Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

See? We can agree. Yes, at one time (for a relatively short-period of Western history) Jim Crow laws had some serious effects on some black people living in the USA.

With consequences that surround you, and dominate American social and political life. And the other aspects of Jim Crow - besides the laws - are with us still.

One of those effects was NOT to lower the IQ of black people.

The odds of no such effect from such ubiquitous and significant mechanisms are almost zero. Informed estimates range from a couple of points to maybe a dozen.

You say that you'd like the USA to be like Sweden. That's only possible if the USA is filled with Swedish people.

Ok, that won't work - but it would be a serious improvement, right? You were talking about that possibility for the US, like it was a bad thing the DNC was going to cause.

 

[Michael]

With consequences that surround you, and dominate American social and political life.

This is where Sweden will make a fine example. The problems black Americans face in American is a consequence of Progressive Socialism. They're our experiment Empiricism will show you, that even without Jim Crow Laws, the same socialistic outcomes will occur. Why? Not Jim Crow. Did Jim Crow Laws have an effect? Sure. Nowhere close to the devastating effects of Progressive Socialism.

Not
Even
Close

This will become clearer as time goes by. Right now, they're already cutting social benefits to the oldest Swedes, while lowering educational standards. Oh, and Swedes are learning they're secretly racists. It's subconscious you see - and only white people can be racist. They're to blame.

You may need to brush up on your Critical Race Theory

LOL

Luckily international central bankers are more than happy to buy debt issued as T-Bonds on the future labor of Swedish children (who will go with even less) all to pay for the sins committed today in the name of virtue signalling.

They're f*cked.

And the other aspects of Jim Crow - besides the laws - are with us still.

The only race-based laws in effect today are directed against yellows and whites.

The odds of no such effect from such ubiquitous and significant mechanisms are almost zero. Informed estimates range from a couple of points to maybe a dozen.

Not according to the science.

Ok, that won't work - but it would be a serious improvement, right?

No, not right.

It would mean we would be like Sweden. The last thing anyone sane would want to be is like Sweden.
Again: No.

What would be an improvement is if we were to live in a relatively free-society as envisioned by the founders secured for all humans - with a very limited government, no income tax or central bank. Free markets, sound money and private property rights.

I know this must sound insane to you. What? Why would you want to live free when you can live micromanaged in a Progressive Socialistic Paradise like a Swedish meatball. I mean, gee, look at Swedenstan. How wonderful. No iceaura, not all of us are happy to trade in our civil liberties for some shiny beads. Have you ever actually LIVED in one of these Social Paradises? It doesn't seem like it. I have. More than one.

You don't get to the Swedish 'free' education, without losing your freedom of speech. The two go together.
You don't get the Japanese technology, without girls being taught their place is at home - with kids. The two go together.

It's like you've only read about these countries, but never experienced living in them. And you know what the craziest thing is? In Sweden (not Asia) they look at the USA and say: We want the ingenuity and creativity that comes from the USA. Hey, let's let in a million immigrants. No longer will Sweden (The Land of the Swedes) be Swedish - no no on, we're done with that. We want to be like the USA.

Only they won't be. We are what we are. They are what they are. And they're in for a big fat surprise. Because they're not getting what they wanted, the best of the USA, they're getting the worse.

This is a forever. The Progressive Socialists have destroyed Sweden - for good.

 

[Michael]

Have you ever read about Guilt-based societies vs Shame-based societies?

They're very different 'types' of people. They think differently. White people, possibly due to our unique environmental pressures, have guilt-based societies. We're somewhat unique like that. It's probably why we ended Slavery quite quickly. It's also why Europeans didn't completely decimate other peoples - as they could have. By WWII, Europeans had the ability to eradicate entire other peoples (as happened in Australia). But they stopped.

Asian societies are not guilt-based (many African, Indian and ME societies aren't either) - they're based on Shame. As an example, being two-faced is seen as a very positive attribute in Japan. Of course, it is. You look at the person you hate the most, you lie to their face and completely convince them how much you like them, then you tell all your friends how much you hate them. They live their life thinking you love them. Adore them. Care for them. In reality, you hate them. It would be shameful to let them know your true feelings.

You don't get to pick the things you like about Japan like it's this magical candy store where you walk in and grab the super-safe cities and ultra high-tech affordable healthcare on your way to the counter.

The "Free" Japanese healthcare (that costs around 850 dollars a month), and FREE welfare (if you don't mind living in a tiny government flat on 75 dollars a week) and FREE education (that somehow magically requires LESS money than we in the USA spend, I'm sure the higher IQ has no implications here - right? Just magically they're better educated) all comes at the price of living life as a Japanese.

Which is great for Japanese. But, for 'white people'. We don't really like the idea of Two-Faced. We think this is a bad thing. That people should feel a bit guilty about that little lie. That being honest is important.

We are not them.
They are not us.


It should be noted: Not only did white Europeans end Slavery, but when given the chance to eliminate all other human's in competition (or most anyway). White people didn't.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this kindness would have been (or will be) paid in kind. It wouldn't have and won't.


Anyway, people who don't feel guilt, in the same way as white people, they're happy to milk the f*ck out of guilt-based societies. Milk those f*ckers like cows. Why not? They're happy to pay. It makes them free better. Take everything if you can.

How funny, white people project their virtue-signalling onto the people they think they're being virtuous too, when in reality, those same people think these white people are naive suckers to be taken to the cleaners.

And they are.

Note: Yes, everyone feels some level of guilt and some level of shame.
#notallasians


It's clear to me, 100+ years of Progressive Socialism will destroy the West. The East will rise and replace our dominance. The future world will be different. One of those differences will be ideas of guilt vs the importance of shame. It's not going to be the world you thought it would be iceaura. Very very different. Luckily, this cycle will probably take 250 years to complete Who knows? By that time maybe the IQ in Islamic Sedenstan will be around 85.

LOL

 

[Schmelzer]

Why do you persist in that bogus argument after being caught and corrected?

I don't. Your fantasy does not count.

You are denying aspects of common physical reality, as discovered and reported by research and observation.

Cite the peer-reviewed paper which describes these facts, and my denial of that particular paper.
You cannot, you have already admitted that: "AGW, which is what you deny, is not found in any particular peer reviewed paper."

 

[iceaura]

This is where Sweden will make a fine example. The problems black Americans face in American is a consequence of Progressive Socialism.

And severe white racism, hundreds of years of it, continuing now.

We're somewhat unique like that. It's probably why we ended Slavery quite quickly.

America's white people enjoyed the benefits of slavery for more than 300 years, overtly by law from the early 1600s (before they had a white race even figured out) until 1867, and then by Jim Crow until about 1970 (The US Steel plant in Birmingham employed slaves until 1941, for example).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_by_Another_Name
The white people of the Confederacy went to war to defend slavery, and to this day regret not the slavery but the loss of the war. They didn't give up slavery until they had firearms pointed at them and had run out of ammunition themselves. And then, as soon as the rifles and cannon were withdrawn, they reinstated slavery under different means and laws for another hundred years - they weren't guilty then, they aren't guilty now.

The odds of no such effect from such ubiquitous and significant mechanisms are almost zero. Informed estimates range from a couple of points to maybe a dozen, {depending on how the various factors work in combination}.
Not according to the science.

Yes, according to science. That's what "informed" means - people who don't make the elementary errors of statistical inference and genetic analysis you make, for starters.
People who don't have absurd denials to defend.
Here's an example: http://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
another: http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2006/10/black-iq-estimates-by-state.html
- -

Cite the peer-reviewed paper which describes these facts, and my denial of that particular paper.
You cannot, you have already admitted that: "AGW, which is what you deny, is not found in any particular peer reviewed paper."

Why do you persist in repeating that irrelevancy, even after correction? It looks liked a deliberate attempt to deflect the discussion away from your absurd denial.

I described, above, a whole pile of papers whose collective findings you have collectively denied in doing that, and good luck to your search for the particular ones you can't obfuscate and weasel around singly - waste your own time.

Your denial of AGW is the topic. The denial is absurd.

 

[Schmelzer]

Why do you persist in repeating that irrelevancy, even after correction?

You name me a denier. I persist in clarifying that I do not deny anything established in some peer-reviewed scientific research. So, if I'm a denier, I deny only your Party line, not scientific facts.

I described, above, a whole pile of papers whose collective findings you have collectively denied in doing that, and good luck to your search for the particular ones you can't obfuscate and weasel around singly - waste your own time. Your denial of AGW is the topic. The denial is absurd.

So you claim some abstract "whole pile of papers", which I "collectively deny", but refuse to refer to even a single one which would contain any statement which I deny.

And another interesting point appears here: It looks like I would be obliged to search for particular papers. This is another characteristic of totalitarian thinking: It is not you who is obliged to present evidence of my denial of whatever, but me.

The topic is not my denial of whatever - because it does not exist - but how "denial" is used by some Party soldiers like iceaura. Namely, as an attack against those who don't support the Party line. They do not need any facts to prove the "denial", they even refuse to present any evidence for this, say, by giving explicit quotes of what I have said, which contradict established scientific facts, as established in scientific papers.

The interesting point is that those Party soldiers act already quite openly, they do not even try to present any evidence, simply repeating their accusations seems completely sufficient as evidence.

 

[iceaura]

I persist in clarifying that I do not deny anything established in some peer-reviewed scientific research. So, if I'm a denier, I deny only your Party line, not scientific facts.

You are denying AGW. AGW is not a Party line, but a common physical reality. And it is not "mine".

In the US, denial of AGW is the Party line. Specifically, the Republican Party line - and they control the US government together with all its science funding and pressure on researchers.

Where I'm sitting right now, your posting is the Party line.

So you claim some abstract "whole pile of papers", which I "collectively deny", but refuse to refer to even a single one which would contain any statement which I deny.

Yep. Although I did provide easy search clues, even names.

And another interesting point appears here: It looks like I would be obliged to search for particular papers.

Not by me. I'm on record as suggesting that you would be wasting your time. But it's your idea - and hey, it's barely possible that somewhere around the fiftieth paper on disease spread you would suddenly catch on about AGW's implications for bad organism ecology; or the saltwater effects of even small sea level changes on the river delta wet rice agriculture currently feeding a fifth of the world's population; or the implications of the nonlinearity in outlier temperature response to a 2 degree rise in mean air yearly air temps in the Yangtze River valley (three of the Seven Ovens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Furnaces) or that area in Pakistan where the Pakistanis grow most of their food; or the like - that enough particulars would add up to a big picture or two.

You might even run into the good news findings - like the Science article a bit ago presenting evidence that the rapid increase in methane recently was not a warning signal of the methane bomb detonating but rather an effect of reduced levels of the atmosphere's methane oxidizing compounds allowing buildup from a non-increasing emission rate. That was kind of a relief, in some circles. Maybe seeing them, you would suddenly realize that AGW reality could not be assessed via media analysis using propaganda assumptions.

If so, we would have a case of an absurd denier being cured. That would be very interesting - I've never seen it happen outside of religious transitions in late adolescence.

 

[Schmelzer]

Although I did provide easy search clues, even names.

You have to prove accusations of some denial, not to provide search clues.

Not by me. I'm on record as suggesting that you would be wasting your time. But it's your idea - and hey, it's barely possible that somewhere around the fiftieth paper on disease spread you would suddenly catch on about AGW's implications for bad organism ecology; or the saltwater effects of even small sea level changes on the river delta wet rice agriculture currently feeding a fifth of the world's population; or the implications of the nonlinearity in outlier temperature response to a 2 degree rise in mean air yearly air temps in the Yangtze River valley (three of the Seven Ovens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Furnaces) or that area in Pakistan where the Pakistanis grow most of their food; or the like - that enough particulars would add up to a big picture or two.

The point being? Do you want to claim I have denied anything about this? We have not even discussed all this, except a little bit bad organism ecology, where my only point was that somehow good organism ecology is out of sight.

You might even run into the good news findings - like the Science article a bit ago presenting evidence that the rapid increase in methane recently was not a warning signal of the methane bomb detonating but rather an effect of reduced levels of the atmosphere's methane oxidizing compounds allowing buildup from a non-increasing emission rate. That was kind of a relief, in some circles. Maybe seeing them, you would suddenly realize that AGW reality could not be assessed via media analysis using propaganda assumptions.

Fine. I have never claimed that one can assess AGW reality via media analysis. All one can do via media analysis is a single point: One can identify political pressure on science. If science is strong enough to resist this pressure is an open question, and this can differ in different domains, and one would have to study everything in detail to find this out. What I have seen in another science under political pressure is some sufficiently strong resistance, some distortions remain unquestioned, but others have been removed. The media continue to lie, but without much scientific support. So, I do not even suggest that the obvious media distortions can tell us anything about the scientific evidence.

If so, we would have a case of an absurd denier being cured. That would be very interesting - I've never seen it happen outside of religious transitions in late adolescence.

Given that there is no denier at all, you have no hope for seeing a denier being cured.

I have changed my political positions several times, because I have seen better arguments on the other side. The first time was the switch from communism to social democracy, already having a family with children. Then, later, switch to anarchism, and free market. Then from anti-Putin to pro-Putin, recognizing the importance of the switch from the unipolar to multipolar world order he is fighting for, even if this requires strengthening the Russian state. So, switching sides if the other side has better arguments has never been a problem for me at all.

 

[iceaura]

The point being? Do you want to claim I have denied anything about this? -

Yep.

We have not even discussed all this, except a little bit bad organism ecology, where my only point was that somehow good organism ecology is out of sight.

Everything mentioned there was something you have repeatedly addressed with delusion and denial, not just initial but again after I had objected to your initial error. You specifically claimed that good organism ecology would ("obviously" you said) present examples of good organism spread frequently and significantly enough to be an observable media presence, for example, so that the absence of such findings you claimed to have observed in the media had meaning. You specifically claimed and repeatedly defended the notion that any worry about regions becoming too hot for agriculture was bogus, because everywhere you could think of (tropical rain forests) the hottest regions were good for growing plants as long as they had water. And so forth.

You have to prove accusations of some denial, not to provide search clues.

No, I don't - not on this thread, and (since it's boring and you refuse to think) not anywhere.

Plus, already done - you keep repeating the denial, posting it here, etc. The search clues are not to prove your denial, but to provide ways for you to break out of it if you care.

Meanwhile, in actual relevance to this thread, you have provided one of the more valuable instruction sets in how such denials work, mentally. Look at this:

Fine. I have never claimed that one can assess AGW reality via media analysis.

Dude: that's what you do. Right here, in front of everybody. You don't just "claim" you can do it - you set out to accomplish the act, defending the various steps and errors involved along the way, on this forum.

All one can do via media analysis is a single point: One can identify political pressure on science.

You can't. Not in a scientific field or political milieu in which you are ignorant. You're missing the reality check - you lack information.

You have misidentified the political pressure on climate science in the US, for example. Completely. You got it backwards - opposite. You also got the economic pressure wrong, along the way. And all this in agreement with a standard, familiar US propaganda campaign currently in full swing in the US. You post stuff indistinguishable from the flat out lies in the Republican, Koch-financed, rightwing media feed think tank, Party line in the US.

And then you in fact, right here, assess AGW on the basis of that assignment of political pressure. You discount the research findings and reports of physical reality (denying AGW) on the basis of that assignment of political pressure, which you said you had derived from the media.
(You did the same with GMOs, in exactly the same direction, btw. Also, less directly, with the racial history and politics in the US, and still farther into implication world your assessment of Trump's ideology and campaign. A pattern has emerged.)

So that's your contribution here, so far.

 

[Schmelzer]

You specifically claimed that good organism ecology would ("obviously" you said) present examples of good organism spread frequently and significantly enough to be an observable media presence, for example, so that the absence of such findings you claimed to have observed in the media had meaning. You specifically claimed and repeatedly defended the notion that any worry about regions becoming too hot for agriculture was bogus, because everywhere you could think of (tropical rain forests) the hottest regions were good for growing plants as long as they had water. And so forth.

Ok, I'm interested to see peer-reviewed articles which clarify that 1.) good organisms will not spread significantly. 2.) describe examples of regions too hot for agriculture, despite a sufficient amount of rain.

No, I don't - not on this thread, and (since it's boring and you refuse to think) not anywhere. Plus, already done - you keep repeating the denial, posting it here, etc.

You have never provided them, and will never do it. If already done, link please. To the place where you have linked to peer-reviewed papers, instead of own fantasies.

Dude: that's what you do. Right here, in front of everybody. You don't just "claim" you can do it - you set out to accomplish the act, defending the various steps and errors involved along the way, on this forum.

Learn to read and interpret texts written by other people, instead of distorting them.

You can't. Not in a scientific field or political milieu in which you are ignorant. You're missing the reality check - you lack information.

Media bias is easy to observe even without knowledge of reality. Look for emotional language and so on. And, moreover, I have some common sense as reality check, and for some of the media distortions this common sense check is sufficient. The example is that positive results of climate change are missed.

You have misidentified the political pressure on climate science in the US, for example. Completely. You got it backwards - opposite.

Given your support for the 63% pro Trump study in the other thread, I do not take your evaluation of media bias seriously anymore.

And then you in fact, right here, assess AGW on the basis of that assignment of political pressure. You discount the research findings and reports of physical reality (denying AGW) on the basis of that assignment of political pressure, which you said you had derived from the media.

Which peer-reviewed paper I have "discounted"?

(You did the same with GMOs, in exactly the same direction, btw..

Another lie. Prove this claim with a link where I did such a thing. The only pattern which emerges is that you lie, without any hesitation and without any base in reality.

 

[iceaura]

Which peer-reviewed paper I have "discounted"?

All of them, collectively.

Ok, I'm interested to see peer-reviewed articles which clarify that 1.) good organisms will not spread significantly. 2.) describe examples of regions too hot for agriculture, despite a sufficient amount of rain.

Again I have to deal with your ignorance? 1) See any entry level ecology or biology textbook. This is basic biology, not a matter of recent peer-reeviewed research - animals and plants useful and beneficial to humans tend to have large seeds, costly investments in various chemicals or structures that require particular environmental circumstances (such as established fungi), and other barriers to rapid deployment or expansion into higher latitudes/altitudes. Weeds and pests spread, are adapted to colonizing quickly (that's how they got to be weeds and pests); beneficial plants don't and aren't. Biology 101, introduction to ecology.
There is also the simple fact that land area itself decreases with altitude - mountains get smaller toward the top - and latitude, as poor drainage and short soil buildup histories reduce usable land.
2) I have several times now described, and named, areas of immediate concern where heat+humidity waves non-linearly amplified under AGW have too large a chance (non-negligible) of very soon exceeding the lethal limit for humans and their domestic animals and severely damaging their domestic plants. These include large areas in southern and lowlying Pakistan, the Yangtze River valley, and a couple of others, where heatwaves already create serious hardships.

This is repetition.

Given your support for the 63% pro Trump study in the other thread, I do not take your evaluation of media bias seriously anymore.

You never did. Your fantasy world is impervious to conflicting information - it's pre-rationalized, according to the manner inculcated by US marketing pros and their manipulations of the gullible and ignorant.
Notice: I did not evaluate "media bias". I pointed to media support for Trump. Mostly TV. Completely incontrovertible, btw; not a controversial matter at all, but rather an obvious fact admitted even by the CEO of CNN - who bragged about the ratings boost he enjoyed thereby.
And that silly little charade you called a "check" - one day's poorly evaluated NYT printing, with even the Clinton stuff omitted - is impossible to take as honest. You had to know better - you're not the brightest bulb on the tree, but c'mon.

Media bias is easy to observe even without knowledge of reality.

The stupidest thing you've said so far. You're the guy posting the Hillaryhate videos, remember? You sure didn't "observe" them very well.

And, moreover, I have some common sense as reality check, and for some of the media distortions this common sense check is sufficient.

Your common sense doesn't work, when you don't know what you are looking at. That's how you got the political pressure on US climate research so very wrong.

The example is that positive results of climate change are missed.

By whom? Not by the AGW researchers, not by the IPCC, not by the science. Not even by the media I read.

My local paper this week published - as it does routinely - some "positive" climate change news, in that the extra rainfall observed (as predicted by AGW) in the eastern and northern Plains of North America, along with the temperature boost, had led to 80 mile extensions of the ranges of some eastern hardwood tree species into prairie and boreal forest areas. Now the scientists are shaking their heads, pointing out that this isn't necessarily "positive" news - for every range expansion of this kind, there is a range contraction of something else, and the turmoil of such rapid changeover is hazardous in itself - but it was treated as positive news by the media.

(You did the same with GMOs, in exactly the same direction, btw..
Another lie. Prove this claim with a link where I did such a thing.

So you have now in this thread, within a few posts, denied posting as you did on hot temperatures and agriculture , denied posting as you did on GMOs, and so forth. And for my memory, I get called a liar.

Learn to read and interpret texts written by other people, instead of distorting them

You're getting an accurate description from me. That's not a distortion - that's what you have been posting.

 

[Michael]

And severe white racism, hundreds of years of it, continuing now.

Actually, relatively speaking, white people were and are some of the least racist people in existence. While Chinese would perhaps thinking differently, when I compare the two high-IQ populations (E. Asians and Europeans), I think an objective argument could be made the European cultures, were by far the better of the two. Though, that won't be the case in the coming future.

We had better swords too

Oh, don't let people fool you with tales of katana- yes, the Japanese made a very very very good swords with the metals they had access to, these metals weren't of the quality of those found in Europe. Had the Japanese been given access to high-quality metallurgical technology found in Europe, maybe they wouldn't have come up with their ingenious folding method. It's interesting the different paths high-IQ people will take to achieve similar outcomes.

Anyway, as for 'severe' white racism, no, that's not true. White people were not really all that racist by the standards of the day, and hundreds of thousands fought and died to end Slavery (which was only practiced less than a single life-time in the USA). A tiny fraction of Slaves sold in the America's went to the USA (less than half a million, including large numbers of white slaves; the word Slave is derived from Slavonic - a *GASP* white people). At this time over a million white Europeans were sold to Africans. Not to mention, black Americans owned other black American slaves, and whites owned whites.

White Christians men did what no other people did - they fought, bought, and died freeing black people. It's really a high-mark in European history.

The irony of all this is you're a racist, you buy into to the b.s. that is Critical Race Theory and you have aligned your thinking to meet the norms of today. By analogy, you'd have supported slavery as an institution 250 years ago. Which makes sense, given you support Central Banks, and they are engaged in a form of Slavery through generational bond-sales. You know, it's okay to engage in the initiation of violence against morally innocent humans if it's "for the Good of Society", which is what people who supported Slavery claimed was the case back then.


That aside here's the Science: Thirst Years of Research on Race Difference In Cognitive Ability (2005):

an original analysis of 11,878 youths (including 3,022 Blacks) from the 12-year National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. It found that most 17-year-olds with high scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, regardless of ethnic background, went on to occupational success by their late 20s and early 30s, whereas those with low scores were more inclined to welfare dependency. The study also found that the average IQ for African Americans was lower than those for Latino, White, Asian, and Jewish Americans (85, 89, 103, 106, and 113, respectively; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994, pp. 273–278).

Currently, the 1.1 standard deviation difference in average IQ between Blacks and Whites in the United States is not in itself a matter of empirical dispute. A meta-analytic review by Roth, Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001) showed it also holds for college and university application tests such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT; N 2.4 million) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE; N 2.3 million), as well as for tests for job applicants in corporate settings (N 0.5 million) and in the military (N 0.4 million). Because test scores are the best predictor of economic success in Western society (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), these group differences.
​

Nature Publishing Group
Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings
Molecular Psychiatry (2015) 20, 98–108

(i) The heritability of intelligence increases from about 20% in infancy to perhaps 80% in later adulthood.
(ii) Intelligence captures genetic effects on diverse cognitive and learning abilities, which correlate phenotypically about 0.30 on average but correlate genetically about 0.60 or higher.
(iii) Assortative mating is greater for intelligence (spouse correlations ~0.40) than for other behavioural traits such as personality and psychopathology (~0.10) or physical traits such as height and weight (~0.20). Assortative mating pumps additive genetic variance into the population every generation, contributing to the high narrow heritability (additive genetic variance) of intelligence.
(iv) Unlike psychiatric disorders, intelligence is normally distributed with a positive end of exceptional performance that is a model for ‘positive genetics’.
(v) Intelligence is associated with education and social class and broadens the causal perspectives on how these three inter-correlated variables contribute to social mobility, and health, illness and mortality differences.​

Point (i) explains the results from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study where black children adopted and raised in white homes had IQ that was similar to white children, and that later in life as adults, reached an IQ level of around 85.

Your Science Denialism aside, it's clear that different groups of people have different IQs, and that there is no good evidence that magically 'white racism' or past racist 'Jim Crow' laws affects IQ - and for adult IQ, it's not even significantly affected by a lifetime of parenting.


Of course, currently "The Narrative" is to blame white people for all evils in the world, particularly white men (See: Critical Race Theory). It's a great shit-show for the low-IQ functionally illiterate public and even Science suggests some members of a Guilt Society greatly enjoy virtue signaling (cucked-beta-males and butt fugly females) while their society goes down the sh*tter.



In Summary: No, 'white racism' is not significantly affecting the IQ of black people. Once IQ is controlled for (see above Scientific Evidence and re-read it if you're still confused), we find that BOTH white and black (and yellow and white Jewish, and red, and brown) low-IQ people end up in the lowest socioeconomic stratum. While this is partly to do with their low-IQ (which is mostly genetic), it is greatly exacerbated by government-school-to-rent-seeker-pipe-line that Progressive Socialists have conned and foisted onto a functionally illiterate voting American public as being necessary because: free-sh*t.

Oh, and because one time, once, 110 years go, someone in New York sold some low-IQ imbecilic some off meat with food coloring and said it was a hotdog, so I heard, once maybe.

LOL

 

[Michael]

All of them, collectively.

LOL

 

[Michael]

Here's your typical Progressive Socialist in the USA, fighting to end the first amendment.

Thank Pepe the /pol/ are on our side

 

[iceaura]

Actually, relatively speaking, white people were and are some of the least racist people in existence.

That's nice. Give yourself a hug. Meanwhile, Jim Crow denial is absurd regardless of how the racism of the people who invented the white race and imposed it on a continent of black slaves ranks on a world scale.

While Chinese would perhaps thinking differently, when I compare the two high-IQ populations (E. Asians and Europeans), I think an objective argument could be made the European cultures, were by far the better of the two

They had a much lower IQ, the Europeans did - if current patterns held. But IQ and good culture or good government are not correlated at all, apparently.

That aside here's the Science: Thirst Years of Research on Race Difference In Cognitive Ability (2005):

Your sources still use the 85 score for US black IQ, I notice, without breakdown by region. So they're decades out of date.

Black US citizens are running between 88 and 98 these days, depending on State, with the higher scores in the least racist States with lots of black people, and the lower scores in the most racist States. I posted you a link, above, with 2006 numbers - they've increased since then. Note that the swing from most racist Confederate State to least racist Union State is more than ten points by now - larger than the white/black difference, even after discounting for the African black immigrants (who are breaking the curve). So are we still talking genetics, and if so what kind - adjustment to cold weather genetics, adventure and new things genetics?

And all of this is irrelevant - unless you are trying to deny Jim Crow, and using some bogus IQ chaff to hide the absurdity of your denial.

 

[Syne]

And that's exactly what happened to PewDiePie on YouTube (and red-pilled him). The fact is, Socialists require State Authoritarianism to survive economically. Whereas Individualists don't. I know quite a few people who would happily define their position as 'Left' - very very few have opened businesses of their own, and even fewer donate to charity. Primarily they have a warped sense of what is fair, and an even weirder notion of society / The Collective / The Borg.

This study: Correlation not causation: the relationship between personality traits and political ideologies.
Am J Pol Sci. 2012;56(1):34-51.

According to their data, Liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism.

The Authors corrected their study and write:

The interpretation of the coding of the political attitude items in the descriptive and preliminary analyses portion of the manuscript was exactly reversed. Thus, where we indicated that higher scores in Table 1 (page 40) reflect a more conservative response, they actually reflect a more liberal response. Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck’s psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative.
​

They also suggest that the differences are genetic:

....the correlation between the two is a function of an innate common underlying genetic factor.​

It seems reasonable to conclude there is something genetically (wrong?) with Progressive Socialists. Of course, in their world, they think they're 'normal'. In the real world, objective measurements strongly correlate their political beliefs with psychoticism. Of course, this makes good sense to those of us on the outside looking in, they're Statist Authoritarians. And they would and do happily use the State to murder morally innocent humans trapped within their geopolitical grasp (for the good of society of course). I mean, can you imagine shooting a dairy farmer selling raw milk? Or this idea that preparing food for children (okay), selling THAT SAME FOOD to an adult (without a magically State license), or GASP butter! .... well, then you're fair game for a Progressive good-for-society bullet to the head.

Just stop and think about the fundamental underlying assumption Socialists (like Bernie Sanders) make: The initiation of violence against morally innocent Citizens is 'good' for society. Sure, they're come up with every which way to Sunday to post-hoc justify this axiom. Everything from "The Russians" to "The Jews" to "The Right" to "The White"... and etc... It's probably encoded in their DNA itself.

That's fascinating.

It's why democracy requires LIMITED government - very very very very limited government. Limited to the most basic role in society, preferably limited right out of existence.

I would doubt that progressivism, itself, has a genetic cause, since only about half of our political ideology can be explained by twin study research. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ests-our-political-beliefs-may-be-hard-wired/
Progressivism seems to be a problem of maturity, especially considering that people generally become more conservative with age. Socialists want a perpetual nanny-state, even at the cost of their own freedoms. This is why criminals are largely liberal. Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats Both groups are irresponsible and seek others to blame for their lot in life...preferring an easy and ubiquitous target for blame such as "society" or "government" or "majority" (like "white"). After all, if they cede all their power, they cannot be blamed.

If you're not familiar with it, I'd suggest you look into r/K selection theory, as it pertains to politics: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory/rk-selection-theory/
It explains a lot about the distribution of wealth mentality, personal irresponsibility, and even the tolerance for violence against individuals...even if that happens to be themselves.

But regardless of how we come by our conclusions, they largely agree.

 

[iceaura]

This is why criminals are largely liberal.

Criminals are largely conservative. You are once again confusing "Democrat" with "Liberal" - a bizarre error to be made by the same people confusing "Democrat" with "overt racist".

Given the Republican-backed racial bias of criminal justice in the US, and the flat refusal of black and brown people to vote Republican (partly in consequence), you are also by proxy confusing black (and brown) racial identity with liberalism - which a couple of you guys have done directly, and even defended (!), as part of the Jim Crow denial.

Progressivism seems to be a problem of maturity, especially considering that people generally become more conservative with age.

Another delusion the wingnuts use to comfort themselves in the face of public hostility to their actual agenda, and the consequent necessity of lying all the time to make political progress.

But it is useful in generating chaff for absurd denial screening.

 

[Syne]

Criminals are largely conservative. You are once again confusing "Democrat" with "Liberal" - a bizarre error to be made by the same people confusing "Democrat" with "overt racist".

Given the Republican-backed racial bias of criminal justice in the US, and the flat refusal of black and brown people to vote Republican (partly in consequence), you are also by proxy confusing black (and brown) racial identity with liberalism - which a couple of you guys have done directly, and even defended (!), as part of the Jim Crow denial.

Nope. You're just a racist, conflating "criminal" with "black and brown". Go look. I didn't mention race at all.

Another delusion the wingnuts use to comfort themselves in the face of public hostility to their actual agenda, and the consequent necessity of lying all the time to make political progress.

But it is useful in generating chaff for absurd denial screening.

Yawn. More ad hominem in lieu of argument.

 

[iceaura]

Nope. You're just a racist, conflating "criminal" with "black and brown". Go look. I didn't mention race at all.

That's what I said - you "forgot" to mention race. Meanwhile, it's not me conflating criminality with race - it's the US courts and police. It's not me confusing "Democrat" with "liberal" - it's you. And so it's not me making the profoundly ludicrous assertion that criminals tend to be liberals, in the US - as if drug gangs were run more like hippie communes or college faculty administrations than like car dealerships or military outfits.

And of course, in thread relevance, you were boxed into posting bizarre stuff like that by denying Jim Crow - if you had acknowledged the workings of white racism and its effects on black people in the US, you would never have posted that registering as Democrats indicated that jailed criminals were liberal.

Absurd denial damages the mind.

Yawn. More ad hominem in lieu of argument.

More "informal" usage?
Because "ad hominem" is argument - not "in lieu of" - and it's your argument that was ad hominem, in that exchange. Obviously. Look for yourself - how exactly would immaturity make progressives wrong, in the first place, if your meritless assertion had actually meant anything?

 

[Syne]

That's what I said - you "forgot" to mention race. Meanwhile, it's not me conflating criminality with race - it's the US courts and police. It's not me confusing "Democrat" with "liberal" - it's you. And so it's not me making the profoundly ludicrous assertion that criminals tend to be liberals, in the US - as if drug gangs were run more like hippie communes or college faculty administrations than like car dealerships or military outfits.

Nope, I didn't "forget" anything. You're simply projective your own racism...excoriating others for subconscious beliefs you hate in yourself. Seriously, find a mirror.
Again, you need to catch up with the current decade...instead of whatever decade in which you came of age. Modern liberals condone the views, if not the tactics, of the likes of Antifa, BLM, etc..

Conservatives are much less likely (27%) to have tried marijuana than are liberals (46%) or moderates (36%).
- http://www.gallup.com/poll/6394/who-smoked-pot-may-surprised.aspx​

Aside from sources I've already cited:

Our results show that self-identified political ideology is mono-tonically related to criminal conduct cross-sectionally and prospectively and that liberals self-report more criminal conduct than do conservatives
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309845639_Political_ideology_predicts_involvement_in_crime

There was an interesting phenomenon that presented itself in the Democratic primary process last year. In state after state, Democratic voters told exit pollsters that they were more liberal than they reported being in 2008. In Iowa, for example, the number of caucus-goers who described themselves as very liberal increased 10 points over 2008.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-getting-more-liberal/?utm_term=.a36257060e12​

And of course, in thread relevance, you were boxed into posting bizarre stuff like that by denying Jim Crow - if you had acknowledged the workings of white racism and its effects on black people in the US, you would never have posted that registering as Democrats indicated that jailed criminals were liberal.

Show me where I denied Jim Crow, liar.

More "informal" usage?
Because "ad hominem" is argument - not "in lieu of" - and it's your argument that was ad hominem, in that exchange. Obviously.

A fallacious argument is not a real argument. Ad hominems offer nothing to rebut, contrary to real arguments. You're very literal-minded, huh?

Look for yourself - how exactly would immaturity make progressives wrong, in the first place, if your meritless assertion had actually meant anything?

Non-sequitur much?
If you don't understand the liabilities in immaturity, I'm sure I won't be able to make you understand.