On 4/27/2018 at 4:41 PM, Enrico_sw said:

Oh, interesting book. The summary goes like this:  "All of this is not my fault, because it's not my fault. How could it be my fault? It's because of husbands, brigands, bad brands; because of Putin, Stalin, Lenin; and above all it's beacuse of blah, blah, blah. Did I mention it was not my fault?"

 

of course it's not her fault ....it's @Stormbringer's fault 

 

 

1 minute ago, SuperG.Girl said:

 

of course it's not her fault ....it's @Stormbringer's fault 

 

 

 

It's most likely @SuperG.Girl's fault  

 

why is it fully OK to talk about racial differences in athletic performance ...... while if you talk about racial differences in IQ or academic performance you are automatically condemned as racist?  

 

 

well i think both are completely stupid and xenophobe.

Both left and right are racist and sexist (in their own unique ways, as in the former they emphasize using to frame  victimization and the latter, the social parasitism ) although both deny it with their own non-logical and ignorant reasons. At this point they speak different languages...

 

I believe that the left largely uses the labels sexist, racist, etc. as a shaming mechanism to 1. Attack their political enemies 2. to shape the way their followers think.  The right has countered this by calling the left racist and sexist against whites and white males.

 

I remember taking the S.A.T  and on the results form it stated that white scored around 1,000, Asians a little higher, and blacks at around 770. Hispanics scored near blacks.  All gov't tests I took had racial data included in the results.  Without progressive politics (affirmative action) I don't think I'd see this data on the form.  Also, in the USA it is customary for gov't forms to always ask for one's race and ethnicity.

I think that Morgan Freeman had the wisest sentence about this topic: "How are we gonna get rid of racism?", somebody asked him. He replied: "Stop talking about it". 

One great sentence that's worth a thousand pages of BS sociology (and BS doesn't mean Baccalaureus Scientiae here...)

 

2 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

Also, in the USA it is customary for gov't forms to always ask for one's race and ethnicity.

 

The US gov't is so focused on races, it's becoming an obsession. What good is it?

 

"Affirmative action" is called "positive discriminiation" in France. Our way of putting it is much clearer, because it's still discrimination. It's forbidden to mention people's ethinicity in French statistics, because one of the main principles of this country is that it's indivisible. The only people who want to change this are the associations, sociologists, etc. who rely on subsidies and live on talking about these issues.

I'm not against racial politics to deal with real issues but there is a point where it is carried too far.   When a political party is largely concerned about class warfare, race, and gender it is a sign of political degeneration. The US is very racially diverse, the race focus is only going to grow as it works well politically.  Of note is how asian americans have nearly no weight in politics despite being numerous.  It is not a good thing at all for asian americans.

 

I personally saw a sharp increase in racial and gender focus (in the media) starting from Obama.

 

I don't agree with the argument that sociology is dubious.  Sociologists are brilliant observers of society. The problem with sociology is that it is too left wing obsessed.  

10 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

I don't agree with the argument that sociology is dubious.  Sociologists are brilliant observers of society. The problem with sociology is that it is too left wing obsessed.  

 

Alright, I'm not gonna be (too) harsh with sociologists. French sociology is often far left wing obsessed (which means that distribution of wealth is very often their only subject of interest). Their big problem is that they see big "mechanical" forces everywhere; they want to formulate theories so hard that sometimes (often) they encapsulate society in manichean theories that have little to do with reality. At some point, some of them even deny the concept of personal responsibility. Sure, there are "big" forces, sure there are sociological phenomena, but they can't say that the individual is nil.

 

I find sociology more interesting when it looks at historical data; because then sociologists are less subjective than with the present.

 

10 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

I'm not against racial politics to deal with real issues but there is a point where it is carried too far.   When a political party is largely concerned about class warfare, race, and gender it is a sign of political degeneration. The US is very racially diverse, the race focus is only going to grow as it works well politically.  Of note is how asian americans have nearly no weight in politics despite being numerous.  It is not a good thing at all for asian americans.

 

The best racial politics is when they abolish discriminative laws (I don't know about the US, but in France that happened a long time ago). Once these unfair laws are abolished, the rest is up to the society (the real people).  If politicians go beyond that (like making laws which supposedly compensate prejudices), they'll generate more problems than solutions.

8 hours ago, SuperG.Girl said:

why is it fully OK to talk about racial differences in athletic performance ...... while if you talk about racial differences in IQ or academic performance you are automatically condemned as racist?

 

People don't engage in open dialogue anymore, especially with different view points and it's easier to call someone a racist than it is to listen to something they don't agree with.

 

The recent student protests within the last few years at American universities practice this concept.

Does anyone consider observations as racist?

what is "observation"?

 

And what dialogue do u want to have with someone who claim that white people have a higher IQ then *insert any non white ethnicity here* people? It's like having a dialogue with someone who is telling you that eating your own shit is delicious & if you don't believe it you are a PC's cock sucker.

 

And when Americans are going to STOP to talk about races when they talk about people?

 

21 hours ago, SuperG.Girl said:

why is it fully OK to talk about racial differences in athletic performance ...... while if you talk about racial differences in IQ or academic performance you are automatically condemned as racist?  

 

One deals with something the eye can observe and delves into the biological makeup of the human body and how it interacts with the world around us. Sports science being part of it for example.

 

The other is nothing more that a human construct put forth to take advantage and/or abuse a group of people thru a superiority complex for a number of personal gains. 

 

So yes, you can talk about both but one will land you in a hot spot due to its racisit conception.

1 hour ago, ILUVAdrianaLima said:

The other is nothing more that a human construct put forth to take advantage and/or abuse a group of people thru a superiority complex for a number of personal gains. 

 

 

Actually IQ is clearly defined and accurately measured ..... same as the 100 m dash for example. There isn't any proof IQ tests are engineered to favor a specific racial group (feel free to present proof and prove me wrong) 

 

 

1 hour ago, SuperG.Girl said:

 

Actually IQ is clearly defined and accurately measured ..... same as the 100 m dash for example. There isn't any proof IQ tests are engineered to favor a specific racial group (feel free to present proof and prove me wrong) 

 

 

 

Agreed, it’s a measure but not a definite one such as units of mass, energy, distance and so on. IQ tests along with SAT’s and the likes were once again developed by individuals to provide a certain “estimate” on intelligence but no one method can actually measure it accurately considering that each individual varies on how they learn and what they retain. Furthermore, SAT’s for example tend to discriminate on the economically disadvantaged (minorities in the inner city as an example) who can’t affford the steep price for SAT training and the eventual test itself that holds a prerequisite to entering many elite colleges and universities. So there you go, the above speaks for itself and there are plenty of sources you can research on your own free will on the subject at hand  

1 hour ago, SuperG.Girl said:

 

Actually IQ is clearly defined and accurately measured ..... same as the 100 m dash for example. There isn't any proof IQ tests are engineered to favor a specific racial group (feel free to present proof and prove me wrong) 

 

 

 

So what are you trying to say? That there is a master race that is intellectually superior to everyone else?

2 hours ago, ILUVAdrianaLima said:

IQ tests along with SAT’s and the likes were once again developed by individuals to provide a certain “estimate” on intelligence but no one method can actually measure it accurately considering that each individual varies on how they learn and what they retain. Furthermore, SAT’s for example tend to discriminate on the economically disadvantaged (minorities in the inner city as an example) who can’t affford the steep price for SAT training and the eventual test itself that holds a prerequisite to entering many elite colleges and universities. So there you go, the above speaks for itself and there are plenty of sources you can research on your own free will on the subject at hand  

 

That's not correct. IQ and SAT (and the likes ) are not similar tests. SAT measures readiness in trained skills while IQ measures cognitive abilities (that largely can't be trained). Furthermore putting IQ and SAT tests in the same category is not exactly innocent from your part ...... it's because there's plenty of proof SAT tends to discriminate while isn't any for IQ you want those 2 in the same basket. If you convince your audience those 2 are practically the same then IQ tests also tend to discriminate. But in fact those 2 are irrelevant ...... ignoratio elenchi

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelevant_conclusion

 

 

2 hours ago, ILUVAdrianaLima said:

Agreed, it’s a measure but not a definite one such as units of mass, energy, distance and so on.

That's correct ........ but then again it means nothing. It's the best tool we've developed to approach cognition in a measurable manner  

 

3 hours ago, Sanni said:

So what are you trying to say? That there is a master race that is intellectually superior to everyone else?

I'm trying to say that I don't feel like a racist studying and talk in public about racial differences in academic performance ......... I actually consider it a very interesting topic. 

Christeeeee

 

B.B.C. is the best!

 

Don't listen to this guy. You don't have to fix yourself. It's not your fault ........ it's @Stormbringer 's fault