SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread

[Truman Burbank]

Jews are also a distinct racial group?

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

Jews are also a distinct racial group?

Well, there's a reason they all have horns, right?

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

I did not defame you. I asked you your background regarding the sciences. There are many areas about which I am woefully ignorant. It is good to have a general sense of where your strengths and weaknesses lie, and a realistic sense of the limits of your knowledge. You may have many strengths. The academic background to evaluate the merits of this argument do not appear to be among those strengths.

This is a test of scientific literacy. I missed two out of twenty-six. See how you do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/679050

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

Jews are also a distinct racial group?

The Ashkenazim are.

[Truman Burbank]

That's real good. There are no questions about psychological testing or statistics on that quiz, so it is irrelevant, but still real good. Whatever your various expertises is (expertii?), you may be real knowledgeable.
In others, you have the appearance of being quite ignorant. The current debate would appear to be one of the latter areas. If kneejerk observations about contemporary culture seem to you to add a relevent dimension to this debate, that's an opinion, not evidence.

[samclem]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

This is a test of scientific literacy. I missed two out of twenty-six. See how you do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/679050

Congratulations. You have the scientific knowledge of a high school senior. Maybe even first year science student in college.

You know bupkis about science when it involves genetics.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

That's real good. There are no questions about psychological testing or statistics on that quiz, so it is irrelevant, but still real good. Whatever your various expertises is (expertii?), you may be real knowledgeable.
In others, you have the appearance of being quite ignorant. The current debate would appear to be one of the latter areas. If kneejerk observations about contemporary culture seem to you to add a relevent dimension to this debate, that's an opinion, not evidence.

After you take the test, and tell me your score, tell me what I am ignorant of.

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

This is a test of scientific literacy. I missed two out of twenty-six. See how you do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/679050

There are far worse aspects of the inner city black culture than rap music.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

This is a test of scientific literacy. I missed two out of twenty-six. See how you do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/679050

Pssh. I got all 26 right, and two more you were too stupid to even see!

[Truman Burbank]

If I take the test, and miss all of the questions about astronomy, it is still irrelevant. C'mon, man, I'm using small words here. Using this quiz to try to justify your beliefs is beyond stupid. It's desperate.
And I already told you what you appear to be ignorant about, and you haven't been able to counter it.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

If I take the test, and miss all of the questions about astronomy, it is still irrelevant. C'mon, man, I'm using small words here. Using this quiz to try to justify your beliefs is beyond stupid. It's desperate.
And I already told you what you appear to be ignorant about, and you haven't been able to counter it.

Well then tell me again. I may be ignorant of evidence that blacks behave and perform as well as whites. If you know something I don't know, don't keep it a secret.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by samclem

Congratulations. You have the scientific knowledge of a high school senior. Maybe even first year science student in college.

You know bupkis about science when it involves genetics.

Take the test and see how well you do.

[Truman Burbank]

"I may be ignorant of evidence that blacks behave and perform as well as whites."
Your thesis statement is too imprecise, overgeneralized, and subjective to be verifiable either way. You can't get to reliable science from there. Further, people who don't know anything about Social Psychology, say, generally overestimate the importance of innate characteristics (such as character, or personality) and woefully underestimate the importance of external social influences. Without some understanding of these issues further attempts to educate you are pointless, you literally do not know what you do not know, therefore accept as prima facie evidence articles and impressions which don't prove what you think they do.
You also don't appear to know anything about construction of IQ tests, or their history. You think you can cherry-pick evidence to support your biases. You claim to think independently, but your beliefs appear to have evolved with Mommy and Daddy's in tandem.
You are ignorant of much more relevant areas of study as well, of course, such as genetics (I don't claim to have that expertise) than that, as well, but I don't want to waste further time.

[Enginerd]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Take the test and see how well you do.

I took it, I got them all right, and that tells you absolutely nothing about my ability to evaluate science. In fact, one of the questions related to my field was too simplistic to be rigorously answered - it relies on a superficial understanding of basic scientific principles, but neglects the finer details that would allow you to definitively answer the question. I'd guess that a few other questions did this as well, but I'm not well-versed enough in those subjects to pick them out.

I agree with samclem that your score is about what I'd expect from a sharp high school student. Better than the average American, perhaps, but a far cry from working knowledge of any particular scientific field. That's why people are asking you about degrees - those do indicate that proficiency.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Yes.

Ok, so in your view, Richard Nixon and David Duke were superior to Mohamed Ali?

expend so much effort trying to show scientificamally (with charts and figgers and everything!) that blacks are less intelligent.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here -- what charts and figures have I cited?

[olivesmarch4th]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Those theories are obviously wrong. I suspect that many are presented dishonestly by people who do not really believe them. What matters is that expensive efforts to bridge the race gap in academic performance always fail.

Oh, you're a goddamn troll. I refuse to believe you're an actual person. Jesus Christ.

And quit bitching about insults in the Pit. That's what it's here for. If you don't want to be insulted then stop saying stupid shit.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

This is a test of scientific literacy. I missed two out of twenty-six. See how you do.

http://www.thestar.com/article/679050

FWIW I got 100%. I also took many advanced classes in statistics in college.

But I think it doesn't matter so much. It doesn't require a lot of intelligence or education to correctly conclude that the Egalitarian Hypothesis is false. The main requirement is the ability to discount social pressure and wishful thinking in deciding what to believe.

[olivesmarch4th]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.

Oh, god. Now I feel old.

[Malleus, Incus, Stapes!]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The Ashkenazim are.

What?

And here I thought "Jews are a race" was ridiculous. Now it's just one subset of Jew that's a race? What are Sephardim, chopped liver?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

There are far worse aspects of the inner city black culture than rap music.

Actually, no, there aren't. Nothing is worse.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by brazil84

FWIW I got 100%. I also took many advanced classes in statistics in college.

But I think it doesn't matter so much. It doesn't require a lot of intelligence or education to correctly conclude that the Egalitarian Hypothesis is false. The main requirement is the ability to discount social pressure and wishful thinking in deciding what to believe.

Until you mentioned it I had never heard of "the Equalitarian Hypothesis". Is it the belief that every individual is intrinsically equal?

[al27052]

I vote banning New Deal Democrat.

Here's a little story why:

My good friend once met a guy from Serbia. He asked him, "How could people commit the kinds of atrocities that you did on the Muslims in your country?" Have you forgotten Hitler? Why are your fellow countrymen suddenly worthy of being killed en masse?"

The Serb's response was, "What if David Duke was on all your radio stations all day, every day, preaching hatred of blacks? Don't you think that gradually, over months and years, that people would start hating blacks more and more, just because of the cumulative effect? This is what Milosevic was doing."

Letting New Deal Democrat spread his nonsense is like letting David Duke run our radio stations, albeit on a smaller scale. He brings nothing useful to the forum, and is spreading something dangerous.

Just a thought.

[AlienVessels]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

If it is not genetic, why do Orientals have low crime rates and high average IQs everywhere in the world that they live?

Google China, cheating, exams and you may find a slightly different perspective. Now do the same with asian, mixed-race.

BTW, since IQ and tendency to commit crime are negatively correlated, you're kind of doubling down on low IQ.

Finally, I don't think IQ measures what you seem to think it measures.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by al27052

I vote banning New Deal Democrat.

Here's a little story why:

My good friend once met a guy from Serbia. He asked him, "How could people commit the kinds of atrocities that you did on the Muslims in your country?" Have you forgotten Hitler? Why are your fellow countrymen suddenly worthy of being killed en masse?"

The Serb's response was, "What if David Duke was on all your radio stations all day, every day, preaching hatred of blacks? Don't you think that gradually, over months and years, that people would start hating blacks more and more, just because of the cumulative effect? This is what Milosevic was doing."

Letting New Deal Democrat spread his nonsense is like letting David Duke run our radio stations, albeit on a smaller scale. He brings nothing useful to the forum, and is spreading something dangerous.

Just a thought.

The truth should never be considered dangerous. Censorship of facts and ideas is dangerous.

I disagree with David Duke about Jews.

Better comparisons would be between me and Charles Murray and between me and Professor J. Philippe Rushton.

Charles Murray is a respected political commentator who frequently gets articles published in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Commentary, and other newspapers and opinion journals. His book The Bell Curve sold over 500,000 copies in hardback.

[foolsguinea]

Charles Murray is a fool. He has said he wants to prove that conservatives can care about the poor, which means he doesn't grok what economic conservatism is. He's a useful fellow traveler to the real business conservatives, who are really just out for their interests to too strong a degree to accept social justice.

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

Jews are also a distinct racial group?

Originally Posted by Derleth

Well, there's a reason they all have horns, right?

Hm. I have some pretty sharp corners on my forehead, like a Jack Kirby character, which I suppose could be vestigial horns from my one Hebrew chromosome--I think Yaphet Kotto has them too--but I think I'll continue to blame my Nordic ancestry.

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The Ashkenazim are.

A melange of Jew, Balt, and Kazar is distinct?

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi

I'm not a scientist, anthropologist or sociologist so you lose me when you deny the existence of race. Whether it is a social construct or whatever, I am pretty sure that I can pick the black guy out of a crowd of "orientals"

I haven't reviewed your posting record, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Taking it at face value, it looks like you're arguing for the existence of racial groupings.

I'll let an expert explain why that's wrong.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The truth should never be considered dangerous. Censorship of facts and ideas is dangerous.

I disagree with David Duke about Jews.

Better comparisons would be between me and Charles Murray and between me and Professor J. Philippe Rushton.

Charles Murray is a respected political commentator who frequently gets articles published in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Commentary, and other newspapers and opinion journals. His book The Bell Curve sold over 500,000 copies in hardback.

I'm starting to think you're serious.


Surely to goodness nobody would say what you just did if they were idly trolling, right?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by al27052

I'm starting to think you're serious.


Surely to goodness nobody would say what you just did if they were idly trolling, right?

I think nobody would put so much effort into it, at any rate.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

A melange of Jew, Balt, and Kazar is distinct?

Sounds pretty distinct indeed when you put it that way. Nothing else like it in the world.

[BrainGlutton]

Just out of curiosity, do we have any persistent . . . let's be kind and call them "scientific racists," despite the oxymoronicity . . . that is, racists who do not always simply scream, but sometimes bring cites, even if they are of a pseudoscientific nature, and dishonestly defended . . . on the Board other than NDD, brazil84, and Chen019? I can't think of any but those three.

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by al27052

"What if David Duke was on all your radio stations all day, every day, preaching hatred of blacks?"

Except David Duke has the freedom to as much airtime as he can get right now. So does New Deal Democrat. So why don't you see the David Duke Show right now? Because advertisers won't stand for it, because the masses won't stand for it and would boycott anyone who they saw as supporting racist shit on their radios. It might work if David Duke had government connections and didn't have to worry about funding, but if David Duke can worm his way into that position we have much, much worse to worry about than a few radio programs.

The flip side to that argument is that you need precisely two shits and a big mouth to get online and start spewing, and there's always people willing to give you shit. However, online you're spewing along with everyone else, so you kind of get lost in the noise.

On a more idealistic note, we don't need to ban David Duke because we can disprove him as long as it's legal to bring up his arguments in the first place. Banning someone is a very weak form of argumentation, and we can do better than that.

[Little Nemo]

The other thing would be that without a government-backed monopoly, David Duke would do about as well in the media as NDD is doing in this thread. If your views are stupid, putting them out in the open marketplace of ideas doesn't do them any favors.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Kazar

No, wrong, bad, untrue.
The Khazars are not and never were part of the Jewish population group. Whichever idiot you read who told you that, don't read them anymore. I've also never heard of any credible evidence that there was substantial intermixing between Jewish and Baltic people, but if you got that info from the same source that claimed there's some sort of genetic connection between Jews and Khazars, you'd do better to ignore it flatly.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Derleth

On a more idealistic note, we don't need to ban David Duke because we can disprove him as long as it's legal to bring up his arguments in the first place. Banning someone is a very weak form of argumentation, and we can do better than that.

You're making the assumption that disproving them has value. It doesn't, because the only people who buy what they are selling are racist themselves. As you pointed out, the one thing that keeps David Duke from influence is people absolutely refusing to deal with him. That's what a banning is. It's our board boycotting their hateful speech.

Though, personally, I'd rather just have them banned from posting about those certain topics. In fact, I'd just ban the topic itself unless you can provide a citation ahead of time to a mod that hasn't been discredited that really could seem to mean there are genetic differences in intelligence in people who self-identify as different races.

[Dave Hartwick]

Originally Posted by BigT

...a mod that hasn't been discredited...

Good luck with that.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Dave Hartwick

Good luck with that.

Oh, no. I make one little mistake and now everyone has to jump on me for it. :rolleyes?:

SPOILER:

[BigT]

Originally Posted by brazil84

FWIW I got 100%. I also took many advanced classes in statistics in college.

But I think it doesn't matter so much. It doesn't require a lot of intelligence or education to correctly conclude that the Egalitarian Hypothesis is false. The main requirement is the ability to discount social pressure and wishful thinking in deciding what to believe.

Thing is, there are a lot of things it doesn't take very much intelligence to conclude...that are false.

And please do answer NDD's question about the Egalitarian Hypothesis. I want to see if you know what it means. A quick Google showed that most people espousing your views have the wrong idea.

Finally, you'd do well to actually contradict NDD on what you don't agree with if you don't want people to assume you do agree. You are defending him, after all. And he's saying far more than just that there might be a very slight genetic intelligence difference between races.

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by olivesmarch4th

Oh, god. Now I feel old.

You and me both, sister. But it's OK. They can all just get orf our lawns !

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The revulsion against the Holocaust made it fashionable to deny and ignore truths that had always been obvious. It is worth mentioning that the Holocaust was directed against the most superior racial group in the world.

Jews are a race, now?

[cmyk]

I have to stick up for NDD, here. It has long been held, going back to at least 4000 B.C.E., that the Negro Race have had a substantial affinity for grape flavored soda pop.

If you're so white and smart, how can you possibly be so stupid, you dickhole.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Just out of curiosity, do we have any persistent . . . let's be kind and call them "scientific racists," despite the oxymoronicity . . . that is, racists who do not always simply scream, but sometimes bring cites, even if they are of a pseudoscientific nature, and dishonestly defended . . . on the Board other than NDD, brazil84, and Chen019? I can't think of any but those three.

Chief Pedant, IIRC.
magellen01 and Rand Rover have dipped their toes into things in defence of race realists' background ideas, but I think with them it's more about defending conservative fellow travellers than scientific racism, per se. I certainly wouldn't call them "persistent" on the issue. Although Rand has started threads attacking the very notion that race is a social construct, so must feel pretty strongly on the issue.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

Until you mentioned it I had never heard of "the Equalitarian Hypothesis". Is it the belief that every individual is intrinsically equal?

I have defined it as "the claim that genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups."

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

Jews are a race, now?

The Ashkenazim have an average IQ of 112.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by brazil84

I have defined it as "the claim that genetic predisposition for intelligence and other important psychological traits is distributed equally among all racial and ethnic groups."

I doubt that there are many people who really believe that, but there are many who go not like to be reminded that it is not true.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The other thing would be that without a government-backed monopoly, David Duke would do about as well in the media as NDD is doing in this thread. If your views are stupid, putting them out in the open marketplace of ideas doesn't do them any favors.

Charles Murray, whom I do agree with, has a vast following.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, I took the little science quiz, got all of them right except for:

- One question I honesty didn't know.
- One question I think is ambiguous (actually, several are ambiguous, but this is the only one I got "wrong").
- and one question I'm confident the article's author got wrong.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Just out of curiosity, do we have any persistent . . . let's be kind and call them "scientific racists," despite the oxymoronicity . . . that is, racists who do not always simply scream, but sometimes bring cites, even if they are of a pseudoscientific nature, and dishonestly defended . . . on the Board other than NDD, brazil84, and Chen019? I can't think of any but those three.

What is pseudoscientific about these cites?

black and white SAT scores from 1990-91 to 2009-10
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

black and white murder rate
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

international school performance
http://siteselection.com/ssinsider/s...t/sf011210.htm

international murder rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

The Ashkenazim have an average IQ of 112.

I... I think you really need to learn what the word "ethnicity" means.

[MrDibble]

Originally Posted by New Deal Democrat

What is pseudoscientific about these cites?rl]

None of those is a cite about genetics...

[don't ask]

Totally as an aside, I assume the content will be the usual drivel, I only dropped in because moving my mouse in the search results from New Posts I saw:

New Deal Democrat et. al, can you STFU? [mouseover]We get it. You're racist.[/mouseover]

Pretty clever way to insult fellow Dopers right out in the open without the sense of impropriety. Sneaky.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by MrDibble

I... I think you really need to learn what the word "ethnicity" means.

The Ashkenazim are a racial group, or an ethnic group. Lets not get into a semantic argument. What matters is they are descended from the Israelites of the Old Testament, and that they have a very high average IQ. That is genetic. One does not get a higher IQ by converting to Judaism.