The learned commentator “Pincher Martin” has been arguing on this blog that a white man marrying an East Asian woman is evidence that said man is not racist against black people. But this is not good argument because black people are descended from one of the oldest and warmest areas humans colonized and East Asians are descended from one of the newest and coldest areas humans colonized, so on many traits, East Asians and black people are opposites. So arguing that you’re not racist against black people because you married an East Asian is a bit like saying “I don’t hate short people; my wife’s seven feet tall!”.
We all know “Pincher Martin” is brilliant and several eminent people have privately emailed me to praise him, but on this issue, I think he might be wrong.
Racist is a quite general term. His words only prove some one who is not white supremacist in racist category.
My current girl friend is pretty nasty against dark skinned people incuding Africans and East Indians. But like those guys in you mentioned, she gives big break to Eas Asians. Her heritage is German jew who looks totally nordic (blonde/blue). But her personality is classic Jewish, quite disagreeable almost any thing. But in real life, she often treat those people quite nice. No body will know her racist view except close people.
She is into horror stories. Also very paranoid type.
Correct; because for many anti-black people, even white people are too similar to blacks; they need an East Asian.
At the genetic level, caucasoids are like a hybrid between blacks & East Asians. That’s because the East Asian-Caucasoid split occurred after the African-Caucasoid split in evolutionary history
That makes no sense.
Why would white racists believe they need any other race? They certainly didn’t believe that in the early- and mid-twentieth century.
I’m as close to absolutely certain as I can be about any social subject that you won’t find a single racist tract from the sixties saying that whites needed to intermarry with Asians because other whites were too similar to blacks.
Pincher,
There are 2 types of white racists: the redneck pro-white racists & the nerdy anti-black racists.
The former hate anyone who isn’t white & the latter love anyone who isn’t black, & the more unblack you are, the more the latter love you. East Asians are the most unblack.
I don’t think nerdy folk love Asians as much as they love compliant people who appreciate technical expertise. Blacks and other nutty wild people don’t fall into neat lines, and aren’t impressed by exceptional skills with SQL optimization.
Pumpkin,
You keep yanking Murray’s marriage out of its context. He married in 1966. That’s nearly fifty years ago. I don’t know what you were doing that year, but if I had to guess I would say you weren’t around to categorize the white racists of the time.
If you had been I assure you that love of Asians was not among their calling cards.
‘ He married in 1966. That’s nearly fifty years ago. I don’t know what you were doing that year, but if I had to guess I would say you weren’t around to categorize the white racists of the time.’
anti-miscegenation laws were around at that time and many if not most only applied only to blacks.
so “love” between whites and asians was allowed to culminate in marriage. to you that doesn’t mean much — probably because you do not know how to think or reason.
Swanky Pete writes:
Of course. Blacks were almost twenty times more numerous than Asian/Pacific Islanders in the 1960 census. Historically, that was actually low. There were over sixty times more blacks than Asians in the 1910 census, for example.
Blacks were also spread out across more states in the country. You were more likely to see a black person in just about any state in the union than you were likely to see an Asian, except for perhaps in the Western U.S. before the Chinese exclusion laws were passed in 1882.
So why Swanky Pete thinks it’s remarkable that most lawmakers never thought to make a law against white/Asian intermarriage when they were unlikely to ever see an Asian in their entire lives is some mystery he’ll have to explain.
‘So why Swanky Pete thinks it’s remarkable that most lawmakers never thought to make a law against white/Asian intermarriage when they were unlikely to ever see an Asian in their entire lives is some mystery he’ll have to explain.’
i already explained it. in states where the black population was almost nil, states still passed laws forbidding white-black unions.
for your argument to work, people in these states must be aware of national phenomena — (and because these laws were passed far before CM’s time, then they must be aware of national phenomena in times with less media mediums) — and sufficient discussion regarding national phenomena must take place to warrant political action.
if we accept this, then your main argument regarding why Newton/Iowa just “didn’t know” about the national phenomena of cross burning becomes defunct and horseshit. you cant have it both ways, dumb-dumb.
heuristics are funny like that. you probably dont understand the implications because you dont know how to argue. youd rather regurgitate a bunch of “facts” without thinking about funny little quirks like “analysis,” “dialectic,” and “reasoning.” no prob, i got it covered you silly goose.
Sisyphean
I think a lot of nerdy white guys are physically attracted to East Asian women. I assume the feeling is mutual because I see a lot of gorgeous rich East Asian women here who could get white jocks if they wanted to, but they’re with some tall scrawny four eyed caucasoid (white or Indian)
Swanky Pete,
Hello? Is there anyone home?
I just told you that there were far more blacks than Asians who were U.S. citizens at all times in American history, and that these black citizens were also far more widely distributed than Asian-Americans.
With those facts in mind, it made sense for nineteenth-century lawmakers in more states to pass anti-miscegenation laws focusing on black/white unions rather than on unions with a race other Americans were unlikely to ever come across in their lives. The one exception was the western United States, where anti-miscegenation laws directed at Asians were nearly universal. Why was that region an exception? Because that’s where a lot of Asians lived in the late nineteenth century, and subsequently there existed far more anti-Chinese sentiment there than back east and in the south.
What’s more, the possibility of black migration and the nationalization of civil rights after the Civil War made it inevitable that lawmakers would seek to pre-empt blacks from thinking their state might provide a freer social environment than already found in other states, even if few blacks currently lived there. From the 1880s until the 1960s, most Asians could be stopped at the border; blacks, however, had to be stopped at home.
Your explanation doesn’t account for any of this. You keep desperately telling everyone here that you know how to argue, and yet so obviously fail to meet the arguments I put before you.
*****
I give everyone this information merely to point out that a white American marrying a Thai Chinese in 1966 was highly unusual. No racist theory at the time can account for it. Hence it makes sense to believe Murray wasn’t actually a racist.
The nineteenth-century lawmakers at the time were aware of it. Count on it. There’s a reason why these kind of laws tended to sweep across the country at any particular time.
How does a town know anything? I said that a seventeen-year-old kid living in Newton, Iowa in 1960 was most likely blithely unaware of the racial implications of his prank as he was doing it. Murray was not being disingenuous by later pointing that out.
If someone had stopped the young Murray and his gang at the time and said, “Hey, this is what racists do who hate blacks,” the young kids would probably considered it for a moment, agreed, and then said, “But, hey, we’re just having fun by poking fun at the town squares who’ll be outraged at our little incident.”
‘I just told you that there were far more blacks than Asians who were U.S. citizens at all times in American history, and that these black citizens were also far more widely distributed than Asian-Americans.’
and i just told you that your use of this heuristic (general awareness of national trends) defeats your entire argument anyway. lol. i already explained why, contradicto.
‘The nineteenth-century lawmakers at the time were aware of it. Count on it. There’s a reason why these kind of laws tended to sweep across the country at any particular time.’
political action does not arise ex nihilo nincompoop. people in communities talk first. if people in communities are talking about national issues, then they are probably aware of those issues.
‘ the young kids would probably considered it for a moment, agreed, and then said, “But, hey, we’re just having fun by poking fun at the town squares who’ll be outraged at our little incident.”’
more unbacked speculation and irrelevant babbling.
“In the 1950s, largely in response to cross burning by the Ku Klux
Klan, several states passed statutes explicitly penalizing cross burning”
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol39_2/bell.pdf?origin=publication_detail
” There’s a reason why these kind of laws tended to sweep across the country at any particular time.”
lololol fucking idiot.
Swanky Pete quotes from a Harvard Law review paper about cross burning:
That’s your best find yet, Swanky, and it generally supports your case, even in some of the parts you don’t quote.
The details about the 1950s are a little vague, though. For example, no dates are given for the passage of the state laws the paper claims began to be passed in the fifties. I don’t dispute the author’s point, but I would’ve liked to see some dates to get a better handle on just when, and where, the laws began to be passed. Some of the examples she cites, including the one important case she highlights in Minnesota that went to the Supreme Court involving a seventeen year and his two friends, come from as late as the nineties. Those have no relevance for our discussion.
Also, none of the state laws I could find cited in the paper are for Iowa, most likely because Iowan lawmakers didn’t think they had a problem with cross burners. As I said, compared to the rest of the country, the state didn’t have serious racial problems. How can you when less than one percent of your population was black in 1960?
What’s more, in the case of several of these state statutes, the intent to maliciously intimidate must be clear. In the case of the seventeen year old in Minnesota, for example, he placed the burning cross on a black family’s lawn who had suffered a pattern of abuse after moving into the neighborhood.
But at least this paper is relevant to our argument, unlike, say, a KKK rally in Dubuque, Iowa in 1925.
The paper doesn’t prove that Murray most likely burnt a cross in 1960 for racial reasons, but at least it does prove you’re not a complete idiot when crafting an argument and citing evidence to support it.
Good thing you bear the burden of then dumbass.
lol best concession of an argument ive seen. your heuristics contradict your argument and you haven’t offered anything that harms the default position.
Swanky Pete,
You’re unaware of any historical trends, Swanky. I have to explain all of them to you. So it’s not like you have any counters to them.
Let me put it simply for you.
Lots of black people in a lot of states, all with the potential to move around the country? Many state laws against black/white miscegenation.
Few Asian people in a handful of states and no additional room for demographic growth because immigration was halted? Few states with anti-miscegenation laws targeted at white/Asian unions.
Nothing I have said, and more importantly, that you have said, “defeats” this point.
*****
This entire post doesn’t respond to any points I made. It vaguely blithers and blathers about some argumentative points which are irrelevant to the discussion.
For example, you write:
Nothing about my argument depends on anything arising ex nihilo, you moronic toadstool.
Why, for example, did the regional anti-Chinese sentiment that was common in the western U.S. in the second half of the nineteenth century, but was rare in the eastern and southern United States, become nationalized in the 1870s?
The answer is that our national politics was so tightly contested after the end of Reconstruction that eastern politicians who were ambitious for national office began to use the issue to try and win small Western states that had previously been considered unimportant. Senator James Blaine of Maine, for example, was a man who had probably never seen a Chinese person in his state, yet he led the effort to pass the exclusion law against Chinese immigration because he wanted to be president and needed western votes to win the office. Blaine ended up never gaining the presidency because other Eastern politicians also began to compete in the West for the same reason.
That was how what was previously a regional concern about restricting Asian immigration began to be nationalized. Not by “people in communities talking,” whatever the hell that vague phrasing is suppose to suggest. It also explains why Americans in the east and south never did become that concerned about passing laws against Asian/white miscegenation. The source of Asian growth was cut off before their numbers became noticeable in other areas of the United States.
Swanky Pete,
There is no default position or heuristics. There are only facts, and interpretations of those facts.
My interpretations of this trivial case are better than yours because I know more about Murray, his time, and the state he grew up in than you know about them. In brief, I know more facts and so my interpretations are more plausible. That’s all it comes down to, Swanky.
I agree that you have spewed a lot of facts. Irrelevant facts. Red herring contradicto, look at you go.
Sounds like a keeper, IC.
Seriously, why should anyone give a shit about your single personal anecdote when we have barrels of evidence elsewhere?
In truth, there’s a lot of resentment by whites against Asians in the U.S. today for making it so hard to get into good universities and colleges. The application process has become far more competitive than it was as recently as the 1980s, and a lot of that is due to hyper-compeititve Asians raising the academic bar for everyone.
The blogger Education Realist, who is popular in the HBDsphere, has a lot of rants about this, suggesting the Asians are crafty cheaters.
A few bloggers doesn’t make a trend. On the sites I visit I don’t see much resentment. Most Americans, including Christan whites, accept we’re in meritocracy where the smartest and hardest working get head. Quotas are wrong, whether they are against whites or smart Asians.
Education Realist obviously does not believe East Asian IQ as fact. So he believes cheating.
Losers can not hide their mind. So do not give a shit to them. You can not make sour-grape happy.
NeoMaxists: Losers, let us united to fight winners.
Grey,
The vast majority of white Americans today are not racist against any group, whether black, Asian, or anything else. Anyone who says differently doesn’t know what real racism is.
Even most HBDers are not racists. Their aims are informative and objective, not malicious, and they believe the country would be better off recognizing some version of race realism instead of pretending that all groups were created equal.
But to the trivial degree we find any white people today chafing against the predilections of other groups, Asians are not excluded from their targets.
IC,
I don’t agree with ER’s point of view, but I don’t think it rises to the level of racism.
It’s just wrong.
A couple of commenters on the Lion’s blog are obsessively anti-Asian . The Lion to his credit stepped in & told them to cut it out
Obviously, there are still racists. But they’re not numerous today, and as Swanky Pete and Jorgeous Jorge show us, you don’t have to be an HBDer to make racist remarks.
Pumpkin,
A person today who gets married, or dates, a person of another race is not flouting any social norms. One sees such interracial couplings all over the West. They rarely even draw most people’s attention anymore.
But Murray got married to a Chinese Thai woman in 1966, and in that time attitudes toward interracial marriage were quite a bit different than they are in our time. Getting married to someone of a different race in the mid-sixties got people’s attention, even if they weren’t predisposed against it. Such couplings still happened, of course, but they were very, very rare.
Let’s start with the population. Less than one percent of the U.S. in 1960 was Asian/Pacific Islander (A/PI). In fact, the hybrid nature of the category shows how rare such people were in the U.S. until very recently. What do Asians have to do with Pacific Islanders?
In Iowa, Murray’s home state, there were only around 1,000 A/PI in the entire state out of a population of more than 2.7 million. It’s possible Murray didn’t even see an Asian in his state other than perhaps a Filipino or two, and it’s likely he didn’t know a single Asian person growing up.
What’s more, such unions were still illegal in some states in the mid-sixties. In Missouri, for example, a state which borders Iowa to the south, one couldn’t marry Asians or blacks until the Loving decision came down in 1967.
But even in places without legal barriers to interracial marriage in the sixties, such as California, the social and traditional barriers to them were still strong.
You need to keep in mind that up until the 1960s, there were still pretty strong social customs discouraging even Jews and gentiles from intermarrying. On both sides. (I’m less sure about Catholics and Protestants, but it’s possible there were even some residual pressure to prevent those unions.)
So Murray’s marriage to an Asian woman in 1966 is a pretty strong indicator that he was not a higher-IQ version of your typical cross-burning racist. I remember reading somewhere that Murray said his parents were upset when he introduced his future wife to them.
he definitely is wrong. hes wrong by historical context. hes wrong by anti-miscegenation laws. hes wrong by general principle — you CAN be racist against one group and NOT RACIST against another group. hes wrong by his own general principle — FUCKING or even MARRYING != disbelief in superiority/inferiority of group X over group Y.
these little logic leaps reveal a paucity of “brilliance.” emperor has no clothes, per usual.
Swanky Pete’s knowledge of American history is … oh, how shall I put this politely? … a little shaky.
One can read the Cochran thread to get a sense of this. He’s simply lost in the details of American history. It’s like visiting a foreign country. The customs only seem vaguely familiar, and his eyes search around for the McDonald’s which serve anxious tourists.
oh, do the anti-miscegenation laws not say what I say they say?
does cross burning historically in America not mean what I say it means?
you can puff out your chest all you want. it’s just drivel that comes out on the exhale. no sale, lackwit.
The affliction with you is much deeper than that, Swankster. You don’t even say what you think you say when you’re quoting yourself.
‘The affliction with you is much deeper than that, Swankster. You don’t even say what you think you say when you’re quoting yourself.’
bluffs are cheap dumbass. explain, so that thine’s idiocy may be shown.
lets see if he passes the test…
i will go toe to toe with him on any issue. he does not know how to argue 🙂
more displays of pincher’s low IQ:
‘I see you’re not up for the Pepsi Challenge. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. I’m sure at the age of seventeen you were still fingering your nose while pretending it was some sixteen year old’s panties.’
lol im not up for it because it’s the millionith red herring you’ve set up dumb-dumb. where i was at seventeen has nothing to do with how likely it was that Charles Murray was likely to know that cross burning had racial implications.
hard fact is you dont know what the fuck they taught in Iowa schools and so your speculation is just that, speculation. i have a historical fact — KKK burnt crosses in Dubuque. You have speculation — Charles Murray probably was unaware of it.
here i will help you shore up your stupid position. youd need to show that Iowa, in general, didn’t think much of what happened in Dubuque to make the inference that it wasn’t likely for people to talk about it, which in turn leads us to your inference. idiot.
‘ i know you’re having a hard time keeping all those balls in the air at the same time, but do try to keep up.’
ya cause theyre in your mouth. hard to keep up because im not gay. you walked into it. dont blame me.
‘I’m not seeking to persuade you of anything, Ace. You’re too much the idiotic ideologue to matter. I’m playing to the peanut gallery.’
the “peanut gallery” has the same default position.
‘And there is no “default position.”
make up your mind you dumb motherfucker. here is what you said: “I already admitted to you that there is no other possible implication to be drawn by an American from burning a cross, if one is to draw an implication from the act at all. Even in 1960’s Iowa. Even by a young kid.”
such an idiot. you are arguing against the default inference. YOU bear the burden.
‘Just because you can google something about Iowa and cross burning on the internet doesn’t mean it was in Murray’s high school course work in 1960.’
good thing that wasn’t the claim i made then you strawmanning piece of shit.
‘So the overall black population in the U.S. is what matters. That’s most likely why even lily-white states like North Dakota or Montana didn’t take any chances with it. They knew there was no way to keep them out of the state altogether since they were American citizens.’
how were they aware of NATIONAL POPULATIONS if they were in these isolated states? DUCY you want to apply a heuristic only when it’s convenient for you. if local and isolated areas can somehow be aware of national phenomena, then indeed, your argument that Newton’s “isolation” prevented it from knowing about cross burning and racism necessarily becomes (not that it was ever anything but) horseshit.
‘I know that’s a lot of history to give ann idiot, but someone else will read it even if you can’t.’
and laugh at how poor the “reasoning” this “history” supports is, sure.
i also have not forgotten the earlier issue re: MZAs.
1) doesn’t take many 0’s to weigh down data.
2) when less than half of a distribution reflects nearly the entirety of the population distribution, it fails to capture the “population” variance.
‘You’re a hypocrite who expects some other seventeen year old who you dislike to have everything figured out, while at the same time hiding your own ignorance.’
no, you dont seem to understand why asking ME about what I KNOW about MY state really doesn’t do ANYTHING to help your case. probably because you have a low IQ. Charles Murray and me are different people, we were educated in different times, we were educated in different states, etc. etc. etc.
you’re just a fallacy itinerant. it’s becoming more and more clear.
‘ I want you to know that I’m not insulted by your anti-Asian and anti-gay remarks. But like Murray discovered, the future may not judge your juvenilia so kindly as I would.’
its homophobic to say that you gurgling on my balls fails to arouse me? im not saying that there’s anything wrong with it. im just saying that I’m not into it.
keep revealing how little you actually know about the definitions of “racism” and “homophobia,” it’s really helping with the ethos dumbass.
Swanky Pete,
The Pepsi Challenge is to test your knowledge of *your* state, and the national of the time when *you* were seventeen. It’s not to test your knowledge if Iowa. It’s not to test your level of racism. We already know you’re a racist by the crude anti-Asian parodies you made.
Like I said, you’re not up for the challenge, mate. You’re a hypocrite who expects some other seventeen year old who you dislike to have everything figured out, while at the same time hiding your own ignorance.
Shall we add homophobia to your charming list of anti-HBD street cred? How do you think that’s going to go down fifty years from now should you ever become famous? Hell, how would it go down today, Ace?
Look, just between us bigots, I want you to know that I’m not insulted by your anti-Asian and anti-gay remarks. But like Murray discovered, the future may not judge your juvenilia so kindly as I would.
Look, just between us bigots, I want you to know that I’m not insulted by your anti-Asian and anti-gay remarks.
As I suspected. His ever inane, overlong, and uber-camp comments say the same. His fluency in China-talk confirms it.
Pinker is a sweet slant, a poofy Pekinese, a Siamese Sally, a Nanking Nancy, etc.
As usual, Jorgeous, your instinct for the truth is as sound as ever. I’m just so glad you took time out of your busy schedule posting the photos of your favorite large black dildos over at West Hunter to come grace us with your ignorance.
I’m so white I’m almost translucent. If you and I were to have an anti-tanning contest, I’d win hands down. That means I’m whiter than you, have a bigger dick, and far more skills – not to mention that I also lack your cleft palate and accompanying lisp.
I picked up Mandarin Chinese because I lived in East Asia for a spell. There was nothing genetic about it.
As usual, Jorgeous, your instinct for the truth is as sound as ever. I’m just so glad you took time out of your busy schedule posting the photos of your favorite large black dildos over at West Hunter to come grace us with your ignorance.
He did what ?????
In that case you’ve got no excuse.
Or were you born and raised in eastern Kentucky.
My uncle spoke Chinese too. PhD in econ from Yale.
He died from mad cow.
And I mean that babe.
What’re those chimp sounds in the background?
Oh. That’s right. I posted them.
Pumpkin,
You didn’t see this morning’s image? Some pseudonym posted a large photo of a large black dildo to greet the morning readers of West Hunter’s latest post.
Had to be Jorgeous. Nobody else does that shit over there. He has a (small) hard-on for Cochran.
For some reason peepee thinks I’m upper class.
By descent yes. But only on my Dad’s side.
My maternal great great … grandfather was a Spaniard hanged for desertion from the Confederacy.
Unfortunate for me and those like me we’ve been outbred by people like Pincher. Even Jayman agrees on that point. http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/idiocracy-can-wait/
…the Lowells talk only to Cabots, and the Cabots talk only to God.
True of my family. Especially considering they were for a time the foremost publishers of RC crap. Pick up any old RC canonical crap. My family name’s likely involved.
And especially true of me as I’m also a direct descendant of William Bradford.
The hicks have outbred decent folks to such an extent that they now enjoy the ascendancy in America and the Anglo-prole-sphere. But they’ll be replaced by the even less.
Breeding works. And it follows a tortuous path.
It’s deliberate.
It’s human.
The triumph of the proles isn’t.
But my connection to the super rich is as tenuous as it gets.
My dad’s uncle married Marshall Field III’s daughter. (Marshall Field is one of 10 richest Americans ever adjusted for inflation .)
So my dad got to attend deb balls in NYC.
He was a fly on the wall to Metropolitan.
Really.
Jorge/First Ypres,
You’re a member of the Benziger family?
From my objective standard, the Asian women these guys marry are much better looking than the white women they could get. To call it “racism” adds charged emotion to a rational decision, well for something as irrational as marriage.
Asian women are complete freaks for white guys. I know from experience. It’s the one case where strongest attraction to some race other than one’s own is the norm rather than the exception.
I’ve known people who hated East Asians, but liked blacks.
Race hatred comes in all possible combinations.
jay-g,
spike Lee was quite furious that in black-white couples, the white is much less attractive often.
It’s almost like just being white is enough. No looks, personality or intelligence required. It’s quite unfair
Pumpkin person, such arrangements are fair, otherwise such couples wouldn’t exist. Everyone gains. For example, a black guy having a white wife increases his kids’ potential sex partners. Exhibit A, Obama. The guy was able to slither racially, and that included women.
That’s true of black men white women couples usually, but not always.
It’s again a question of background rather than a question of absolutes.
Matthew McConaughey is about as sexy as white guys come, but his wife is part black.
The same goes for Marlon Brando, the sexiest white man in the history of the world as a young man. He married an Anglo-Indian and then a Tahitian.
But these extremes may be un-instructive.
That is, when one is “super-duper” attractive it may be that one’s own race becomes bleh.
The most beautiful actress imho, Ingrid Bergman, married three times and divorced three times. Twice to a Swede and once to an Italian.
And my experience has been that black men and black women prefer black women and black men respectively on a purely sexual basis, but that black men see white women as a prize and status symbol. This is less true of black women, although as I’ve posted before marriages between white men and black women are less likely to dissolve than those between white men and white women.
Tell me candidly, have you ever heard Sebastian say anything you have remembered for five minutes? You know, when I hear him talk, I am reminded of that in some ways nauseating picture of ‘Bubbles’…When dear Sebastian speaks it is like a little sphere of soapsuds drifting off the end of an old clay pipe, anywhere, full of rainbow light for a second and then – “phut! – vanished, with nothing left at all, nothing.
peepee is an impressionable twelve year old. he’s confused rue-paul-esque-ry with brilliance. rather sad.
My praise for Pincher Martin was mild compared to what people (some of them quite eminent ) have said to me in emails about him.
which should clue you in on who has the brains………….
Martin is committing basic argumentation errors — left and right, to and fro, wallet to watch; everywhere.
it should also clue you in on how objective merit and “esteemed praise” correlate versus “agreement” and “esteemed praise.” hint: they put Socrates to death. do with that what you will.
you’ve already proven that your standard for eminence is subterranean.
swank, the guys who read this blog are you and me and a bunch of inbred hillbillies.
for those like you and me with taste and intelligence, their esteem is damnation.
and swank it’s not a question of agreement.
the HBD weltanschauung is incoherent and trivial.
it’s a question of monkey/ape/whatever noises.
HBDers, including Steve Shoe, have again and again and again and again and again and…
HAVE SHOWN THEMSELVES BEREFT OF MATHEMATICAL SOPHISTICATION, BEREFT OF SOPHISTICATION IN GENETICS AND EVOLOTION, AND BEREFT OF SOPHISTICATION OF ANY SORT WHATEVER.
THEY’RE MORONS.
IGNORE THEM.
idk i think it’s hilarious.
so many problems.
P + E = P huge assumption (gene combinations on gradient from 0 – best) (gene environment 0 correlation
0); R^2 having limited explanatory power; failing to control for environment almost every time; realizing that their findings on their reified statistic could merely reflect a set of skills that are relevant in a particular context for particular genes; etc. etc.
none seem to understand these problems. otherwise they would stop overstating their case by so much.
*G+E = P.
Yeah, you were all taste this morning when you proudly showed everyone your favorite dildo over at West Hunter, weren’t you, Jorgeous?
Very, very classy.
Good on ya Pinky. It was I and will be me.
But as Nancy Mitford said impudence is the most distinguishing feature of the upper class.
They are constitutionally incapable of feeling shame.
Poor Swanky is much more concerned about my status here than I’m concerned about it. I have no idea who PP is talking about, and it really doesn’t matter. I’m glad someone finds my posts enjoyable, but I would write them even if few people cared because I like writing them.
But I have to laugh when Swankster writes that “they [the Athenians] put Socrates to death.” Of course they did, and for good reason, too. Poor Swanky has too many conventional ideas about history that he refuses to reexamine.
…and for good reason, too…
The interwebs allow interminal bluffing.
Martini is a past master.
But reality flops or turns.
in-termin-al bluffing.
This is the part where punky argues that Socrates deserved to die. He’ll probably then proceed to tell us about how terrible the Beatles were. etc etc etc
This sheds light on the motivation to hbd.
Punkys sophomore arguments shed light on who is duped by hbd.
we know people by their patterns
Sorry, I’m not up to date on the latest in gayness.
Should’ve been Rupaul-esque-ry.
I found another video of Martini.
…sashay shante
Shante, shante, shante.
Likely Martini has convinced himself that he can avoid reality with camp and cuteness.
His situation is pathetic and sad.
It’s time to rip off the bandage of badinage.
Jorgeous,
I enjoy watching you and Swanky Pete try to cuddle for warmth, by sharing buck-me-up comments, images, and music videos. If I was an anthropologist, I’d find quite fascinating. The next step will surely be penis sword fighting, like two male bonobos going at each other in a duet of love. Tell me, do you have a music video for that one?
i enjoy watching you make the poop you call logic, Punky. even more fun making a coprophage out of you spoon by spoon 🙂
It’s time to rip off the bandage of badinage.
Brando reminds me:
Cinema is a low art. As one producer said it’s fast food.
There are really only two movies worth watching more than once.
Apocalypse Now
Dr Strangelove
But on my idiosyncratic worth watching list
2001
The Hustler
1984
And the best repeated movies? That’s easy.
Mutiny on the Bounty
The Razor’s Edge
And the best “music video” movies…
Chariots of Fire
The Year of Living Dangerously
And the best living director?
Todd Field
Little Children
In the Bedroom
But then there are documentaries.
Gates of Heaven
The Leader, His Driver and the Driver’s Wife
Anthony Blanche and Eugene Terre-Blanche. what a coincidence. 😉
But other than Chariots of Fire and Little Children, the best movie post 1980 is…
The Right Stuff
Of course Chariots of Fire won Best Picture and is theatrical, but it has a very deep message.
Tragedy has followed.
Two of its stars died from AIDS. Only one was gay.
Its producer Dodi al-Fayed was killed with Princess Di.
But those are only theatrical releases.
The BBC’s Brideshead Revisited makes all other tv adaptations pale.
Every single line of dialogue from the novel is in the movie, 11 hours long.
And then there’s The Thin Red Line.
Either very bad or very good.
Malick is a Heideggerian, and it shows.
A sinking feeling.
And then.
From a Shakespeare-hater.
Suddenly some force struck him in the chest and side, making it still harder to breathe, and he fell through the hole and there at the bottom was a light…
Sorry, Marshall Field is only #11 on this list: http://www.businessinsider.com/richest-americans-ever-2011-4?op=1.
I’m just gonna post down here cause it’s easier. Pincher my cite shows national awareness of cross burning. You just said laws respond to national trends fucktard.
You try to wiggle out from beneath yourself by saying you can’t find an Iowa law. And? This means Iowa was unaware of a national trend?
Such a fucking moron lolol
The kkk history is also relevant. So are the movies. So is the civil rights timeline. So are the miscegenation laws. So is Murray’s chosen thesis. So is someone who grew up near Murray saying he was aware of cross burning’s implications.
All you can is jerk yourself off to possibility while ignoring probability. You lose mang, deal with it
Swanky Pete,
Keep telling yourself you’re winning the argument and maybe even you’ll start to believe it. But you look a little desperate, son, blowing your own horn. People who try that hard are always hiding some insecurity.
The most important facts of the case are about seventeen-year-old Murray, what he did, and when he did it. They are not about the general history of civil rights and the KKK.
You want us to believe that a seventeen-year-old kid and his friends in a part of the country without serious racial tensions, and in a town with so few black people that many locals might plausibly have gone months without seeing any of them, burned a cross like it was some KKK initiation.
You want us to believe he and his friends had the obviously malicious intent to terrorize people, which is what the burning cross had been used for in many previous incidents.
You want us to believe he and his friends enjoyed terrorizing people so much that they even took marshmallows to the event to roast in the glow of the burning cross.
You want us to believe that it’s more important that the young racist ruffians placed the burning cross on a hill than that the hill was beside a police station and not, as typically is the case with burning crosses, on or near some black family’s residence.
You want us to believe that this cross-burning is relevant to Murray’s later work almost three decades later, but has no relevance to what Murray did six years later when he took a Chinese Thai woman for his wife because….? Well, because American racists didn’t hate Asians as much as they hate blacks.
None of this is plausible.
The issue is why we should believe Charles Murray’s actions weren’t undertaken for racist reasons.
Your East Asian marriage argument is dogshit. There’s ample evidence that Murray would have been aware of what cross burning meant and your comebacks are just variations on what is possible without any reason to think they are probable.
I won a long time ago, this is just sporting good fun
Charles Murray isn’t racist. In fact, when Jensen, Lynn, and many others went through The Bell Curve with a fine toothed comb in order to look for any sort of racism, they found none.
did they look at who paid for the book? lol. i know. that’s just another one of those inconvenient facts that we have to explain away.
We’ve already covered all that, Swanky.
Burning crosses are typically put where black people can actually see them – at their homes, on their property, near their churches, etc. And there are other signs of racist rituals –
When you put up a burning cross in some black person’s front yard, for example, and then vandalize their car by scrawling some racial epithet on it, your racist message of intimidation is clear.
When you put up a burning cross in a town where most people probably wouldn’t know where to find black people (if they even knew blacks were in the town), and you take marshmallows instead of costume sheets and racial epithets to do your deed, there’s no racial message of intimidation. It’s just a prank.
Now if Murray and his pals had been thirty-five years old instead of seventeen, taken white sheets instead of white marshmallows with them that night, and put their cross up in some black person’s yard in Newton Iowa, rather than next to the police station, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
you didnt cover anything. here we go again with another ‘it’s possible’-ism.
” In the early 20th century, the Klan burned crosses on hillsides or near the homes of those they wished to intimidate.”
the sentence is disjunctive. cross was burned on a hillside — standard operating procedure.
‘Now if Murray and his pals had been thirty-five years old instead of…’
lolno. youve failed to give any probable reason to disbelieve this cross burning wasn’t racial in one way or another.
REPOSTED FOR CLARITY
LOL.
There are no commanding hills with a view of the police station in Newton, Iowa. Google the topographical map of the town to get a sense of the flatness of the town, and then google the police station to see how flat the area in town is. The town goes from flat to a rolling series of mighty mole hills outside the city limits.
You make it sound like they put the burning cross somewhere the entire town could see. There is no such place.
You do know that Iowa is a pretty flat place, right? I don’t want to make any more assumptions about what I think you ought to know. When they say “hill” in Iowa, they’re talking about a gradual rise in the land of a few hundred feet.
Here, again is the account from the NYT:
Fireworks, marshmallows, and a contemporary account from someone other than Murray who also claims they didn’t understand the racial implications of what they were doing.
Yeah, they were definitely KKKers. I can see how you can get that impression.
‘You make it sound like they put the burning cross somewhere the entire town could see.’
nobody said the hill had to be one that ‘the whole town could see,’ or whatever such nonsense you’re trying to strawman now.
apparently now your comeback is ‘well uh the hill wasn’t good enough!’
first of all, even if the entire town’s ‘hill selection’ was poor quality — so what? apparently you believe that cross burnings are only racial if they are on “good quality” hills — so cross burnings in towns with poor hills somehow preclude racial cross burnings? or, in other words — DUCY this doesn’t help you? probably not.
‘Fireworks, marshmallows, and a contemporary account from someone other than Murray who also claims they didn’t understand the racial implications of what they were doing.
Yeah, they were definitely KKKers. I can see how you can get that impression.’
they dont need to be ‘KKK’ers to be racist or do racist things.
however this is the FIRST thing you have presented that DOES help you MEET YOUR BURDEN — telling that a) it’s in the original story (first place you should have looked) and b) it took you three bajillion years to understand what will help you.
to which I’d counter that he has the same interest in Murray in not admitting a past of racism. hes a friend. he has potential responsibility.
Jensen, Lynn, and many others
and according to Goebbels, Goering, et al Mein Kampf wasn’t anti-Semitic.
And that English language novel with a prominent character with a hare lip…?
Can the “learned” Martini name it?
Hint:
It’s such a classic that during his impeachment Clinton likened himself to its hero.
Darkness at Noon.
Good on ya!
So if not just the result of google-ing…
If only Pinky were mathematically competent.
Me:
BSc in maths
High score in US and Canada on the old exam 100 of the SoA.
And HBD cred
Dad’s dad saw Einstein at a Princeon play ;). But Mom’s cousin is in Who’s Who for fluid dynamics. Her dad was a numbers man, aka bookmaker.
Jorgeous,
You keep having to tell people here about your credentials and the line of descent only because nothing about your arguments is impressive enough to do the job on its own.
The greatest mind in the world – which nobody would ever suggest you have – goes nowhere if it spends its entire existence gazing at its navel and adoring the trivial accomplishments and chance meetings of its ancestors.
why this interminable dialogue or whatever about Murray?
he’s got an affected posh accent. neither of his parents graduated or even attended college.
the guy’s got a BA in history and a PhD in poly sci.
he’s a dumbass.
see the Steve Jones Charlie Rose interview.
Ah, the Charlie Rose interview again. It’s Jorgeous’s cultural touchstone. Like the Bible, only more important.
No.
It’s just available and accessible to mouth-breathers like you.
neither of his parents graduated or even attended college.
OMG!
One thing of interest is that Education Realist refutes Nisbett. Check it out on his blog, P.P. Other thing of note is that JayMan determined that the state of Piraha Indians is due to genetics, not their linguistics, something else to check out.
‘Let me put it simply for you.’
Yes. You are putting things like a simpleton would.
‘Lots of black people in a lot of states, all with the potential to move around the country? Many state laws against black/white miscegenation.
Few Asian people in a handful of states and no additional room for demographic growth because immigration was halted? Few states with anti-miscegenation laws targeted at white/Asian unions.’
Nothing I have said, and more importantly, that you have said, “defeats” this point.’
This “point” is yet another “it’s possible”-ism from you. it’s also another absurd ‘it’s possible’-ism. asian people were also mobile. several states with non-existent asian populations outlawed black-asian unions. oops. more plausible theory is that racism against blacks was stronger than racism against asians.
“people in communities talking” is apparently beyond your comprehension. yellow peril, chinese exclusion act, Central Coast riots, etc. were all national events that alerted the nation to a growing Asian American presence. yet….the miscegenation laws remained as they were. did every single leader of those states want to be president and carry western states? of course not. youre just cherry picking for your bullshit.
for some reason we must ignore several national events and passed acts that all reflected a very real -fear- of asians spreading. yet we are to at the same time assume that the failure to act on this re: miscegenation is because no one really was concerned about a growing number of asians in the country that could spread. facially stupid.
at the bottom, one group was considered subhuman enough to enslave and the other was not. ergo, difference in amount of prejudice. occam’s razor gets invoked by you geeks all the time. how about applying it properly for once.
‘Nothing about my argument depends on anything arising ex nihilo, you moronic toadstool.’
lol what a maroon…
How does a town know anything?
you wonder how a “town” could know anything, implying that a kid in Newton, Iowa would be unaware of political action taking place on a national scale. if lawmakers are aware of a trend, it’s because discussion of some kind is taking place among their constituents — that’s what makes the issues worth acting on — which implies that their constituents are aware of national issues.
QED you’re an idiot.
youre too dumb to even synthesize your own spew.
‘There is no default position or heuristics. ‘
is the default interpretation of a burning cross what I say it is or is it not? youve already admitted it is. i understand you wish you didn’t, or perhaps wish you said something else.
i dont have to disprove anything you say. you need to present a probable explanation for why we should believe murray did not know that cross burning was a racist act. youve fallen way short.
lol of course this sounds like bullshit — it’s been debunked.
“Contrary to Stephenson’s theory, these statutes did not arise only when Asian Americans appeared in “considerable” or “anything like equal” numbers to whites.”
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=aalj
the statutes reflect animus that is untethered, or at best -marginally- tethered to population.
gee. guess that means that yes indeed, the disparity in black/asian miscegenation statutes notes a disparity in the prejudice.
“The argument that Asian Americans never posed any imminent threat to white racial purity is further supported by the fact that no state ever enacted a statute prohibiting Asian-white miscegenation unless a black-white prohibition already existed or was enacted simultaneously with the Asian-white provision-even in western states inwhich Asian Americans outnumbered African Americans.”
benefit of having high IQ (like me) is that it’s easy to spot bullshit. see i came to this conclusion merely by analyzing the shit-slop Punky called an argument. Punky does not understand how to use facts. he understands regurgitation — the mark of inferior IQ.
cross burning in iowa:
duke dont you get it. thats LATER than 1960. that stuff just kind of COMES OUT OF NOWHERE and fails to shed any light on the culture in the town before then. you silly goose.
Swanky,
Try to read and understand what you link before you actually post it.
The only thing Chin’s paper shows is that as racial categories in America became more complicated as new situations and odd cases (Rice v. Gong Lum) began to go before the courts, some lawmakers tried to keep up with them by adapting the miscegenation laws already on the books.
Filipinos, for example, were problematic after the U.S. annexed the Philippines. On the one hand, the U.S. felt responsible for Filipinos, and so gave them certain allowances in the early twentieth century that it did not give to Japanese and Chinese, such as the right for some of them to move to the U.S. for work and education. On the other hand, they clearly weren’t white. Some lawmakers began to worry about these loopholes and moved to fix them.
None of these changes, however, contradicts your own earlier link, which shows that there is still a clear regional pattern to Asian/white miscegenation laws, despite those later adaptations.
No, you’re just too stupid to now how to count.
Swanky Pete, you sure are a dull boy.
There were so few Asians, it wouldn’t have mattered if they were mobile.
Can you think quantitatively? There were SEVENTY TIMES MORE BLACKS THAN ASIANS in the 1880 census when U.S. immigration laws began to be established to keep most Asians out of the U.S. 70 times.
If *all* the Asians in the entire country, as it existed at that time, decided to move to a state like Massachusetts in 1880, they wouldn’t have been 10 percent of that state’s population. By comparison, blacks outnumbered whites in 1880 in states like Mississippi, and even in states like Virginia were forty percent of the population.
The only reason anyone paid attention to Asians back then was because they were settling in the sparsely-populated West in large numbers – enough so to compete with, and draw the attention of, white Americans living in the West, who weren’t happy at all with what they were seeing.
Some state lawmakers liked to be comprehensive when writing miscegenation laws based on the theory that all miscegenation was bad. There’s no evidence the American public, however, was concerned about Asian/black miscegenation. There’s no evidence “people in communities were talking” about it, which is your favorite dumbshit formulation for how political stuff happens.
And of course racism was stronger against blacks than Asians. Why wouldn’t it be? Whites were living cheek by jowl with blacks in many places around the country, but there weren’t enough Asians for most whites in most states to notice them, until the issue became nationalized by the national political equilibrium after Reconstruction.
The exception, as I’ve pointed out to you numerous times, was the western United States. Anti-Chinese sentiment was much more prevalent than black racism in places like California, Oregon, Washington, and even interior western states like Idaho and Wyoming. Why? Because there were typically more Chinese than blacks in those states. In California, for example, the number of Asians (mostly Chinese and Japanese men at the time) was more than TEN TIMES GREATER than the number of blacks.
Don’t bluff, Swanky. You don’t have the poker face for it.
Miscegenation laws didn’t remain as they were. They were jiggered with constantly. Read What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America.
Your little miniaturized faux history of anti-Chinese sentiment is also completely wrong.
Anti-Chinese sentiment in the western U.S. dates backs to the 1850s. State laws against the Chinese in the west began to be passed in the 1860s. But the Radical Republicans, were still a substantial enough political force in the Congress during the Civil War and Reconstruction, to prevent any national anti-Chinese laws from passing. In fact, some Radical Republicans pushed to make race a non-factor in naturalization, which angered Western Republican senators, many of whom were supportive of civil rights for African Americans, but still didn’t want the Chinese given those same rights.
The best history of this is Andrew Grory’s Closing the Gate: Race, Politics, and the Chinese Exclusion Act, but you can get a much less impressive brief of a similar argument here Grory’s book is more of an apologia for labor’s role in passing the Chinese exclusion acts. I didn’t buy that argument, but it’s still an impressive book in marshaling evidence to show that as political stasis at the national level grew, beginning in the 1876 presidential election, that national politicians began to pay attention to the race concerns of whites in the west.
Numbers matter. Context matters.
‘ There’s no evidence the American public, however, was concerned about Asian/black miscegenation’
oh, that was a typo. black/asian-white unions.
‘Your little miniaturized faux history of anti-Chinese sentiment is also completely wrong. ‘
i gave examples, not a complete history dumb-dumb. examples of nation-wide phenomena that communities would have been aware of.
‘And of course racism was stronger against blacks than Asians. Why wouldn’t it be?’
and punky concedes the entire point like the dumbass he is. murray marrying an asian does not mean he wasn’t racist against blacks. nor is the action inconsistent with racism against blacks.
There’s no concession, you dumbass. The prejudice was stronger because there were more blacks. You just can’t understand that elementary point.
There were 6.5 million blacks and 100,000 Asians in the 1880 census. Change those numbers around to 6.5 million Asians and 100,000 blacks, and watch how quickly prejudice against Asians dominates the political debate even as prejudice against blacks recedes.
This is not just some hypothetical reverie. We have proof for it in the actions of the western politicians in the late nineteenth century, who were much more worried about the Chinese than they were about blacks.
‘there’s been no concession…”
‘It’s simply not plausible to believe that a man in the 1960s could be racist enough to burn crosses because he hated blacks so much that he could find no other way to express himself (even though he clearly didn’t know any blacks), and then completely abandon racism< six years later by marrying out of his own race in a way that was striking for a white American to do at that time.’
‘highly unlikely to move from one extreme to the other.’
yes, you conceded that these statements of yours are indeed horseshit.
it’s not ‘one extreme to the other,’ if the hatred is unequal.
one need not “completely abandon racism” to marry into a group despised much less than another group.
more importantly, one can still marry a member of a group that one is racist against. just like a sexist male can marry a woman and still remain ardently sexist.
‘ watch how quickly prejudice against Asians dominates the political debate even as prejudice against blacks recedes’
according to academics, this theory of yours is horseshit.
occam’s razor — one group deemed subhuman enough to enslave, the other group not deemed as such. scientific racism categorized the races with white on top and with ‘yellow’ in second place. it’s not about population. it’s about how much like blacks they were (or were not).
This really deserves a post ??
Either choice is based on personal prejudices. White nerds tend to choose to marry Asian women because they tend to have similar personality type (and interests) and because Asian women are smarter than average and exhibit a phenotype, intelligent personality very common among them than compared to white women, are smarter to choose the right partner.
But I think this is an Anglo phenomenon, rather than being a universal tendency among Europeans in general.
White women always choose to date black men, are also being prejudiced in relation to whites and others.
When prejudice causes the true injustices collective level, then yes serious reflection aimed at taking constructive steps is necessary.
swanknassty
”benefit of having high IQ (like me) is that it’s easy to spot bullshit. see i came to this conclusion merely by analyzing the shit-slop Punky called an argument. Punky does not understand how to use facts. he understands regurgitation — the mark of inferior IQ.”
Thanks Terman, thanks!! 😦
(”having” high ig),
buut, numbers are abstractions is not???
We have to redistribute the iq for the American people to end inequality!!!
Gentleman,
Arguing with idiots is waste of time unless you enjoy mentally abusing these retards.
Signs of idiocracy:
1.Lacking ability to differentiate facts vs opinions.
2. Denial of facts or truth not in their favor (due to above reason)
3. Belief in their own supremacy(due to 2)
4. Enthusiasm in poltics. Poltics is about issue which is involved glass half full vs glass half empty. Any idiots can choose one side with almost 50% people behind them which empower idiots ego. Idiots believe popularity=intelligence. They do not engage true science disscussion since science is about finding undisputable truth or facts. Solving a math problem only get one correct answer which stupid people know they have no chance covering up their animal like mental ability.
5. strong belief in religion. Similar reason like 4 and related to 1, 2, 3.Ideology struggle is actually very similar to reglition conflicts.
You can spot them easily.
”Solving a math problem only get one correct answer which stupid people know they have no chance covering up their animal like mental ability..”
Shiii, i’m 10% idiot, by now… 🙂
list actually only reveals ideologues
idiot vs non-idiot = can they reason, can they make good inferences from facts.
If upbringing has any effect, why do twin studies and heritability studies find zero shared environment effect? Why is it that, as Gregory Clark shows, social status is so heritable? Upbringing has nothing to do with social status, genetics has everything to do with it.
I’ve already explained this 1 million times, but you’re too retarded to understand it.
I’m sorry, but a preponderance of twin studies, GWAS etc. all trump your “explanations.”
link to one. id love to see it.
Linking to one isn’t enough, basically all show absolutely zero shared environment. Jayman documented all these twin studies on his blog.
ok. link to just one that helps support this.
jayman has created an echo chamber where he is insulated from criticism.
He has a large and well researched post on this here: http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/
no dumb-dumb. think for yourself and post one of those studies that you think lends support. that post is one long circular argument.
For the 1 millionth time…
OF COURSE there’s no shared environment effect, because the same environment is NOT the same for two different genomes, and the range of environments is so restricted that any super shitty, IQ depressing environments are excluded.
Retarded behavior genetics folks:
We assume the P = G + E model. We “find” there is no independent effect of environment. Therefore, there is no effect of environment (AT ALL), because we assumed all such effects would be independent.
Uhh drrr!
does jayman ever talk about this?
or maybe why this completely fucks the entire HBD argument?
have you heard of this?
“These factors have two important consequences. First, the selection of “superior” genotypes in domesticated animals and cultivated plants will result in very specifically adapted varieties that may not show their superior proper-ties in other environments. To some extent, this problem is overcome by deliberately testing genotypes in a range of environments (for example, over several years and in several locations)”
“The second consequence of the nature of reaction norms is that, even if it should turn out that there is genetic variation for various mental and emotional traits in the human species, which is by no means clear, this variation is unlikely to favor one genotype over another across a range of environments. We must beware of hypothetical norms of reaction for human cognitive traits that show one genotype unconditionally superior to another. Even putting aside all questions of moral and political judgment, there is simply no basis for describing different human genotypes as “better” or “worse” on any scale, unless the investigator is able to make a very exact specification of environment”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22049/
i only ask rhetorically 🙂
Jayman had explained this all on twitter. Different genome doesn’t mean outcomes mediated by environment in one environment and not other. Variation within environment proven by zero shared environment factors. Populations from all across world, different geographic circumstances, all post zero shared environment in behavioral genetic results. We can infer environment can not ever have much effect anywhere.
Social status is not biological, is not biologically heritable, but circunstancially heritable.
Indirect genetic effects as intelligence, creativity, astute personality combined with right environment, ”right” people (stupid and lazy people to be deceived).
Use social status to prove genetic role of human behavior is not a smart thing to do. Use possible biological correlations to explain chain of universal similarities around the world is smart thing to do or local similarities of events wich are results of gene-environment interactions (and gene-gene interactions or human-human interactions).
CORRECT!!!
because the EEA is a stupid assumption that leads to stupid result.
because these studies never adequately control for environment.
because g x e royally fucks up the results —- G + E = P is a huge assumption, intrinsically.
Swanky’s argument is pretty stupid anyway, even if we pretend for a moment that he’s not so ignorant of American history that he actually has some sort of point.
White Racists in 1966 didn’t have to hate Asians as much as blacks to still not want to marry them. No such equivalence in their mind was necessary. I agree that white racists hated blacks a lot and Asians much less, but no self-respecting white racist would knowingly marry outside the white race in 1966. Period. End of argument.
Swanky avoids that obvious point because he has no answer for it and instead tries to make the debate about blacks being much more hated than Asians, as if that somehow explains why someone he thinks of as a white racist would marry outside his race at a time when no other white racists would’ve ever dreamed of doing so.
‘ I agree that white racists hated blacks a lot and Asians much less, but no self-respecting white racist would knowingly marry outside the white race in 1966. Period. End of argument.’
yes, if we’re to accept this ipse dixit nonsense of yours, sure.
you have no obvious point. you have accepted the general principle i discussed in the other thread wholesale and youve given no reason to believe that an individual could not be racist against blacks while not harboring much if any, ill-will toward asians.
FURTHERMORE, you have given us no reason to believe that a racist wouldn’t marry an asian — even if he -was- racist against asians. as ive said — marrying X or Y individual from A or B group does not mean you aren’t racist against A or B.
and just to help you connect the dots: the factual disparity in hate makes the situation I describe far more likely.
‘you have given us no reason to believe that a racist wouldn’t marry an asian’
can’t = wouldn’t.
End of argument.
That is, end of jive talk with the weight of a feather.
It talks, but it doesn’t say anything.