Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[Syne]

How would the US identify the twins, Syne?

With affirmative action and other benefits, it would behoove anyone to identify as a minority....hence Rachel Dolezal (NAACP chapter president) and Shawn King (Oprah scholarship recipient). Blue-eyed blondes with enough Native American heritage identify as Indian because it affords them benefits. "Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Halle Berry" all look black, just like the completely white-looking twin identifies as white.
External identification of race is descriptive, especially where ambiguity exists.

Oh, so you are denying institutional racism?

After all, you are attempting to deny the existence of black people, so of course you will deny that racism occurs.

I never denied the existence of black people, so try to keep who you're arguing straight, woman.

Let’s start with pre-school. Black pre-schoolers are far more likely to be suspended than white children, NPR reported. Black children make up 18 percent of the pre-school population, but represent almost half of all out-of-school suspensions.

...

The numbers get ridiculous in certain parts of the country, the project found. On the New Jersey Turnpike, for instance, blacks make up 15 percent of drivers, more than 40 percent of stops and 73 percent of arrests – even though they break traffic laws at the same rate as whites. In New York City, blacks and Hispanics were three and four times as likely to be stopped and frisked as whites.​

​

And? Blacks generally have more behavioral problems, up to and including criminal behavior. This is a well-known effect of widespread single-motherhood...which happens to be much higher among blacks (66% versus 25% in whites). Guess what happened when they tried to equalize punishment in school between white and black students?

Convinced traditional discipline is racist because blacks are suspended at higher rates than whites, New York City’s Department of Education has in all but the most serious and dangerous offenses replaced out-of-school suspensions with a touchy-feely alternative punishment called “restorative justice,” which isn’t really punishment at all. It’s therapy.
...
Except everywhere it’s been tried, this softer approach has backfired.

Yes, other large urban school districts are reporting fewer suspensions since adopting the non-punitive approach. But that doesn’t necessarily mean fewer infractions.

In fact, many districts are seeing more classroom disruptions and violence — a national trend that ought to set off warning bells for New York school officials.
...
Last month, for instance, the Chicago Teachers Union complained the city’s revised student-discipline code has left teachers struggling to control unruly kids.

“It’s just basically been a totally lawless few months,” one teacher told the Chicago Tribune.

In June, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that the district, as part of a “Suspension and Expulsion Reduction Plan,” was “moving away from a zero-tolerance policy and promoting restorative practices.”

Students who bully classmates can no longer be removed from classrooms except for the worst offenses, and only then with the consent of a district supervisor.
...
In Syracuse, meanwhile, teachers complain student behavior has worsened since the school district collapsed discipline structures in favor of restorative justice practices. They say teens are more apt to fight, mouth off to teachers and roam the halls under the more lenient policy. They’re even seeing increasingly violent behavior among elementary school children.
- http://nypost.com/2015/03/14/politi...less-safe-and-ruining-education-for-everyone/
​

It's a myth that "institutional racism" is to blame for culturally enabled bad behavior. Otherwise, you could point to much more specific targets for correction than whole institutions, often widely staffed by blacks in inner city areas. Where are the statistics that show that black administered institutions have fewer discipline issues and punishments but better outcomes?

According to the report, prisoners released after serving time for a property offense were the most likely to recidivate, or relapse into crime. The report also found that recidivism was highest among males, blacks and young adults.
- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/once-a-criminal-always-a-criminal/
​

Blacks who claim discrimination have made themselves a potential liability to employers. The higher the pay, the better lawyer they can afford.
When I was young and had long hair, I was 100% more likely to be searched in a traffic stop. Because long haired young guys are more likely to have drugs and blacks are more likely to commit violent crime. Blacks are more associated with crime because they actually commit more crime, as a percentage of their population, than any other race. The highest income disparities between blacks and whites exist in the most liberal/Democrat controlled cities.

On the issue of institutionalised racism with health and nutrition, for example:

http://thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30569-X/fulltext
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306458/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3468327/
http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/images/research/docs/pdf/race_ethnicity_health.pdf
http://foodsystems.msu.edu/uploads/...tural-Racism-In-The-US-Food-System-4th-Ed.pdf - This is a list of studies about institutional racism in the food and nutrition industry in the US. It is constantly updated.

And these are just some of the studies out there that not only identify institutional racism, but attempt to address it.

Then get around to making a few arguments yourself...instead of tasking people with wading through tons of links to find what you think is probative.

Read what I wrote, and then think about it.

I did not say 20 million Jews. Here is what I actually said:

If you must know, the 11 million murdered is a conservative figure. Recent research suggests that it may be close to 20 million people.
​

Care to explain why you misrepresented what I actually said and tried to turn it into something else?

I would really suggest you quit while you are behind.

Oh, I don't know....maybe because you said "11 million" but your cited source only mentioned 20 million.
If you have another source that supports your "11 million" claim, let's have it already. Is it a secret or something? Otherwise it's only a bare assertion, again, not supported by the same USHMM that your 20 million study came from.

I addressed the claim you actually supported, not the bare assertion masquerading as argument.

 

[iceaura]

Again, since this is the first I've said about IQ in this thread, you have zero basis for lumping me in with anyone on the subject.

I am lumping you with the other deniers - of the Holocaust, climate change, white racism and its effects on black people in the US. The specific justification is irrelevant - they're all silly.

It's actually the difference between genetic and cultural influence that disproves your assertion that white racism is the primary cause of black outcomes.

No, it doesn't. That is a comically stupid argument, as noted above. Deniers of this kind are strikingly absurd.
(Starting with an obvious point, btw: I have nowhere made the claim that white racism is "the primary cause" of "black outcomes" anywhere, even in the US.)

I believe Micheal already made the exact same argument as Sowell, refuting your nonsense that he failed to distinguish the two.

? Sowell makes bad arguments, Michael makes bad arguments, you are making a bad argument. Deniers of white racism and its effects on black people in the US make absurdly silly arguments, similar to those denying the Holocaust, AGW, and so forth. They seem to be the same people, more often than chance would account for, which would be the topic of this thread if sanity prevailed.

Where have I gone wrong?

 

[Syne]

I am lumping you with the other deniers - of the Holocaust, climate change, white racism and its effects on black people in the US. The specific justification is irrelevant - they're all silly.

Stereotyping bigot.

No, it doesn't. That is a comically stupid argument, as noted above. Deniers of this kind are strikingly absurd.
(Starting with an obvious point, btw: I have nowhere made the claim that white racism is "the primary cause" of "black outcomes" anywhere, even in the US.)

I just agreed with you that there's a difference between genetic and cultural inheritance...only to be met with ad hominem in lieu of any refute.
Pray tell, what is the primary cause of black outcomes?

? Sowell makes bad arguments, Michael makes bad arguments, you are making a bad argument. Deniers of white racism and its effects on black people in the US make absurdly silly arguments, similar to those denying the Holocaust, AGW, and so forth. They seem to be the same people, more often than chance would account for, which would be the topic of this thread if sanity prevailed.

Where have I gone wrong?

Is there a refute forthcoming or just bare assertions in lieu of any argument at all?
You've gone wrong in making hopelessly biased a priori assumptions ("given") you are far too lazy to attempt to justify.

 

[Michael]

RE: Institutional Racism

In July, the US Department of Education dismissed a complaint by an Asian minority group claiming that Harvard discriminated against their ethnicity.

In the lawsuit, SFFA cites a 2009 study by Princeton sociologists demonstrating that comparable applicants had to score more than a hundred points higher on the old SAT when they were Asian than when they were white. “Asian Americans needed SAT scores that were about 140 points higher than white students, all other quantifiable variables being equal, to get into elite schools. Thus, if a white student needed a 1320 SAT score to be admitted to one of these schools, an Asian American needed a 1460 SAT score to be admitted.”​

--o--

There is institutional racism in the USA, and it's against Asians.

Want to know where this isn't a problem?
Japan.
China.
Korea.
In these monocultural countries (even those that were once English colonies, like Hong Kong and Singapore), individuals are judged according to THEIR personal attributes. Which is why the East will eclipse the West across the next 50 years (and IMO already has in Japan).



--o--
The solution to the Harvard Problem is quite easy, if the University wants to play the Progressive Socialist race-game, then all Whites and Yellows should 'identify' as Black by ethnicity. Sue if they are discriminated against based on their phenotypes (given it cannot be based on their self-identified ethnicity - which only they know).

Problem solved.

 

[Michael]

white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

LOL

You ever going to list those magical 'effects' iceaura?

 

[Michael]

Stereotyping bigot.

Racism is the bread and butter of the Progressive Socialist. Can't you see the banner iceaura is carrying? The "White Man's Burden" waving high in the sky?

 

[Michael]

RE: School suspensions, PDF here: [Civil Rights Data Collection]

Yes, it's quite clear that the White and Black teachers are discriminating in favour of Asian students. I mean, it's not like there's a difference between the Asian students (which also shows up in their higher spatial reasoning / higher IQ scores - regardless of country and culture) .... no no no no, everyone and everything must be boiled down to racism.

Thus, it's not that WHITE kids are a bit less inclined to sit in their seats like good little Government Schooled cogs and study hard in the hopes to one day become rent-seekers in our Great Society (via regulatory capture). No no no no no no, it's that White teachers are racists who favour Asian kids. THAT'S why Whites are suspended more so than Yellows.


NOTE: Also notice that *GAAAAASP* boys are suspended more often than girls.

Now, of course, this is because all those female teachers are sexists and discriminate against gender, against little boys. The suspension rates certainly have NO BIOLOGICAL basis in the fact that boys are genetically different than girls. No way! We're all exactly the same and there are no biological differences between boys and girls at all. None. Certainly, no genetic reason why little boys lack the ability to sit in their seats patiently like little girls (even Asian boys) - so not only are teachers discriminating against Whites in favour of Asians but against boys in favour of girls - little Asian girls, the one group everyone magically is racist in favour of.. magically, and what is that racism called? The one where little Asian girls are discriminated in favour of?

WHITE RACISM.

You know, it's one of those 'effects of' iceaura is always crapping on about.

LOL

You know, you find a difference, one in which all evidence suggests is based on genetics, and then you blame magical White Racism. And you certainly don't notice the numbers. I mean, when you're walking down a street at night, and you see a group of Asian school girls, don't cross the road! Oh, and the same goes for a group of gang-bangers. F*ck self-preservation, you wouldn't want to cross the street, that'd be 'racist'. LMFAO

Hey, and get this, in the Progressive Socialist's Marxist Blank Slate World, where everyone is the same, boys are simply viewed as defective girls and placed on SSRI's, Adderall, etc... . Not one or two boys. Generation of boys.

Which is great, because that way they can drool into a pan while sitting in Government School for 12 (soon to be 14) year learning all about their role as a Tax Paying Cog in the Great Society where They Use The Roads (for FREE), just like their free K-14 Government Education where they may not be able to read and write above grade 7, but they'll need to pass the special test to get the special magical GiverMint license so they can sell butter.

LOL

What a joke the U.S.A. has become. I'm already looking forward to the coming nuclear winter

 

[iceaura]

Stereotyping bigot.

Classification by actual behavior, of individuals exhibiting said behavior and no other feature, is the opposite of stereotyping.

You've gone wrong in making hopelessly biased a priori assumptions ("given")

What about?

I just agreed with you that there's a difference between genetic and cultural inheritance...only to be met with ad hominem in lieu of any refute.
Pray tell, what is the primary cause of black outcomes?

That's not what "ad hominem" means. You want "refutation", not "refute". Don't use big words you don't know how to use.
There is no such thing as a "primary cause" of "black outcomes". That's a silly, empty, bigoted, nonsensical attempt at forming a useless concept.

Is there a refute forthcoming or just bare assertions in lieu of any argument at all?

There will be no refutation from me of the denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US - any more than there is a refutation coming of the denial of AGW, or the Holocaust, on this thread. Not here. This thread is about such absurd denials - where they come from, how they spread, what actually motivates the deniers.

Look at this, for example, in an attempt to justify denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US:

I mean, it's not like there's a difference between the Asian students (which also shows up in their higher spatial reasoning / higher IQ scores - regardless of country and culture

Why is this poster trying to change the subject to Asians? Or boys and girls? Or anybody at all except black people in the US? (btw: he's making a false statement there, about Malaysians and Hmong and Siberians and North American aborigines and so forth. Do you think he cares? )

 

[Bells]

With affirmative action and other benefits, it would behoove anyone to identify as a minority....hence Rachel Dolezal (NAACP chapter president) and Shawn King (Oprah scholarship recipient). Blue-eyed blondes with enough Native American heritage identify as Indian because it affords them benefits. "Barack Obama, Tiger Woods, and Halle Berry" all look black, just like the completely white-looking twin identifies as white.
External identification of race is descriptive, especially where ambiguity exists.

Yeah, because everybody wants to enjoy the benefits of being a minority in the US. What with the reduced access to health care and nutrition, worse schools, over policing, racial profiling that comes with it is just sooooooooooo wonderful!

You do know that it is white supremacists who push the argument that minorities are privileged, yes?

I never denied the existence of black people, so try to keep who you're arguing straight, woman.

So which one of the twins is black Syne?

And? Blacks generally have more behavioral problems, up to and including criminal behavior. This is a well-known effect of widespread single-motherhood...which happens to be much higher among blacks (66% versus 25% in whites). Guess what happened when they tried to equalize punishment in school between white and black students?

[Snip]

Dude.. What the hell?

Just so you are aware, I have flagged this thread to my colleagues and admin because of the white supremacist bullshit and the various denials based on pure bigotry being pushed in this thread and I made a particular note about this post of yours.

Because what you just posted, wrote and quoted, has been part of the white supremacist shtick for generations. Are you aware of that?

What you wrote and posted is literally the things of white supremacists say. Without any proof, of course and completely out of context.

When one considers that this is your response to evidence of institutionalised racism, which is inherently damaging to victims of said racism, really, dude, what the fucking hell is wrong with you?

I strongly suggest you cease and desist Syne, as frankly, at this point, you are simply digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Then get around to making a few arguments yourself...instead of tasking people with wading through tons of links to find what you think is probative.

You asked for proof, I quoted from an article full of embedded links to studies and then provided you with links to other scientific studies to back up my argument and if you required further proof.

It isn't hard to click on a link, Syne. Stop being so goddamn lazy.

Oh, I don't know....maybe because you said "11 million" but your cited source only mentioned 20 million.
If you have another source that supports your "11 million" claim, let's have it already. Is it a secret or something? Otherwise it's only a bare assertion, again, not supported by the same USHMM that your 20 million study came from.

I addressed the claim you actually supported, not the bare assertion masquerading as argument.

You didn't really follow the conversation I was having and what I was addressing, did you? Reading and comprehension is a constant issue for you, isn't it? Go back and look at the original statement and what I was responding to. It might click in time.

Or do you want me to flag this even further for your repeating the Holocaust denial thing you have going on now? Because what you and Michael are doing is problematic. Firstly, this type of Holocaust denial is actually illegal in some parts of Europe and and other parts of the world and could very well see this website banned and blacklisted in those countries. Secondly, it simply further perpetuates the reality that you and Michael are repulsive and revolting human beings.

Now, you and Michael mean sweet fuck all to us. What does matter to us is just how your attempts to minimise the Holocaust, deny the numbers killed, for example, diminish it as you have been, is actually illegal in many parts of the world.

 

[Michael]

Look at this, for example, in an attempt to.....

Still waiting for you to list those "effects".

Going to do that?

 

[Michael]

Why is this poster trying to change the subject to Asians? Or boys and girls?

LOL

Unlike you, I posted good evidence of 'institutional racism' against a minority community. Unlike you waffling on about mystical 'white racism', I posted an actual example, with verifiable numbers, showing conclusively that E. Asians are being discriminated against in University admissions. This wouldn't matter if we lived in a free society, but we don't. See, we live in a Progressive Socialistic Paradise where if you want to engage in the hyper-regualted markets, you are required to obtain one of the Government limited licenses - that are being restricted BY ethnicity.

It's called: Progressive Socialism / Racism.

The Land of the Fleeced, where 'free-Americans' are legally barred from entering Universities because of their ethnicity.


Now, how about you iceaura, going to offer some evidence to back up your claims?

 

[Michael]

Firstly, this type of Holocaust denial is actually illegal in some parts of Europe ....

Did you even bother to read the opening post?

No one is denying around 6 million Jews were killed during WWII. It's the massive number of non-Jews that were made-up whole cloth. As the article clearly articulates.

 

[iceaura]

Unlike you, I posted good evidence of 'institutional racism' against a minority community.

Off topic digression. Your denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US was on the table, your "evidence" concerned "Asians".
(your label, although you actually were talking about ethnic Han Chinese, non-Ainu Japanese, and Koreans - not Asians in general).

No one is denying around 6 million Jews were killed during WWII

And there you go again, lumping the Holocaust in with people "killed during WWII". Just above, you compare the Holocaust side by side with people killed not only during WWII but over the previous and subsequent twenty years or so.

Denial. Why do these famously absurd denials show up together, in the same people?

 

[Michael]

Off topic digression. Your denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US

LOL

How many times do you have to be told this? "Effects" is a weasel-word. Saying Drug A has an 'effect' is meaningless gibberish. What we want to know is if Drug A has a significant effect and what that effect is. This requires evidence. If YOU claim there's a significant effect of white racism on black or yellow or red or blue or even other white people - then YOU provide the good evidence.

If not, you're just engaged in sophism.

Which is wonderful, because you're a wonderful example of why Aristotle invented Categorical Logic. Possibly, his greatest invention. By reading your sophism, we can clearly see why Aristotle invented a system to evaluate arguments using letters to remove the emotive content.

Sorry, you lose.

was on the table, your "evidence" concerned "Asians".
(your label, although you actually were talking about ethnic Han Chinese, non-Ainu Japanese, and Koreans - not Asians in general).

Harvard delineates by 'ethnicity' (which is subjective by the way) and discriminates against Asians and in favour of Whites and Blacks. This is an example of structural racism.

As for Boys vs Girls, this example clearly shows that there is a bias in discipline. Progressive Socialists / Cultural Marxists assume there are no biological differences between boys and girls and assume a priori that the rates should be the same. But that's simply not the case, there are biological differences, and once taken into account, we clearly see that teachers are not purposely discriminating in favour or Asian girls, but are in fact dealing with different groups each of which have different abilities to sit like little cogs in a Government School. What works for most girls, will not work for all boys. What works for some boys, will not work for other boys. Different children, have different hormonal levels, and different attention spans. Something one-size-fits all Progresisve "Free" K-12 GiverMint Schools simply cannot deal with and exemplifies (again) why we need school choice that puts most Government Schools out of business.

One, amongst many, problems with Progressive Marxism, is they assume all people are a blank slate and any differences must be due to some structural disadvantage. Well, they're wrong in thinking all people are the same, they are not (E. Asians have a higher IQ for example) and it is THEIR system, of regulatory capture and rent-seeking, which is in fact creating the structural disadvantages. How ironic. By pretending to give everyone a fair chance, Progressive Socalism has destroyed the lives of low IQ people who otherwise could have had a decent life working and providing goods and services (other than stuck as labor cogs to high IQ rent-seekers).

Sad

And there you go again, lumping the Holocaust in with people "killed during WWII". Just above, you compare the Holocaust side by side with people killed not only during WWII but over the previous and subsequent twenty years or so.

In defending the omission of Jews from the statement, a White House spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, sent CNN a link to a 2015 Huffington Post-UK piece titled “The Holocaust’s Forgotten Victims: The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis.” Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, on Monday appeared to cite the same source, saying that the Nazis’ victims included Roma, gays, the disabled and priests. He called complaints about the statement “pathetic,” although some of those objections came from two groups that otherwise have been supportive of Trump, the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Zionist Organization of America.

In the wake of the controversy, the world’s two leading Holocaust museums, in Washington and in Jerusalem, issued statements emphasizing the centrality of the annihilation of the Jews to the understanding of the Holocaust; neither mentioned Trump. The “5 million” has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979, “I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews.”

Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’” Bauer and other historians who knew Wiesenthal said the Nazi hunter told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish suffering, but not larger than the actual number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million.​

This is what you are doing. My guess it, it will have similar consequences.

 

[iceaura]

How many times do you have to be told this? "Effects" is a weasel-word. Saying Drug A has an 'effect' is meaningless gibberish. What we want to know is if Drug A has a significant effect and what that effect is. This requires evidence. If YOU claim there's a significant effect of white racism on black or yellow or red or blue or even other white people - then YOU provide the good evidence.

I am simply listing you among the people denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

I have plenty of good evidence for that, many quotes and explicit assertions by you, right here.

In defending the omission of Jews from the statement, a White House spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, sent CNN a link to a 2015 Huffington Post-UK piece titled “The Holocaust’s Forgotten Victims: The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis.”

You compared the Holocaust deaths - the actual number - to millions of other people killed by other regimes before, during, and after WWII. Directly. That's called denial.

If not, you're just engaged in sophism.

Get a dictionary. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Bells]

Did you even bother to read the opening post?

No one is denying around 6 million Jews were killed during WWII. It's the massive number of non-Jews that were made-up whole cloth. As the article clearly articulates.

When you allay yourself with deniers, and the claims you have made in this thread, with little actual proof, just lots of "LOL" like you are a teenage kid on youtube showing a Minecraft video, then it becomes exceptionally problematic from a legal standpoint.

For example:

RE: Holocaust Denial

[T]he world’s two leading Holocaust museums, in Washington and in Jerusalem, issued statements emphasizing the centrality of the annihilation of the Jews to the understanding of the Holocaust; neither mentioned Trump. The “5 million” has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979, “I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews.”

Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’” Bauer and other historians who knew Wiesenthal said the Nazi hunter told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish​

See, this is what happens when you lie. Holocaust Denier's were correct in their assertion 11 million people did not die, instead of admitting the truth, people like Wiesenthal prefer to lie as a means to justify their unstated goals. In the end, Jews were barely mentioned at the last Holocaust ceremony, because it's now important to 'be inclusive', and remember 'all those' that died (even though they were for the most part - made up).

National Socialism killed 6 million Jews, 50 million others in war.
Communist Socialism starved and killed between 100 - 200 million humans.



It's quite clear where the problem lays, and it starts with the idea that we can use government (violence) against morally innocent 'groups' of people, for the good of society - violating the individual (in favour of 'society') along the way. Sadly, it seems, we're right back full circle, ready to start again.

This is despite the fact that new research puts the figure as closer to 20 million dead, as opposed to the conservative 11 million. Not only do you claim that the 11 million figure is based on a lie, but you then do so to set up a type of conspiracy about the Holocaust itself.

Your denial is problematic because you are attempting to downplay the number of deaths, diminish them. Your comparisons diminish the Holocaust because you completely ignore the reasons for the extermination of so many millions of people. They weren't casualties of war, Michael. They were specifically targeted because of their religious ideology, their ethnicity, their sexuality, their disabilities, their political ideology and in a lot of cases, their being the offspring of mixed parentage and mixed marriages. And I am not just talking about Jews. I am also talking about the millions of other people who were exterminated.

Your claims arguments about Jews who identify as Jewish being a subjective experience and that they determined for themselves if they are Jewish or not is a means to assign blame to them for what happened to them. For example:

Yes, identifying as Jewish is a subjective experience. It doesn't mean there's no 'Jewish', only that an individual person would have to determine for themselves if they are or are not Jewish.

It doesn't matter if German Jews and German non-Jews understood this in 1938, it's still a fact.

You completely ignore the fact that "Jews" were not given a choice.

Those who did not identify as Jewish were also exterminated because they had Jewish ancestry or a parent or grandparents who were Jewish. It wasn't a case of Jews being able to convert and somehow avoid death. They were never given a choice.

You then followed that up with this, which was in response to sarcasm about your IQ rubbish.

In short, Michael, you are attempting to rewrite history to fit into your ideology, a very problematic ideology and in doing so, you are denying the Holocaust and the reasons behind why the Nazi's sought to eliminate millions from the face of the earth.

Your OP was problematic, but the arguments you have made since then, border on being outright illegal in many parts of the world, not to mention being obscenely abhorrent.

 

[Michael]

This is despite the fact that new research puts the figure as closer to 20 million dead, as opposed to the conservative 11 million. Not only do you claim that the 11 million figure is based on a lie, but you then do so to set up a type of conspiracy about the Holocaust itself.

Firstly, I didn't make an argument. Secondly, the article is specifically referring to groups targetted for extermination - not civil deaths. Thirdly, are you going to provide a citation showing up to 14 million additional people of other religious / ethnicities were rounded up and shipped to concentration camps for extermination?

I'd like to see the citation because that's a fairly large claim you're making.

Your denial is problematic because you are attempting to downplay the number of deaths, diminish them. Your comparisons diminish the Holocaust because you completely ignore the reasons for the extermination of so many millions of people. They weren't casualties of war, Michael. They were specifically targeted because of their religious ideology, their ethnicity, their sexuality, their disabilities, their political ideology and in a lot of cases, their being the offspring of mixed parentage and mixed marriages. And I am not just talking about Jews. I am also talking about the millions of other people who were exterminated.

Okay, provide a citation that millions of non-Jews were targetted for extermination. Not tens of thousands. Not hundreds of thousands. But millions. That's your claim. I'd be more than happy to accept that - if there's data to back up that claim. There is data to back up the claim millions of Jews were targetted for extermination, and exterminated.

What is important is the truth.
Agreed?

Your claims arguments about Jews who identify as Jewish being a subjective experience and that they determined for themselves if they are Jewish or not is a means to assign blame to them for what happened to them.

1. Being Jewish is a subjective experience.
2. This is not a means of 'assigning blame' to them for what happened. How you made that logical leap is beyond me.

For example: Some people living in KSA are Atheist. They are hung dead for being Atheist. I'm a Strong Atheist. My Atheism is a subjective experience. How on Earth this then leads you to the conclusion that Atheists ARE TO BLAME for their own hanging, is (again) beyond me.

You completely ignore the fact that "Jews" were not given a choice.

No I don't.

Those who did not identify as Jewish were also exterminated because they had Jewish ancestry or a parent or grandparents who were Jewish. It wasn't a case of Jews being able to convert and somehow avoid death. They were never given a choice.

I agree. One side of my family was one of those Jewish families who left Europe.

You then followed that up with this, which was in response to sarcasm about your IQ rubbish.

Are you making an argument that IQ is not 50 - 85% genetic? Because that runs counter to current scientific research.

Via the scientific reputable peer-reviewed journal Science: Genes don't just influence your IQ—they determine how well you do in school

Your OP was problematic, but the arguments you have made since then, border on being outright illegal in many parts of the world, not to mention being obscenely abhorrent.

And? So what?

Here's an illegal argument that would result in death in 'some parts of the World':

1) Kim Jong-il the supreme leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was a lying scam artist who lead to the starvation of millions.

2) There is no good evidence that god is real.

3) The Qur'an has numerous fallacies throughout (ex: appeal to authority).

There are three statements that would be considered illegal in 'some parts of the world'. And, again, SO WHAT? If you want to hold yourself to standards somewhere in the world, you will have little to talk about. Don't plan on speaking about Trump, for example. Or Religon, for example. Or any of the Dictators, as yet another example.

 

[Randwolf]

Michael
Straight up question, posed as openly as possible... Why does this article exist?

Black U.S. Babies Still More Likely To Die Than White Infants
“I’d like to see racial equality in infant survival in my lifetime.”

(Reuters Health) - Even as infant mortality rates are declining nationwide, there are some U.S. states where black babies are much more likely to die than white infants, a recent study suggests.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...han-white-infants_us_58f50eece4b0bb9638e58afa​

MSM conspiracy theories? "Fake News"? Skewed statistics? What's your take?

 

[Michael]

Michael
Straight up question, posed as openly as possible... Why does this article exist?

Black U.S. Babies Still More Likely To Die Than White Infants
“I’d like to see racial equality in infant survival in my lifetime.”

(Reuters Health) - Even as infant mortality rates are declining nationwide, there are some U.S. states where black babies are much more likely to die than white infants, a recent study suggests.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...han-white-infants_us_58f50eece4b0bb9638e58afa​

MSM conspiracy theories? "Fake News"? Skewed statistics? What's your take?

Via PubMed:
Comparison of Infant Sleep practices in African-American and U.S Hispanic Families: Implications for Sleep-Related Infant Death.
J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Jun; 17(3): 834–842.

African-American and Hispanic families share similar socioeconomic profiles. Hispanic rates of sleep-related infant death are four times lower than African-American rates.​

ABC:
40% of blacks in the survey said they didn’t place babies on their backs because of family tradition, compared to 22% of all parents. >70% of blacks said they feared babies would choke on vomit if placed on their backs, compared to 52 % of all parents who believed there’s a choking risk.

--o--
The answer appears to mainly be family tradition with regards to improper placement of babies during sleep resulting in death, also known as SIDS - and is often due to placing baby's prone in bed. This clearly explains how an increased rates of death is due to parenting styles and helps explain why Hispanics (who do place their children on their backs) have lower rates of SIDS.

What it's not due to is Hispanic Racism against Black Mothers. The differences are not due to 'racism', but instead due to individual parents making individual choices about how to place their babies in their beds. It's important to list the actual numbers, they are around 150 vs 60 per 100,000 births. It should also be noted, around 450,000 thousand Americans die each year due to medical error. Just to put things in perspective.

One would think the decade + of Government Schooling, maybe they'd mention this in home economics? Then again, given their 20% functional illiteracy rates of their "High" school graduates, maybe asking anything more than a pump-and-dump scam, is asking too much.


I also have a couple straight up questions:
1) Do you agree with the contemporary evidence that suggests IQ is mostly genetic?
2) Regardless of you answer #1) do you agree with the conclusion that IQ correlates with economic success? Could this explain the high proportion of low IQ White People of low socioeconomic status as well as explain the high proportion of high IQ Yellow People of high socioeconomic status?
3) Scientific Methodology requires that the claimant explicitly defines the terms they use ('white racism' for example) as well as provide proof - often good evidence through population sampling that is repeatable (particularly when a time variable is involved), in order to develop a cogently strong argument. Would you agree that not to do so, would be classified as sophistry?

Further, isn't the assumption that 'Whites' are affecting Blacks, without good evidence, classic racism? Isn't the whole goal NOT to judge based on superficial profiling and phenotype (such as amount of melanin)? I find it curious that racism is now not only acceptable but to challenge the racist's claims with demands of evidence (aka: Science), is itself 'racist'.

How pathetic we in the West have become. Full circle. What next? The Sun revolves around the Earth?

LOL



One last point: I don't disagree that structural bigotry results in people living with a lower socioeconomic status. The bigotry isn't against Blacks, or Yellow or Whites. It's against people of lower IQ. People of lower IQ (for whatever reason/s) are not allowed to legally compete in the hyper-regulated markets. This is an outcome of Progressive Authoritarian policies enforced by the Government's militant arm (the police-state regulatory agencies) limit licensing, limit entrance into Universities (regulatory capture factories), limit free-people, as adults, from engaging in basic trade.

Yes, at one time poor low IQ Whites used Progressive Socialism (via their unions) to disenfranchise Blacks via minimum wage regulations. That was almost a century ago. It's no longer the case.

Progressive Socialism has resulted in our entire economy playing a game of 'Rent Seeker' through standardized testing, which (a) favors girls over boys (and why we see more girls in University compared to boys) and (b) high IQ over low IQ (which is why we see more Asians per population attending University, and would see even more if it were legally possible, which it should be) all in order to gain a Government licence to participate in hyper-regulated markets as a rent-seeker.

So, yes, I agree, there is structural bigotry, and it's called Progressive Socialism (a form of Statist Authoritarianism). It's color blind. But not IQ blind. If you're a Black American with a high IQ, and chose to attend a Government School and score very high on the SAT/ACT, you will be given many opportunities. Ben Carson for example. Thomas Sowell is another. And, I think you'll find, most high IQ White virtue-signallers are in fact more than happy to interact with other high IQ people (of ANY color or ethnicity). But f*ck hanging with low IQ 'boogans' of the same color. No way.

 

[Schmelzer]

Denial. Why do these famously absurd denials show up together, in the same people?

Absurd or not, "denial" is simply a word for not believing the official party line. Once one is not afraid to reject the party line in one question, one is free to evaluate the evidence for all other such questions from a neutral position too. The probability that one will agree with the party line in all those questions seems quite small, so that it is quite probable that people who are "in denial" in one question are "in denial" in some other questions too.

In this sense, it is not those "in denial" in several questions which are suspect, but those which are not "in denial" even in a single question. Because it is quite obvious that they do not seriously question the party line, but simply follow it without doubt.