Learned about blacks…you had almost 400 years to learn about us, and some of you still can’t pass the test, having learned nothing. So much for superior intellect.
Glad we shot holes in that myth.
OK at the risk of sounding racist, I’ll bite. Mind you, I voted for Obama and I had a black girlfriend in college.
If black people are really just victims, and are fautless in their own social circumstance, then why is Africa mostly screwed up too?
Stereotypes do not define all members of a race, but they do adequately describe the mean. When you look at a football team, you see black people. When you look at a graduate school program, you see Asians. When you look at a university’s general population, you see rich white folks.
You’re kidding, right?
For much the same reason South America is mostly screwed up; the after effects of colonialism and Cold War proxy wars.
I blame Whitey.
Along those lines, your attention is requested in the Pit.
You could tell us better than anyone else. Did you simply not learn about blacks, after all, or is there some other reason for your beliefs?
My parents taught me to believe that blacks in the aggregate are essentially the same as whites, and that what small differences there are can be explained by the legacy of discrimination and slavery.
Since then my attitudes about blacks have hardened by personal experiences, as well as the personal experiences of friends and relatives. These experiences have been supplemented by reading.
An excellent description of innate racial differences can be found in RACE, EVOLUTION, AND BEHAVIOR: A Life History Perspective, by Professor Professor J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario.
An intriguing explanation of how these differences evolved can be found in The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, by by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending. The website for this book can be found here:
Is the word “holocaust” associated with a comparable taboo which some believe the word “nigger” is, or should be, associated with? I notice that it is used in a more general meanings in for instance older bible translations, but in newer translations of the same verses it has been exchanged for something else. Or is this merely a case of shifting meaning? If I say that I make a holocaust on my grill to prepare my lamb-chops on, is this bad taste of words (as well as meat) or merely a strangely archaic phrasing?
There are no words in Danish that are so taboo that they are often only spelled with the initial letter. I don’t think there are any such taboo words in German or French either. Is it an US-American thing, or is the word “nigger” also taboo in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc.?
In addition to the n word I will not post obscene words unless I am quoting someone. Then I will usually write an “*” in place of one of the vowels.
Not even close. We have the Holocaust Memorial Museum, for instance, in America. Yad Vashem is “The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority”. But even books that are published specifically to talk about the word, tend to use phrases “The N Word”.
(I must admit a perverse corner of my mind always wants to respond “Nudnick? It’s nudnick, isn’t it?”)
Then again,sometimes we do discuss the word without shying away from it’s actual letters.
Depends. It’d probably be seen as slightly poor taste or an amusing off-color joke, depending on who you were BBQing with that afternoon. Just like “Man, I had some honey ham left in my fridge but I fucking genocided that bitch”. At least in America, and I’d wager many other English speaking nations, the Holocaust has completely usurped the prior meaning of the word “holocaust”.
That’s an interesting question. I’d wager that it’s just a US thing, and even then it’s not universal. Many English classes, for instance, still teach Mark Twain’s work without shifting the name to “Negro Jim”.
I’ve seen it used on occasion for things having nothing to do with WWII. “Nuclear holocaust” being a common example. I also note from Wiki that the term refers to two different supervillains and a Scottish band. And I just read a sci-fi book that included an ammunition ship named Holocaust.
Regarding holocaust:
my guess would be that fifteenth century translations of the bible used the word that was recognized by the people of the time to mean “all consuming fire employed during sacrifice,” while the word has now somewhat lost the meaning of religious sacrifice, substituting meanings of immense tragedy. Since the modern translations are attempting to render the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek text to modern readers, it would make sense to choose a word that did not carry the immediate connotation of Nazi massacres or world-destroying wars or family destroying house fires when it was employed to indicate that all the animals on an altar were completely consumed by fire.
You can choose to believe his claptrap, but Rushton’s “racial” observations tend to be wrong, (when they are not just invented). He gets away with his nonsense because he has tenure, but he really brings nothing to the discussion but bias wrapped up in academic language.
Here is an example from the Rushton work you cited:
He is trying to claim that smart Asians have small penes, average whites have medium penes, and stupid blacks have large penes.
His claim is a lie. The WHO comments on only two sizes of condom and they do not specify that either particular size is intended for any particular region. They do note that there is a general preference by region, but do not “specify” that condoms should be a particular size by region.
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/publications/irc-pub01/jc003-malecondom-factsheets_en.pdf
[QUOTE=WHO Publication: The Male Latex Condom - Fact Sheets (Page 5, tenth page of .pdf)]
The choice of width of condoms is important because this is one of the main factors in determining whether the condom is easy to put on, stays on during use, and is comfortable to the user. The dimensions of the condom need to conform to the intended population of users.
There are considerable variations between individuals and, generally, there is no established market of differently sized condoms even in developed countries. The sizes most commonly marketed are 49 mm and 53 mm.
In general terms, condom sizes are classified as either wide or narrow. This classification is based on studies in Australia, Thailand and the USA, and on the experience of major agencies. The wider condoms (flat width 51-54 mm) will be preferred in Africa, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and North America, and the narrower condoms (47-50 mm) are preferred in several Asian countries.
[/QUOTE]
If he is going to make up nonsense about specific sizes for specific regions, inventing a special larger size to be sent to Africa to support his rantings, I have no reason to accept that he has not invented most of the rest of his facts.
The World Health Organization Guidelines specify a 49-mm-width condom for Asia, a 52-mm-width for North America and Europe, and a 53-mm-width for Africa. China is now making its own condoms – 49 mm.
There are considerable variations between individuals and, generally, there is no established market of differently sized condoms even in developed countries. The sizes most commonly marketed are 49 mm and 53 mm.
http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/publications/irc-pub01/jc003-malecondom-factsheets_en.pdf
You seem to be trying hard to catch Rushton in a lie. His assertion that the WHO specifies different condom sizes for Asia, North America and Europe, and Africa is unfortunately not footnoted. I have not found a WHO website that confirms it. Nevertheless, the WHO website you posted says that 49 and 53 mm are “sizes most commonly marketed.” This certainly does not mean that 52 mm condom sizes are not available too, and recommended for Caucasian populations.
Rushton’s assertion of an inverse ration between brain size and penis size is unimportant to the rest of his argument, but it is the one I encounter most often in efforts to rebut his thesis because it is easiest to ridicule.
His essay does have a chart demonstrating how the incidence of AIDS varies between whites, Asians, and Negroes. This chart is attributed to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I already quoted the link to which you refer. That link, published by Rushton, is a lie. I also quoted the actual WHO publication that demonstrates that Rushton is lying.
There are two sizes, not three and the WHO does not recommend a third, larger size for Africa. That Rushton would publish that particular lie simply to promote his agenda demonstrates to me that he cannot be trusted in any of his works. He is making a silly claim, then resorting to dishonest claims to assert it. I see no reason to believe anything else he would claim; how much more has he invented to pretend that his “studies” are accurate?
Actually, it is pretty much central to his argument. He needs to have big, sexually threatening black men in his world so that he can keep getting funding for his other nonsensical claims.
Gee, a disease that originated in Africa and spread to Europe and North America before it spread to Asia affects people by population in the order in which it infected the regions. What a surprise! There MUST be a “racial” point to that!
There is. According to Rushton’s chart U.S. blacks have a 2.0 percent rate of AIDS. U.S. whites have a 0.4 percent rate of AIDS. U.S. Asians have a 0.05 percent rate.
This corresponds to other indicators of non marital sex differences between whites, blacks, and Asians.
The reason the theories of J. Philippe Rushton, Charles Murray, Arthur R. Jensen and others are so devastating to the agendas of racial egalitarians is because they are so plausible. They compose easily understandable explanations of racial differences that nearly everyone knows exist. That is why the racial egalitarians suppress these ideas when they can, and ridicule them when they have to.
Also, it is not true that it is easy for these men to get funding. I cannot document this, but I am reasonably certain that those who are known to agree have a difficult time getting academic positions with the social science departments in most colleges and universities.