Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

Simples. False comparison, conflating causes and effects of two disparate time periods

The modern effects of past racism, one of which is the continued existence of present racism, extend throughout American history and through the present.

"Holocaust denial" must be your latest incantation to ward of the boogeyman

It's the OP. I'm posting on topic. Try it.

Democrat-governed, Democrat-governed, Democrat-governed, Democrat-governed...
I guess you think that adheres to all whites, regardless of disagreement with the policies that perpetrate such things.

You left out the Republicans, who have as a Party taken over the role of chief racism advocates and enforcers since 1968.

I guess you think that adheres to all whites, regardless of disagreement with the policies that perpetrate such things.

I don't. Try asking, instead of guessing.

Claiming all members of a race are guilty (morally inferior) solely by dent of their race, and regardless of individual actions, is racism.

I make no such claims. Try responding to my posts as written.

Poverty was actually on the decline prior to the New Deal, - -

Getting your facts from Michael's sources, I see. The New Deal happened, the Great Depression did not, apparently. (Your graph is of unemployment, btw, not poverty, if you care)

Do try to stay on topic, eh? You are trying to justify your denial of the effects of white racism on black people in the US.

 

[iceaura]

Claiming all members of a race are guilty (morally inferior) solely by dent of their race, and regardless of individual actions, is racism.

Sorry, I overlooked what you were trying to say there. Clearly you mean to suggest that the reason many people deny white racism and its effects on black people is that they fear being blamed for the racism and its effects, they fear being declared personally guilty of these manifest evils, so they declare them invisible and nonexistent.

That makes sense.

 

[Syne]

The modern effects of past racism, one of which is the continued existence of present racism, extend throughout American history and through the present.

You keep making vague assertions you never manage to support with facts...or even just specific assertions.

You left out the Republicans, who have as a Party taken over the role of chief racism advocates and enforcers since 1968.

Yawn. More unspecified accusations.

Getting your facts from Michael's sources, I see. The New Deal happened, the Great Depression did not, apparently. (Your graph is of unemployment, btw, not poverty, if you care)

You're absolutely right! Here's the graph I meant to post:

And it was notorious racist LBJ's Great Society, not the New Deal. Poverty was already at the end of a steep decline which welfare programs cannot be credited for and have not even maintained.

Sorry, I overlooked what you were trying to say there. Clearly you mean to suggest that the reason many people deny white racism and its effects on black people is that they fear being blamed for the racism and its effects, they fear being declared personally guilty of these manifest evils, so they declare them invisible and nonexistent.

That makes sense.

Clearly your making a straw man of anything your don't happen to like.
Demanding that people are guilty (morally inferior) based solely on race is YOU being a racist.

 

[Michael]

Sorry, I overlooked what you were trying to say there. Clearly you mean to suggest that the reason many people deny white racism and its effects on black people is that they fear being blamed for the racism and its effects,

1. Do you have controlled data showing there are significant effects of 'White Racism' on Black People (or Yellow People)? For example, how do you know it isn't Black Racism or Yellow Racism, towards White People, that is responsible for the effects you claim exist 'on Black People' (and presumably Yellow People)? Do you have any controlled data? You continue to claim people are denying this supposed fact, without presenting any controlled data in support of your claim.

Essentially, you're the reason why Science was invented. Prior to Science, people believed babble.

As we say, extraordinary claims (yours) require extraordinary evidence. Given the prevalence of 'THE' Narrative, and the billions and billions and billions of dollars at stake, one would think there'd be at least one good controlled study. But there isn't. Just smoke and mirrors. You don't find that somewhat odd? Reminds me of the WMD in Iraq.

That aside, given the largest group of those living in poverty, are in fact White People, while Yellow People have the highest socioeconomic status. The evidence strongly suggests, that in actually, it's IQ that determines a persons economic opportunities in a liberal (relative) industrial or post-industrial economy. Further, the data strongly indicates that IQ is mostly genetic.

2. It's time to move past Race Theory (which has proven to be a total failure) and to utilize actual Science to make some progress towards creating prosperity for everyone, low and high IQ, regardless of color category.

 

[iceaura]

And it was notorious racist LBJ's Great Society, not the New Deal. Poverty was already at the end of a steep decline which welfare programs cannot be credited for and have not even maintained.

Do you have a point? The topic is your denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

Demanding that people are guilty (morally inferior) based solely on race is YOU being a racist.

If I were doing anything like that, sure. Since I'm not, what are you talking about? Why are you obsessed with who's morally inferior to whom?

As we say, extraordinary claims (yours) require extraordinary evidence

So we are agreed that you are in fact denying the significant effects of white racism on black people in the US, and that denial is fundamental to your worldview and description of US history.

If you are wrong about that, if the American disaster of plantation slavery and its concomitant racism has had significant effects on American society which afflict us to this day, your entire worldview is garbage and needs to be discarded - agreed?

 

[iceaura]

The evidence strongly suggests, that in actually, it's IQ that determines a persons economic opportunities in a liberal (relative) industrial or post-industrial economy. Further, the data strongly indicates that IQ is mostly genetic.

You are still confused about the "evidence" you linked - once again: you can't use familial heritability to compare different populations (notice that your links specified that, warning you against making the argument you are trying to make, finding multiple problems with it including the fact that even the heritability itself of IQ varies considerably by population).

 

[Michael]

You are still confused about the "evidence" you linked - once again: you can't use familial heritability to compare different populations ...

LOL
Yes, each individual person has an IQ (that appears to be mostly genetic) and.... (wait for it).... populations are made up of individuals.
See if you can make the connection.

You argued earlier that the IQ differences where due to 'White Racism'. You remember: White lead pollution, White noise pollution, White mean words, and the history of Slavery (which was ended almost TWO CENTURIES ago, ended in LESS than a single lifetime in the USA, by WHITE People). Well, according to your 'Race Theory" one of the "consequences" of White Racism is that most American Black People are richer, healthier, and live longer lives than African Black People.

According to you, this is due to White People.
Agreed?

As for the problems facing low IQ people (of any color) - these are the problems of Progressive Socialism (which is Racist by it's very nature, and has always been so). Fundamentally, the problem is a problem of violence against morally innocent people, aka: Goverment. Socialism takes many forms, Rent-Seeking, Regulatory Capture, Income Tax, Central Banking, etc...

 

[iceaura]

Yes, each individual person has an IQ (that appears to be mostly genetic) and.... (wait for it).... populations are made up of individuals.
See if you can make the connection.

You are confused. Your reasoning is invalid. You refuse to learn the basics, or even read your own sources in the matter (the example of height is right in front of you) and so you post error and foolishness in defense of incompetent governance.

You argued earlier that the IQ differences where due to 'White Racism'

Some of the gap between black and white median IQ score in the US is from the effects of white racism, of course. A few of the mechanisms: stereotype threat during testing; lead and other toxin exposure during gestation and childhood; premature birth and deficient linguistic development and other maternally mediated factors, diet and stress and trauma and schooling deficits during childhood; and so forth. All this is obvious, and your denial of it is flagrant.

The only remaining question - should you ever emerge from your denial - is the size of the effects on the average IQ of the afflicted populations. You need to control for it, before extrapolating from familial heritability of IQ to genetically established average population IQ scores, and you can't control for it while denying it.

Well, according to your 'Race Theory" one of the "consequences" of White Racism is that most American Black People are richer, healthier, and live longer lives than African Black People.

Nothing like that accords with any theory of mine.

According to you, this is due to White People.
Agreed?

That African black people often lead short lives of great poverty and poor health, is due to White People? Seems arguable - we know that they were wealthier and militarily stronger before the Enslavements and European colonizations, it's at least possible they were longer lived and healthier as well. But other factors argue otherwise - the greater prevalence of disease, the absence of draft animal and then machine powered tillage, the poorer soil and more difficult circumstances (including comparatively barren coastal waters), the long established patterns of warfare, etc. All the factors enumerated in "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

 

[Syne]

Do you have a point? The topic is your denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

Where did I deny that white racism had and has an impact on black in the US? I simply pointed out that the source of the racism has always been the Democrats, the point being that Democrat policies, like welfare, are what keep US blacks a permanent underclass.

 

[iceaura]

Where did I deny that white racism had and has an impact on black in the US?

In your posting above, where you tried to lay it off on Democrats (these days the Party with the lowest proportion of white racists in it).

I simply pointed out that the source of the racism has always been the Democrats,

Not since 1968, if ever. Fifty years ago.

the point being that Democrat policies, like welfare, are what keep US blacks a permanent underclass.

And Republican policies, like Drug Wars and redlining and predatory lending and vote suppression and gerrymandering.

White racist policies, from all Parties of white people.

The subject here, in this thread, is denial of the overwhelmingly significant and continuing impact of white racism on black people in the US. If you are not denying that, but are instead recognizing it in its obvious manifestations, then we are in agreement as far as the thread is concerned.

 

[Syne]

In your posting above, where you tried to lay it off on Democrats (these days the Party with the lowest proportion of white racists in it).

Not according to the outcomes of their policies.

Not since 1968, if ever. Fifty years ago.

You keep making vague inferences. Got any specific? No? Just boogeymen?

And Republican policies, like Drug Wars and redlining and predatory lending and vote suppression and gerrymandering.

White racist policies, from all Parties of white people.

The subject here, in this thread, is denial of the overwhelmingly significant and continuing impact of white racism on black people in the US. If you are not denying that, but are instead recognizing it in its obvious manifestations, then we are in agreement as far as the thread is concerned.

Predatory lending was started under Clinton, when they threatened banks for not lending to enough unqualified minorities. Congressional black caucus initially requested stricter drug laws, to help with crime in their districts. Where's your evidence for the vote suppression and gerrymandering? And what does gerrymandering (redistricting to help stay in power) have to do with racism?

I do agree that Democrats are pernicious racists, using blacks for votes while decimating their communities.

 

[iceaura]

Not according to the outcomes of their policies.

According to the outcomes of the dominant American governing policies since 1968 - the overtly racist Republican policies that have dominated American politics since 1980, for example, have had very bad effects on black people. These policies were put in place by Republican initiative

and ostensibly according to the interests of the large block of white racial bigots that joined the Republican Party starting in '68, who have been the core of the Party's voting base ever since.

Predatory lending was started under Clinton, when they threatened banks for not lending to enough unqualified minorities

Bullshit. It wasn't even the banks doing half of it, let alone a consequence of banks being threatened: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/29/angelos-ashes

Congressional black caucus initially requested stricter drug laws, to help with crime in their districts.

The Drug War started under Nixon, was ramped up by Reagan, and according to its authors targeted black people deliberately (not just by coincidence). It was and is racist Republican policy.

Where's your evidence for the vote suppression and gerrymandering?

Like we keep saying: denial. denial. denial. It's all you guys have.

And what does gerrymandering (redistricting to help stay in power) have to do with racism?

I take that back: you also have Teh Great Stupid.

But the topic is the denial - the Holocaust-level willfully oblivious Great Denial - of the effects of white racism on black people in the US.

 

[Syne]

According to the outcomes of the dominant American governing policies since 1968 - the overtly racist Republican policies that have dominated American politics since 1980, for example, have had very bad effects on black people. These policies were put in place by Republican initiative

Which specific policies? And did blacks fair any better under Obama, even with both houses of Congress? Nope.

and ostensibly according to the interests of the large block of white racial bigots that joined the Republican Party starting in '68, who have been the core of the Party's voting base ever since.

A long-running myth to support your boogeyman. The racists have always been the Democrats. Slavery, Jim Crow, welfare permanent underclass...all Democrat policies.

Bullshit. It wasn't even the banks doing half of it, let alone a consequence of banks being threatened: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/06/29/angelos-ashes

From that article:

"Countrywide was a mortgage bank...
In 1992, shortly after Mozilo became chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston issued a report stating that it had found systemic discrimination by mortgage lenders against African-American and Hispanic borrowers."​

Who do you think was President in '92, and do you deny that Countrywide was a mortgage bank?

The threat was codified in a 20-page "Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending" and entered into the Federal Register on April 15, 1994, by the Interagency Task Force on Fair Lending. Clinton set up the little-known body to coordinate an unprecedented crackdown on alleged bank redlining.

The edict — completely overlooked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the mainstream media — was signed by then-HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, Attorney General Janet Reno, Comptroller of the Currency Eugene Ludwig and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, along with the heads of six other financial regulatory agencies.

"The agencies will not tolerate lending discrimination in any form," the document warned financial institutions.

Ludwig at the time stated the ruling would be used by the agencies as a fair-lending enforcement "tool," and would apply to "all lenders" — including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies.

The unusual full-court press was predicated on a Boston Fed study showing mortgage lenders rejecting blacks and Hispanics in greater proportion than whites. The author of the 1992 study, hired by the Clinton White House, claimed it was racial "discrimination." But it was simply good underwriting.

It took private analysts, as well as at least one FDIC economist, little time to determine the Boston Fed study was terminally flawed. In addition to finding embarrassing mistakes in the data, they concluded that more relevant measures of a borrower's credit history — such as past delinquencies and whether the borrower met lenders' credit standards — explained the gap in lending between whites and blacks, who on average had poorer credit and higher defaults.
- http://commonsensewonder.blogspot.com/2011/10/remember-janet-reno-threatening-banks.html​

Notice the role the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston plays in both? No? Ah well, more denial.

The Drug War started under Nixon, was ramped up by Reagan, and according to its authors targeted black people deliberately (not just by coincidence). It was and is racist Republican policy.

Many of the toughest crime laws were crafted based on ideas and political mobilization that came from the black community itself.

This timeline illustrates the surprising story of how many prominent black Americans — including writers, poets, civil rights activists, elected officials, clergy, and their close allies in the Democratic Party– frequently supported the drug war, despite growing misgivings and controversy.

Our research also found evidence of significant if sporadic opposition to the drug war within the conservative white community, which seemed to inform the larger discussion in interesting ways.
- http://prisontime.org/2013/08/12/timeline-black-support-for-the-war-on-drugs/​

This idea — that strict drug laws have done more harm than good in black America — is common these days. But early on, many African-American leaders championed those same tough-on-crime policies.

The Rev. George McMurray was lead pastor at the Mother A.M.E. Zion Church in Harlem in the 1970s, when the city faced a major heroin epidemic. He called for drug dealers to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

"When you send a few men to prison for life, someone's going to pass the word down, 'It's not too good over here.' ... Instead of [robbing] and selling dope, 'I want to go to school and live a good life.' "

Black support for the drug war didn't just grow in New York alone. At the federal level, members of the newly formed Congressional Black Caucus met with President Richard Nixon, urging him to ramp up the drug war as quickly as possible.
- http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswi.../the-shift-in-black-views-of-the-war-on-drugs
​

You were saying? Or are you going to show us even more denial?

But the topic is the denial - the Holocaust-level willfully oblivious Great Denial - of the effects of white racism on black people in the US.

No denial here. Democrat racism definitely hurts black people.

 

[iceaura]

Which specific policies? And did blacks fair any better under Obama, even with both houses of Congress? Nope.

I listed some of the policies above. The rest is noise and delusion (both Houses of Congress?)

"and ostensibly according to the interests of the large block of white racial bigots that joined the Republican Party starting in '68, who have been the core of the Party's voting base ever since."
A long-running myth to support your boogeyman.

It's a famous, thoroughly researched, measured, overtly admitted, physical fact, which you are denying. You call this plain fact of US political reality - the central and best documented political change of post-WWII America - a "myth"?

This is how your denial rises to the absurdity level of Holocaust: it's so flagrant and so flatly in conflict with the world of fact that it appears to be an insanity - a clinical level mental disorder.

Who do you think was President in '92, and do you deny that Countrywide was a mortgage bank?

You post evidence of racial redlining and racially based predatory lending practices by Countrywide during Reagan's and Bush's Presidencies, when Countrywide was operating as an ordinary bank. Ok - so?

This idea — that strict drug laws have done more harm than good in black America — is common these days. But early on, many African-American leaders championed those same tough-on-crime policies.
{and several others on the same point}

Why do you keep posting that misleading and misrepresented irrelevancy?

This is the case: The Drug War was a Republican initiative, Nixon and then Reagan, designed to beat up on - among other significant political opponents, including all those black "leaders" - black people, and appeal to the new and centrally significant Republican base among white racial bigots. The Republicans stole the white bigot vote from the Democrats in 1968, and kept it to this day, while suppressing the black vote - and that's partly how.

So we say "white racism" to describe the historical factor that is not to be denied, rather than confusing the issue by specifying only one Party - especially not one that doesn't specialize so tightly in representing only white people, and hasn't represented most white racism or pandered to the core bigot vote in fifty years.

Because if you don't include the Confederacy and its heirs, the main body of white racism in the US, the core voting base of the Republican Party for going on fifty years now, you are leaving out the major source of the effects of white racism on black people in the US.

That's denial.

 

[Michael]

You are confused. Your reasoning is invalid. You refuse to learn the basics, or even read your own sources in the matter (the example of height is right in front of you) and so you post error and foolishness in defense of incompetent governance.

The data shows that individual IQ's are 50 - 85% based on an individuals genetics. Further, different populations of humans, for example, E. Asian Chinese, have different IQ levels. E. Asians for example, score higher than "White People" on the spatial reasoning subsection of the IQ test.

I'm not sure what you find so hard to understand here? Is it the concept of adding up rows of individual IQ scores and dividing by the sample number? That's called an 'average' iceaura, it's probably listed in one of your fansy-pantsy Stats books. And get this, when you have a normal distribution of individual samples, you can compare means using a single factor ANOVA.

GASP!

Guess what you'll find? The average for E. Asian scores on IQ tests, are higher than White People.

Some of the gap between black and white median IQ score in the US is from the effects of white racism, of course.

Prove it.

A few of the mechanisms: stereotype threat during testing; lead and other toxin exposure during gestation and childhood; premature birth and deficient linguistic development and other maternally mediated factors, diet and stress and trauma and schooling deficits during childhood; and so forth. All this is obvious, and your denial of it is flagrant.

You've yet to provide any good controlled evidence. So, far, there is nothing to 'deny'.

Do you have ANY good data? Anything?

That African black people often lead short lives of great poverty and poor health, is due to White People? Seems arguable - we know that they were wealthier and militarily stronger before the Enslavements and European colonizations, it's at least possible they were longer lived and healthier as well. But other factors argue otherwise - the greater prevalence of disease, the absence of draft animal and then machine powered tillage, the poorer soil and more difficult circumstances (including comparatively barren coastal waters), the long established patterns of warfare, etc. All the factors enumerated in "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

No, it doesn't seem arguable. Let me guess? White Lizard People also stole Africa's topsoil?

Well, we all know you're not going to hold Europeans from the 1600s to the same standards as Europeans of 2017. So, when African tribes would sell other Africans as slaves they'd sell them to other Africans (and still do by the way); Arabs (up until the 1970s) and Europeans. Arabs and Africans had been buying African Slaves (and de-sexing them) for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Who do you suppose treated their human Slaves better? Other African tribes? Arab Muslims? Or European Christians? If you were being sold, which would you like to be owned by? Because Slavery was ended by White People. Oh, and historically speaking. African Slaves were often treated much better than White Indentured servants (who could be worked to death and were cheap, comparably).

And just for the record, the USA practiced slavery for LESS than a single lifetime. White Christians ended Slavery. A lot of White People killed a lot of other White People to end Slavery.

Well, for awhile. Then the Progressive Socialists came up with a new form of Slavery, income-tax backed fiat currency T-BONDS.

Which YOU wholeheartedly support!
LOL

Talk about irony. Wanting to own another person's labor is a sickeness. I wonder if it's genetic? I mean, it seems nearly impossible to get past. Just listen B.Sanders crap on about FREE healthcare and FREE K-14, of course, the cost is a few generations of Americans prosperity (which we're paying for right now, but whatever.... FREE shit!)


Anyway, you've yet to provide any evidence for your assertions. Whereas there's ample evidence showing White (Americans in particularly) are overwhelmingly not racist. What they do discriminate against is IQ. Which is why there's more poor Whites than Blacks. There's simply more lower IQ White People, than Black People. Which also explains why Yellow People make more than White People - on average, they have a higher IQ.

What YOU see as racism, is not in fact racism. What you're seeing are the effects of Progressive Socialism in the form of Government interfering in the markets via Government Schools and regulatory capture. If you compare the IQ of rent-seekers versus those locked out of the markets due to the licencing (as an example); then you will see a lot of high IQ people (with Yellow People on the top) making a lot of money as rent-seekers and over on the other side you will see a seething mass of low IQ people (mostly White People) not making much money. This is what YOU argue for all the time iceaura. More Progressive Socialism. Just how the hell do you think GiverMint Socialists figure out who gets to do what in your Progressive Paradise iceaura? Oh yes, that's right, when it's not Magic Thinking, then it's.... Assessments! The ACT, SAT, MCAT, LSAT, etc... Effectively locking out low IQ people. Who are left working in hyper-regulated low end jobs.

AND of course highly paid high IQ virtue signalling twats don't want to live in even a tiny bit of a polluted country - so they outsource all that nasty work to China and other SE Asian countries via EPA hyper-regulation. Sure, the Earth ends up with MORE pollution, but, whatever, I want my Apple Ipad..... Leaving no work for low IQ people.

Progressive Socialists / Marxists do love their Blank Slate bullsh*t. But it's just that, bullsh*t. And you know what happens to bullsh*t theories when the Scientific Method sinks its teeth into it? It gets torn to shreds. Which is why Socialists are now attempting to ban Science and free-speech. They know it's only a matter of time before the rest of their defunct theories are flushed down the toilet with their Race Theory "White People" did it b.s.

It's only a matter of time before IQ can be accurately and precisely measured directly using advanced MRI: Neural, electrophysiological and anatomical basis of brain-network variability and its characteristic changes in mental disorders.

Soon, together with genetic tests and other measurements, we will see quite clearly that it is in face NOT 'because White', but actually 'because genes'.

 

[Syne]

I listed some of the policies above. The rest is noise and delusion (both Houses of Congress?)

Yes, both houses of Congress (when Obamacare was passed). Look it up, oh so ill-informed one.

It's a famous, thoroughly researched, measured, overtly admitted, physical fact, which you are denying. You call this plain fact of US political reality - the central and best documented political change of post-WWII America - a "myth"?

This is how your denial rises to the absurdity level of Holocaust: it's so flagrant and so flatly in conflict with the world of fact that it appears to be an insanity - a clinical level mental disorder.

The records that show only a handful of politicians ever switched sides, largely leaving the racists in the Democrat party for the life of their political careers, kept there by Democrat voters. Look it up. And the migration of the south to the Republican party was an existing trend far predating '68. Again, look it up.

You post evidence of racial redlining and racially based predatory lending practices by Countrywide during Reagan's and Bush's Presidencies, when Countrywide was operating as an ordinary bank. Ok - so?

LOL! Really? you think Reagan and Bush were president in '92 and '94?
What you call racial redlining was only loaning to qualified people, and it was the breakdown of the qualifications to appease the Clinton administration that led to predatory lending. You don't even seem to understand that predatory lending is reverse redlining.

Why do you keep posting that misleading and misrepresented irrelevancy?

This is the case: The Drug War was a Republican initiative, Nixon and then Reagan, designed to beat up on - among other significant political opponents, including all those black "leaders" - black people, and appeal to the new and centrally significant Republican base among white racial bigots. The Republicans stole the white bigot vote from the Democrats in 1968, and kept it to this day, while suppressing the black vote - and that's partly how.

So we say "white racism" to describe the historical factor that is not to be denied, rather than confusing the issue by specifying only one Party - especially not one that doesn't specialize so tightly in representing only white people, and hasn't represented most white racism or pandered to the core bigot vote in fifty years.

Because if you don't include the Confederacy and its heirs, the main body of white racism in the US, the core voting base of the Republican Party for going on fifty years now, you are leaving out the major source of the effects of white racism on black people in the US.

That's denial.

There's nothing misleading or irrelevant about the FACT that blacks asked for the war on drugs.

You're posts are full of bare assertions in lieu of facts or actual arguments. And you just ignore inconvenient facts and make broad accusations without any support at all.

 

[Randwolf]

There's nothing misleading or irrelevant about the FACT that blacks asked for the war on drugs.

There is nothing misleading about the fact that some black people voted for Trump. However, it would be very disingenuous to imply (and stupid to infer) that black people elected "President" Trump.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, both houses of Congress (when Obamacare was passed).

A seven month window of opportunity, and quite a bit accomplished - including Obamacare, which alone has meant many black people faring better.

The records that show only a handful of politicians ever switched sides, largely leaving the racists in the Democrat party for the life of their political careers, kept there by Democrat voters.

The Republican Party courted the white bigot vote starting in 1968, and consolidated it by 1980 when it won the Presidency for them. That pandering was so successful that the entire Confederacy - the region most dominated by white racism in the US - switched to voting consistently Republican in national elections. Racially bigoted white people been the core Republican voting base in national elections ever since.

LOL! Really? you think Reagan and Bush were president in '92 and '94?

Your quote from your link tells us of a report published in 1992, containing evidence of bad behavior in the years before 1992 - predatory lending and redlining - by Countrywide among others. That was when Countrywide was more or less acting as an ordinary bank - before the free-for-all that started in 2000 (in the wake not only of the deregulations of 1999, but the cutback in oversight and active refusal of enforcement under W&Cheney).

All this stuff isn't rocket science - it's just timeline, what happened and when. Why are you having so much trouble with it?

You don't even seem to understand that predatory lending is reverse redlining.

Redlining and predatory lending are are not the reverse of each other, and Countrywide among others did both at the same time in the same areas, especially afflicting black people, for many years before 1992. The entire banking industry in the US discriminated against black people from WWII until at least the Crash of '08.

There's nothing misleading or irrelevant about the FACT that blacks asked for the war on drugs.

Yeah, there is. Both misleading and irrelevant.

And - by the way, if you care - not true. What the people asked for whom you - being a racial bigot - refer to as "blacks" or "black leaders", was not the War on Drugs designed by Nixon's crew to disrupt the black community. It was not the Reagan administration's policies of supporting the cocaine Contras as they flooded the US "inner cities" with crack, while pushing ever more punitive drug laws with special penalties for crack and especially damaging enforcement regimes in black areas. Nobody asked for that.

And that is part of what you are denying, when you deny the effects of white racism on black people in the US.

 

[iceaura]

The data shows that individual IQ's are 50 - 85% based on an individuals genetics. Further, different populations of humans, for example, E. Asian Chinese, have different IQ levels. - - -
I'm not sure what you find so hard to understand here? Is it the concept of adding up rows of individual IQ scores and dividing by the sample number? That's called an 'average' iceaura, it's probably listed in one of your fansy-pantsy Stats books.

You're badly confused. Your reasoning is invalid. You've been provided here with examples (height), and correction, to no avail. Learn better, or keep proclaiming that same basic stupidity for the rest of your life, in public, in front of people who know better.

"Some of the gap between black and white median IQ score in the US is from the effects of white racism, of course."
Prove it.

I listed several factors known to significantly lower IQ scores, and known to be unevenly distributed by race in the US, and known to afflict black people in particular due to white racism in the US. That is overwhelming preponderance of evidence, which in such matters is "proof".

The only uncertainty is the size of the total influence of all these factors, combined, on the average IQ of black people in the US. As nobody to my knowledge has ever controlled for even one of those factors when measuring IQ over large diverse populations and areas of the US, that uncertainty remains. It would be your only hope of serious argument.

You've yet to provide any good controlled evidence. So, far, there is nothing to 'deny'.

You are denying that evidence - but I notice you are careful not to be specific. Let's see you write out what you are actually claiming - which is that lead exposure during childhood, stereotype threat when testing, maternal stress and income, and so forth, either don't influence IQ or don't exist as significant factors - none of them. You are claiming none of those known factors are having any significant influence on the IQ scores of black people in the US.

Whereas there's ample evidence showing White (Americans in particularly) are overwhelmingly not racist. What they do discriminate against is IQ.

That's been the claim of every racial bigot since frogs learned to hop.

That's what the poll-testers claimed, in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama, when my father was working with the voter registration wing of the civil rights movement. To his face. Not a one of them was racist, they were all just making sure the voters were mentally competent. http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/disenfranchise1.htm

 

[Syne]

There is nothing misleading about the fact that some black people voted for Trump. However, it would be very disingenuous to imply (and stupid to infer) that black people elected "President" Trump.

Did I dispute that it began under Nixon or had white backing? No. So you're using a straw man to justify dismissing actual facts. But even under Obama:

On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske—the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)—signaled that the Obama administration did not plan to significantly alter drug enforcement policy, but also that the administration would not use the term "War on Drugs", because Kerlikowske considers the term to be "counter-productive". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs​

A seven month window of opportunity, and quite a bit accomplished - including Obamacare, which alone has meant many black people faring better.

With deductibles they can't cover and no job growth to help.

The Republican Party courted the white bigot vote starting in 1968, and consolidated it by 1980 when it won the Presidency for them. That pandering was so successful that the entire Confederacy - the region most dominated by white racism in the US - switched to voting consistently Republican in national elections. Racially bigoted white people been the core Republican voting base in national elections ever since.

Again, that trend started long before '68, but you've already shown an aversion to inconvenient fact.

Your quote from your link tells us of a report published in 1992, containing evidence of bad behavior in the years before 1992 - predatory lending and redlining - by Countrywide among others. That was when Countrywide was more or less acting as an ordinary bank - before the free-for-all that started in 2000 (in the wake not only of the deregulations of 1999, but the cutback in oversight and active refusal of enforcement under W&Cheney).

All this stuff isn't rocket science - it's just timeline, what happened and when. Why are you having so much trouble with it?

Yes, because the "redlining" reported was just sensible lending qualifications. It was the action based on that report that led to predatory lending (reverse redlining). The "free-for-all" was once the Fed had signaled it would guarantee those bad loans, making an inherently high risk investment an artificially lower risk and incentivized one. Again, basic economics.

Redlining and predatory lending are are not the reverse of each other, and Countrywide among others did both at the same time in the same areas, especially afflicting black people, for many years before 1992. The entire banking industry in the US discriminated against black people from WWII until at least the Crash of '08.

Reverse redlining occurs when a lender or insurer targets nonwhite consumers, not to deny them loans or insurance, but rather to charge them more than could be charged to a comparable white consumer. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Predatory Lending: Redlining in Reverse​

You're credibility slips daily. Where's you evidence of "both at the same time in the same areas, especially afflicting black people". Just another bare assertion?

Yeah, there is. Both misleading and irrelevant.

And - by the way, if you care - not true. What the people asked for whom you - being a racial bigot - refer to as "blacks" or "black leaders", was not the War on Drugs designed by Nixon's crew to disrupt the black community. It was not the Reagan administration's policies of supporting the cocaine Contras as they flooded the US "inner cities" with crack, while pushing ever more punitive drug laws with special penalties for crack and especially damaging enforcement regimes in black areas. Nobody asked for that.

And that is part of what you are denying, when you deny the effects of white racism on black people in the US.

Where's the evidence for your claims?

Look, the only people who feel guilt are the guilty and those suffering a guilt complex. Which are you? If you're a Democrat, you definitely do have guilt for supporting racist policies that only destroy the black community.