countries. I doubt it's genetic, but it's certainly cultural.Quote:
I don't think it is genetics. I think it's very unlikely that IQ differs by more than a couple of points between races, if at all.
I'm suggesting that to solve population-level problems (of which alcohol abuse in NAs is a solid example), you need to determine the root(s) of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What you said is just incredibly thoughtless because it implies that it's something they've willingly and collectively chosen for themselves. It implies that NAs are really, really fucking stupid people. You probably don't think that, but what you said suggests you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I meant when the environments are held equivalent, IQ is unlikely to be much different across races.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not stupid to drink alcohol. If I thought that, I would be calling my own parents stupid.
Alcoholism is a choice. No one puts a drink in your hand and forces you to consume it,
And 19% longer sentences is not trivial either. And the law explicitly says not to do that. But it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So what other laws re: equal treatment are similarly "effective", I wonder?
There are precisely three black chess grandmasters in history. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No it's not trivial, if it's accurate it's certainly not an acceptable anomaly. So if America wants to get serious about equality, then striking off prejudiced judges would be a great place to start, rather than paying descendants of slaves money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
My grandparents were negatively affected by Hitler, so does Germany owe me money?
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidenceQuote:
I meant when the environments are held equivalent, IQ is unlikely to be much different across races
The data does not show this. It shows the opposite.
The argument that IQ is largely biological is amazingly strong. Environment, not so much.
The data says "Kids with more books in the house have higher IQ's". And to that, you might say "See, it's environmental"
But then someone else might say "nah, there's more books in the house because the parents are smarter. Biology"
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I think it's debatable the extent to which it's a choice or not. I don't think I could be an alcoholic even if I wanted to. There certainly seem to be predispositions among people.
And yeah, in a general sense, being an alcoholic is not a good lifestyle. You can question whether to call it 'stupid' or 'ill-advised' or 'unwise', but it's definitely not something to aspire to.
Well I choose to keep smoking weed, and my Mother chooses to continue drinking wine. And yes of course you could become alcoholic.Quote:
I think it's debatable the extent to which it's a choice or not. I don't think I could be an alcoholic even if I wanted to. There certainly seem to be predispositions among people.
No you don't aspire to it, but people do it nonetheless. People like to have vices, whether it's a means to relax, or because they just like being high or drunk or whatever. For me, weed is both. I like being high, and I find it easier to relax, especially when it comes to sleeping.
First, it's still under debate, but population-level IQ is thought to be around 70-75% genetic and 25 to 30% environment. That still leaves a lot of room for society to have an effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Second, that in no way suggests that any of the underlying genetic factors are related to race.
I think in twin studies the differences across races when environment is held constant is a few IQ points.
Well no trust me I couldn't. After two days I'd be like 'sign me off of this i feel like shit'Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So would I. I'm not much of a drinker, because it makes me feel like shit the next day. But if I just kept drinking regardless, my body would adjust. Or I'd die. Very probably the former. It makes me feel like shit because I'm not used to being drunk. That said, there are certainly alcoholic drinks I like enough that I could become an alcoholic if I tried hard enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Most people become alcoholic because drinking is normal, especially when younger, and it simply becomes a habit.
What's your thoughts on this poop? I'm not in the "IQ is genetic" club, but this is pretty compelling. Is chess racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's kind of a white person's game though isn't it? How many asian grandmasters have there been?
Are Russians smarter than everyone else 'cause they've had the most?
But you won't do something if it's not rewarding on some level. There's some difference in how rewarding alcohol is to some people versus others' brains. For some, they get a big reward from drinking, for others its more modest.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Asians? A fuck ton. The Chinese in particular, but India too. Chess is hugely popular in Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And yes, Russians are smart.Chess is an excellent measure of intelligence. It's by no means the only one, but you won't find any dumbass grandmasters.
So if this in any way related to oppression?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The total population of blacks who've played professional ice hockey is pretty small. I don't think we can conclude from that that they're intrinsically bad athletes though if you look at all the sports they seem to dominate.
Don't know. The brain probably is affected by oppression but whether that changes reward circuits or not is beyond my expertise.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Indeed, black people do seem to thrive in physical sports. Some people might say that it's racist to point this out. I think those people are idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Chess is a different beast. It's not a physical sport, it's a mental one. It's also very easy to play, there's a reason it's popular in countries like India. You don't need specialist equipment or training, all you need is a chess board and a brain.
And whether that oppression is real or simply perceived is also open to debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Jesus man....sample size? How many sets of twins, that are raised apart even exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You're presuming that the longer sentences can only be caused by racism. I don't see how that's possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Can you think of some other reasons?
Getting back to IQ. This is the argument Charles Murray makes and he's been branded an alt-right nazi white nationalist white supremacist bigot for it. But I see only compassion in this argument. That shows just how deranged the social justice left is, and anything that they say will help black people, is likely to have the opposite effect.
Poop just said he believes that IQ is 75% biological and 25% environmental. Or something close to that. Fine. Let's go with that. Even if you can equalize all of the environmental factors (you can't), there would still be a a noticeable difference in IQ between the races. Maybe not a whole standard deviation then, but maybe 75% of one, or something close to that.
That's still going to produce huge disparities in outcomes. So what do we do then? Do we just say "Sorry black people....can't help you anymore. All of our differences are biological now. You're on your own."
That kind of society would disintegrate into hell in about fifteen minutes.
So the solution here, is that we DON'T organize our society around IQ. More and more our society uses IQ as a proxy for someone's value. That's the problem. If that doesn't change then black people have no hope for equality, ever.
For example, if I were president, the first thing I would do is march into the Secretary of Transportation's office and I would say "You know those driver-less cars. We're not letting them on the road. Ever. Put an end to it today"
Next, I'd go tot he secretary of Treasury and I would say "If we're spending any money on funding research into robotics, or AI, that shit is over right now. Stop payment on those grant checks by end of business, or you're fired"
Bringing manufacturing back will also go along way to solve this problem.
here's the silver lining on IQ....it doesn't actually correlate to your ability to do a job. It just correlates to how fast you learn that job. So if you have a really simple job, it doesn't matter if you have a low IQ. Once you learn the job, you're set. However, if you have a complex job, and do many different things all the time. Then you're toast if you don't have a high IQ.
There are fewer and fewer simple jobs. Those are all automated now. That leaves people dispossessed. And the people with the lowest IQ's will get hit first, and get hit hardest. 1 in 9 men drive for a living right now. What happens to them when trucks can drive themselves?
The scam is so apparent, I'm surprised more black people don't see it. The political donors in Big Tech (almost all democrats) fund the DNC. The DNC then goes and advocates for other social justice reforms that don't bother Big Tech. Those social justice reforms don't work. Big Tech gets richer. More DNC funding, more advocating for other social justice reforms.
That's what got Donald Trump elected. Don't be blind. The same thing that happens to inner city black people happens to rural white people. Automation takes their jobs. property values dip. Unemployment skyrockets. Alcoholism. Drugs. Crime. It's not just black people. The middle class became a minority in 2015. That's never happened before in history.
That's what "Make America Great Again" means. It means we need to go back to a time when most of the country was bourgeoisie. When a man with an IQ of 100 could support a family on one income, work, have dignity, provide for his children's education, and most importantly *save*
People like that are two paychecks from oblivion right now.
White supremacists didn't do that. The elite political class did that.
As a tangent to the above, and as proof that it's true, I'll connect this to the other ongoing discussion in here about Native Americans.
The Reserveations on which they live is a perfect example of a society where the government plans and provides everything, and the result is that everyone's life is shit. They're basically mini-venezuela's
If you ever want an argument AGAINST Universal Basic Income, go to an NA reservation.
There's nothing wrong with NA's biologically that would pre-dispose them to alcoholism. Alcoholism is just a symptom of their depression. And their depression is caused by a government that "compassionately" robbed them of their human dignity by giving them free stuff.
Yeah great except the economy wasn't having all those disastrous consequences you suggested in 2016. Maybe in a few places, but not in the entirety of rural America. Certainly not enough to explain 'arrrrggh MAGA!'.
Rural people have always been poorer than city folk.
The country as a whole is better off now than it was 1950 or whenever America was great in terms of overall wealth. Much better off. It's how the wealth is distributed that's the problem. What, 95% is concentrated in 1% of the population (or summat) - that's ridiculous.
And Trump's solution to this, might I remnd you, was to provide a tax cut for the wealthy.
Try again.
They don't all live on reservations getting handouts from the gov't. Plenty of them live off reservations. And they're just as fucked. Explain that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
They don't necessarily have to be raised apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
And apparently there's lots. Like in the hundreds.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Young_Children
And yea, it's certainly bad for your IQ to raised in a poor family.
Quote:
The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.
You'll have to elaborate on a specific situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Most of the NA tribes in this area own casinos. And while they may not live on a formal reservation, they get a check every month. It's not directly from the government, it's from the Tribe's profit sharing. But the Tribe makes money because the government let's it have a reservation, so it's the same thing, just more convoluted. The result is the same, when you kill someone's incentive and motivation to work, it causes them to become depressed, and dispossessed, and substance abuse usually works it's way in there eventually.
Then why do they have to study twins?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sorry, I"m not reading that. Give me the cliffs.
But the government doesn't let it have its reservation; the government still owns the land and everything that happens on it has to get government approval. You wanna open a convenience store? Needs government approval, might take years. You want to mortgage your house to get money to start a business? Too bad it's not your house.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Oh you want to build a casino that white people can go to? Sure we'll approve that, send all our degens to go to the reservation, and you can deal with them; that's one way we're happy to let you make money.
The government should either say 'ok it's your land, sink or swim' or 'it's not your land, sink or swim', not 'you live here on our land, and we'll make it impossible for you to swim'
Because they know how much of their genetics are similar. With non-twins you can only guess it's around 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
If you're rich, most of your IQ is due to genes. If you're poor, most of your IQ is due to environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Still not following. If the Twins have the same genes, then their genetic component of IQ should be the same. To see how much is environmental, you need to raise them in different environments. No?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But you're saying they didn't do that. So how's it work?
Isn't that the same thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nope. The casino is effectively in another country for all intents and purposes. It has it's own sworn police force, it's own court, it's own post office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yes, but even if they're raised in the same environment they won't always end up with the same IQ. This is what you would call 'unexplained variance' .Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Yes, and some of them are, and usually end up with different IQs. This is explainable variance as it can mostly be attributed to aspects of the environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
It would take a long time to explain the fancy schmancy stats, but basically, you look at the overall variance between identical twins as a function of whether they were raised in similar or different environments. You add in a factor of socioeconomic status (SES) to see whether the explainable variance is different when they are raised separately in lower or higher-SES environments.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
The answer (Figure 2) is when both are raised in a higher SES environment (right side of each panel under 'C' [shared evironment] and 'E' [non-shared environment]), their IQ doesn't vary much (lines go down from low SES [left side of each panel] to high SES [right side of each panel], and not much grey around each line), and is relatively unaffected by whatever differences might exist in the environment (not much grey), but IS affected by genetics (leftmost panels under 'A', lines go up). When both are raised in a lower SES environment (left side of each panel under C and E), their IQ varies a lot (lines start high and go lower, and more grey around each line), but not regarding genetics 'A'.
So something about being in a low SES environment makes you sensitive to other parts of that environment. It's not clear what parts those are, as they didn't measure that. Could be eductation, parenting, etc.
ehhh, i'm not up on all the details, but i'm pretty sure it's only in 'another country' as a legal exercise so as to allow gambling. The gov't still owns the land, doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Also regarding your earlier point about how to MAGA by bringing back undemanding jobs, might it not be better to just provide better education?
And I know Ong wants to MUKGA by saving menial and dangerous fishing jobs, but what if we instead gave all those people some training so they could do something else that paid better?
I know for sure that the Tribe owns the land. That much I'm super sure about. I had to do a project on it in college.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The gov't has some say over stuff, but I don't know what the criteria are. I suspect the gov't only has a say when something the Tribe does impacts the surrounding area. Like, I know of two casinos that are only about 7 miles apart, and in the same State. One of them has a 10,000 seat arena. The other one would cut off it's right ball to have a 10,000 seat arena. However the latter casino exists on a highway that could not handle the traffic that such a venue would bring. Hence, they aren't allowed to build an arena.
though if they gave the state the money to build a bigger highway....maybe they could get an arena. But since highways don't generate revenue, I think the payback on that project would be prohibitively long.
No. More/better education probably wouldn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's currently illegal in the United States to induct a person into the military with an IQ below 83. If that doesn't shock and horrify you, then you didn't read it right. Let me rephrase. 10% of the population cannot be trained to do any task without it being definitively counter-productive. The resources spent to train you and fix your mistakes exceed the value you might produce with your labor.
As more and more tasks are automated, that bar just gets higher and higher. Everyone under the bar is completely fucked. And no amount of education and training would save them. It would be cheaper, and more efficient from the government's perspective to just give them some money.
But that saps away their souls. Then you get drugs, crime, broken families, and all that shit.
This is why Charles Murray is NOT a racist. He's concerned about exactly this. The more our society arranges itself along IQ, then the more the folks with low IQ's will suffer. And if there IS in fact a genetic component to IQ, and black people lost that lottery, then black people will suffer first, and suffer the most.
Ignoring this, and seeking to enact a solution through wealth redistribution actually makes the problem WORSE.
I'm at the point where I'm scanning your conversations for my name on the off chance it's relevant to me. I saw it.Quote:
And I know Ong wants to MUKGA by saving menial and dangerous fishing jobs, but what if we instead gave all those people some training so they could do something else that paid better?
Fishing is not a menial job, it's a very important one. Stop insulting people like fishermen and farmers, the very people who put food on your plate. Even with globalism, it's farmers and fishermen who feed you and your family.
Menail means lacking in skill and prestige. Good luck if you think you can walk on to a fishing boat and perform to the same standard as these guys you're insulting. And lacking prestige? Again that shows your lack of respect. You think it lacks prestige? Well I don't.