I was banned there before I even posted.
/liberty/ is my usual chill out board.
/liberty/ is my usual chill out board.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
Uh, no. Globalism has been solely achieved through imperialism and aggressive social policies, not democracy.B1rd wrote:
Well first off, multiculturalism and globalism are products of the Democratic system. Tax payers of these social democracies have to pay for these Muslims that are coming en masse to their nation. And it's done because the politicians and globalists gain some sort of advantage from this, and with their social engineering and propaganda they can get the plebs on board with it as well.
Every time I think of that argument it's the reaction that a Monarchist half a century ago would have to the idea of Democracy. I think that as humanity advances culturally and technologically, and as we are the product of two millennia of scientists and philosophers, we can advance our political systems to be something better.
I'm not saying Democracy is perfect in any way, shape or form (I even said it's the shittiest in theory), but we, right now, in 2017, have NO alternative that could realistically work. In specific cases other systems could definitely be implemented, but when we look at the general and major world powers, nothing short from a democratic form can work long-term.
Yeah, I know of the IRA and the natural aggression between England and Ireland during history. That's the thing tho, the terrorist attacks were mostly due to special historical relations between England/Britain and Ireland, and can only marginally be attributed to culture.Mahogany wrote:
Well, the Academic classes were from England. Of course you don't see them appearing in history books as terrorists. I'm not sure if you've read Irish history, but they were absolutely terrorists.
I struggle to see your view there. I'm positively sure that media has a grip on people all around the globe, regardless of cultural identity. There are always different news outlets who "compete" with each other and attract people to their side, simply because it's their grand scheme of making money. That goes for both USA and every other country. Heck, my grandparents always bought opposing newspapers and since they were intellectuals, they would argue every single day about what is right and wrong, yet they were identical in both culture, social standing and upbringing. Now, of course, back then the news were actually news and not a bunch of clickbait, but the gist remains the same - news are inherently polarizing, no matter which country we talk about and it impacts and penetrates every culture alike.Mahogany wrote:
American media has immense influence and control over its people, though. Without this cultural identity, people look to the media to find one. I think this, at least, causes a lot of their problems.
Statistically speaking, extremists make up a small portion of the general populace and news are definitely not enough to impact an entire people into never assimilating.Mahogany wrote:
The only reason it will "NEVER" assimilate is because of the extremists on both sides. Eventually, they will be left behind and the moderates will merge cultures. Just need to get rid of extremists and the problem is solved.
You can't exactly "fuck them", since that would mean you becoming an extremist as well.Mahogany wrote:
Then fuck them, fuck the people who don't want to adapt. But always welcome the people who will.
Yeah, I do agree with that, but we're talking about the bigger picture here. The small fry always pays for the appetite of bigger, more ambitious ideologists.Mahogany wrote:
Why not? Fuck the extremists and all that, but most people just want to live their lives.
Slippers: what are your thoughts on that video?
Speaking of Hitler, what is up with people these days making a fool out of themselves? First Pepsi, then United Airlines, and now, White House Speaker, Sean Spicer.
No, Globalism is something of a recent phenomenon of the last century. Imperialism was prominent before that but it implies a nationalistic environment where you have a lot of countries fighting for dominance. Imperialism is outdated now, because instead of countries fighting against each other the traditional way, the world leaders just collude and extend their power that way. Also, social policy is a direct product of Democracy.Aurani wrote:
Uh, no. Globalism has been solely achieved through imperialism and aggressive social policies, not democracy.
I'm not saying Democracy is perfect in any way, shape or form (I even said it's the shittiest in theory), but we, right now, in 2017, have NO alternative that could realistically work. In specific cases other systems could definitely be implemented, but when we look at the general and major world powers, nothing short from a democratic form can work long-term.
Globalism is most definitely a recent phenomenon, but is completely and utterly due to imperialism being mixed with technological advances. Democracy did not bring globalism into the world, as I'm sure the kingdoms and empires who first achieved crude globalism weren't in any way, shape or form democratic societies.
Social policies also existed far, far before modern democracy came into being. No, comparing modern democracy with the old Greek variant does not count.
Social policies also existed far, far before modern democracy came into being. No, comparing modern democracy with the old Greek variant does not count.
But they were terrorists all the same. Their horrific acts are downplayed because they were the ones writing the books, but put it under scrutiny and it's easy to see the horrors of what they did.Aurani wrote:
Yeah, I know of the IRA and the natural aggression between England and Ireland during history. That's the thing tho, the terrorist attacks were mostly due to special historical relations between England/Britain and Ireland, and can only marginally be attributed to culture.
Have you read about the north? The native Irish are still besieged by the immigrant English and their culture. It's a massive dividing line up there, and has caused an immense amount of crime. I'm not choosing sides with them, but the English there caused a bunch of crime. They just exported the terrorism and crime, keeping it out of their own country. That is their culture. You can see the same thing happening with the US!
Then I don't see why you disagree with me, since then people would be adapting to the new cultures just fine.Aurani wrote:
Statistically speaking, extremists make up a small portion of the general populace and news are definitely not enough to impact an entire people into never assimilating.
Intolerance of the intolerant is not intolerance itself and indeed is necessary for a tolerant society to exist and for people's rights to be upheld.Aurani wrote:
You can't exactly "fuck them", since that would mean you becoming an extremist as well.
Well I mean, you can take that argument and adapt it: There's naturally less money to be made in Ireland, so it would be less lucrative and therefore less influential on people.Aurani wrote:
I struggle to see your view there. I'm positively sure that media has a grip on people all around the globe, regardless of cultural identity. There are always different news outlets who "compete" with each other and attract people to their side, simply because it's their grand scheme of making money. That goes for both USA and every other country.
Also! Good education helps people spot bias and find the truth of a matter. A well educated country isn't as vulnerable to the grip of the media.
But wouldn't that only support my initial point that differing cultures who don't adapt offer nothing but massively increased crime rates? I mean you just said it there. :pMahogany wrote:
But they were terrorists all the same. Their horrific acts are downplayed because they were the ones writing the books, but put it under scrutiny and it's easy to see the horrors of what they did.
Have you read about the north? The native Irish are still besieged by the immigrant English and their culture. It's a massive dividing line up there, and has caused an immense amount of crime. I'm not choosing sides with them, but the English there caused a bunch of crime. They just exported the terrorism and crime, keeping it out of their own country. That is their culture. You can see the same thing happening with the US!
It's because I don't think modernist islam can adapt and merge with other cultures. They're doing everything in their power to resist being assimilated, which is the original topic of this discussion, before we expanded it onto the world theatre.Mahogany wrote:
Then I don't see why you disagree with me, since then people would be adapting to the new cultures just fine.
Can't argue with that, so yeah, agreed.Mahogany wrote:
Well I mean, you can take that argument and adapt it: There's naturally less money to be made in Ireland, so it would be less lucrative and therefore less influential on people.
Also! Good education helps people spot bias and find the truth of a matter. A well educated country isn't as vulnerable to the grip of the media.
What are you basing that on? I mean, media or your own eyes? Since part of my family lives there, I can testify what both they said and I saw. It's a disgusting state currently, and even if your point was valid, immigration in Germany began in the late 80s, not 2007.
Fuck you Railey, I ain't deleting this. =D
Fuck you Railey, I ain't deleting this. =D
hey, i live there!Aurani wrote:
Where have you visited it? I visited Bavaria about a year ago and it is INCREDIBLY unstable when it comes to crime rate. Not only that, but those same immigrants are here, quite literally 100km from me and I've seen those too. Completely different, alien, culture that will NEVER assimilate with the dominant ones.Mahogany wrote:
I've visited Germany myself many, many times both before and after the whole immigrant thing. I have family in Germany. Literally nothing has changed there, at all. It's dramatization by the media, because that gets clicks. Germany has low crime rates because it's a well-developed country, not because it's homogeneous.
here is what you want to look at:
https://www.polizei.bayern.de/content/6 ... t_2016.pdf
(+2 percent)
ignore the grey bars, they count shit like coming to Germany without a passport, which skyrocketed for obvious reasons.
actually most non-german crime wasn't even committed by refugees!
https://puu.sh/vhWtS/4224478d59.png
Sexual crimes like rape make up a minority of crimes by refugees, about 1 percent.
Calling bavaria unstable is simply wrong. The crime per capita rate and overall crime is down over 10 percent since 2007. Overall crime saw an increase of 2 percent last year, but that is within the range of normal fluctuation.
But I support that idea. Fuck people who don't adapt, as I've said. Hell, the rest of Ireland proves that point even further, as there were plenty of brits there and society DID adapt.Aurani wrote:
But wouldn't that only support my initial point that differing cultures who don't adapt offer nothing but massively increased crime rates? I mean you just said it there. :p
There's plenty of responsibility to be taken by the country receiving the immigrants, too, though. You can draw parallels between Irish immigrants travelling to America, and now Muslim immigrants arriving in Europe. Now take a look at Irish in America. They throw bigger St. Patrick's Day celebrations than we do! Give it time, and soon enough the cultures will merge.
So you believe all or most muslims want to enforce shakira law or what-have-you on the rest of the world? I can't ever agree with that. It's hard enough to adapt to a new culture, let alone in today's age with the resurgence of white nationalism.Aurani wrote:
It's because I don't think modernist islam can adapt and merge with other cultures. They're doing everything in their power to resist being assimilated, which is the original topic of this discussion, before we expanded it onto the world theatre.
Ja ja wunderbar!
Jokes aside, I understand German perfectly well. :p
Also, like I said, you'd have to look at crime rate specifically committed since the arrival of muslims, who arrived well before 2007. Not only that, but I would've taken you as a person who doesn't trust statistics done by the government since that same government is trying to cover up what immigration has done to Germany in the past 20 years. Economically it improved, but socially it's completely down the shitter.
Fanaticism is something inherent to modernist islam, simply because of the abovementioned. Do note that when I say "fanaticism", I don't mean "Allah Akbar! *boom*", but refer to the actual adaptability of its people.
In Orthodox faith, culture is VERY close to religion, but Orthodoxy lacks the level of aggressiveness Islam has, and that's what separates them. You can't "assimilate" muslims from the east the same way you can assimilate other peoples. It just doesn't work that way, and there our opinions differ - I simply don't agree that they can be reasoned with over time. History is far too much on my side for me to believe that.
Jokes aside, I understand German perfectly well. :p
Also, like I said, you'd have to look at crime rate specifically committed since the arrival of muslims, who arrived well before 2007. Not only that, but I would've taken you as a person who doesn't trust statistics done by the government since that same government is trying to cover up what immigration has done to Germany in the past 20 years. Economically it improved, but socially it's completely down the shitter.
I guess that's where our opinions differ. Islam has the same level of tradition as Orthodox Christianity has, but combines it with the aggressiveness of Catholic Christianity, thus forming a monster of a religion that cannot function on the same level nor compare to any current religion in the world.Mahogany wrote:
So you believe all or most muslims want to enforce shakira law or what-have-you on the rest of the world? I can't ever agree with that. It's hard enough to adapt to a new culture, let alone in today's age with the resurgence of white nationalism.
Fanaticism is something inherent to modernist islam, simply because of the abovementioned. Do note that when I say "fanaticism", I don't mean "Allah Akbar! *boom*", but refer to the actual adaptability of its people.
In Orthodox faith, culture is VERY close to religion, but Orthodoxy lacks the level of aggressiveness Islam has, and that's what separates them. You can't "assimilate" muslims from the east the same way you can assimilate other peoples. It just doesn't work that way, and there our opinions differ - I simply don't agree that they can be reasoned with over time. History is far too much on my side for me to believe that.
thats great, you don't have to take my word for it then: Just take a look at the charts yourself.Aurani wrote:
Ja ja wunderbar!
Jokes aside, I understand German perfectly well. :p
Anyway, after reading up to this i've become even more sceptical about the claim that Sweden experiences a rape crisis.
Germany obviously doesn't face a rape crisis according to these stats (if i dare to extrapolate from bavarias stats).
This begs the question: Why would it be so radically different for sweden? What exactly is going on there? Germany accepted more refugees than sweden did, right?
Read what I edited above. :p
Also, Sweden accepted more people based on the percentage of its population compared to Germany, hence the outcry.
Also, Sweden accepted more people based on the percentage of its population compared to Germany, hence the outcry.
i trust these statistics.
if you have a better source to offer you can go ahead and link it, but as long as i don't have something like that i'll stick to this.
Otherwise i might as well say that i believe what i believe because i want to.
The stats weren't that pro immigration btw: it's very apparent that non-german people are FAR more criminal than german-born people. Non-germans were responsible for 35 percent of all crimes, which is huge if you consider that they make up only around 10 percent of the total population.
if these stats were faked to push an agenda, why would they feature something like this?
You can say that you believe that society goes down the shitter, but if you don't have the data to back it up i'll always assume that you're just talking out of your ass. Sry mate
And if you want to look at crime rates before 2007.. expect them to be even higher than in 2007.
if you have a better source to offer you can go ahead and link it, but as long as i don't have something like that i'll stick to this.
Otherwise i might as well say that i believe what i believe because i want to.
The stats weren't that pro immigration btw: it's very apparent that non-german people are FAR more criminal than german-born people. Non-germans were responsible for 35 percent of all crimes, which is huge if you consider that they make up only around 10 percent of the total population.
if these stats were faked to push an agenda, why would they feature something like this?
You can say that you believe that society goes down the shitter, but if you don't have the data to back it up i'll always assume that you're just talking out of your ass. Sry mate
And if you want to look at crime rates before 2007.. expect them to be even higher than in 2007.
Well I mean it's up to you to trust government statistics when we are in the middle of discussing why that same government has fucked the country over. I trust my family and my own eyes more than the government, and that's just natural.
In the case of Sweden, we can see that Malmo, the place with a high density of immigrants, has much higher crime than the adjacent cities: https://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings.jsp
I've also become aware that immigrants are over represented in crime based on some older studies, but recently Sweden has refused to include racial demographics into their statistics. Statistics of Sweden showing violent crimes have increased: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgJA1jEyqc
And here is a video of a journalist investigating Rinkeby, a place in Stockholm, and has to be escorted out by police because some immigrants were "masking up", and they were warned that there could be a flash mob. That glance at 1:07 tho... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODw7o34Vdbk
Later, the Swedish media completely lied about what happened. I've also discovered that the Swedish police chief has direct ties to Left Wing political parties, which explains why police statements differ so much to what actually has been happening.
So, pretty good evidence of ties to immigration and crime, and evidence of the establishment trying to cover this up. However one very important thing that I have learned, and I've read this in Australian newspapers as well, is that crime is much higher among second and third generation immigrants. So there may not be an overly strong correlation between recent immigrants and crime, however in the long run it causes many problems in a society, not just limited to crime but including many other social and economic problems. This is supported by Tim Pool's conclusion after his investigation of Sweden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0p7Oyvql9s
I've also become aware that immigrants are over represented in crime based on some older studies, but recently Sweden has refused to include racial demographics into their statistics. Statistics of Sweden showing violent crimes have increased: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgJA1jEyqc
And here is a video of a journalist investigating Rinkeby, a place in Stockholm, and has to be escorted out by police because some immigrants were "masking up", and they were warned that there could be a flash mob. That glance at 1:07 tho... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODw7o34Vdbk
Later, the Swedish media completely lied about what happened. I've also discovered that the Swedish police chief has direct ties to Left Wing political parties, which explains why police statements differ so much to what actually has been happening.
So, pretty good evidence of ties to immigration and crime, and evidence of the establishment trying to cover this up. However one very important thing that I have learned, and I've read this in Australian newspapers as well, is that crime is much higher among second and third generation immigrants. So there may not be an overly strong correlation between recent immigrants and crime, however in the long run it causes many problems in a society, not just limited to crime but including many other social and economic problems. This is supported by Tim Pool's conclusion after his investigation of Sweden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0p7Oyvql9s
Damn right.Aurani wrote:
Well I mean it's up to you to trust government statistics when we are in the middle of discussing why that same government has fucked the country over. I trust my family and my own eyes more than the government, and that's just natural.
can someone tell me what the fuck is wrong with my government
PLEASE WHY IS THIS HAPPENING
PLEASE WHY IS THIS HAPPENING
Shani pls bomb spicer ok thanks
aurani please why do you edit, just respond like a normal person.Aurani wrote:
What are you basing that on? I mean, media or your own eyes? Since part of my family lives there, I can testify what both they said and I saw. It's a disgusting state currently, and even if your point was valid, immigration in Germany began in the late 80s, not 2007.
Fuck you Railey, I ain't deleting this. =D
Since we're playing that game... i've lived in Bavaria most of my life, i was born here and grew up here, went to school and currently work and live here.
Certainly my observational evidence should outweigh yours?
But i don't care that much about observational evidence, so lets do this the proper way.
Lets look at history first..
immigration didn't begin in the 80s, but in the 60s.
Germany was more unstable when the RAF and the RZ were still around, posing a big threat to internal security: Not immigrants were the cause, but far-left terrorists - most of them native Germans.
islamist terror is a joke compared to what happened here in the 70s and 80s. They carried out over 30 terrorist attacks in a single year.
Crime per capita was at its highest around 1993, long after the huge wave of guest-worker immigrants came to Germany.
i'll always trust statistics over what i see, because i can't possibly see the whole picture with my own eyes, due to the scope of the issue. Statistics are a way to take a glimps at the bigger picture - maybe the only way.
even if i see one person being raped by refugees, or 100 emotional articles about raping refugees, that doesn't mean that they're a strong enough force to make Germany as a whole unstable.
The problem is scope insensitivity: People really suck when it comes to big numbers.
Even 100.000 drug dealing criminal refugees aren't enough to make a country of 80.000.000 unstable. They're still outnumbered one to 800.
never forgetti, moms sticketti
Sweden isn't experiencing a "rape crisis" due to refugees/immigrants, it's related to how Sweden rather uniquely classifies rape cases. The right-wing often misguidedly use them as an example of immigrants raping everybody.
Stick Man memes are some high quality keks though
Stick Man memes are some high quality keks though
need you to bomb someone for me thanksMilkshake wrote:
wait what
he's stupid and he needs to just go in a hole
His name is spicer okay thanks
Literally just type in spicer he's the laugh of google rn
Sean forgot he had to affect the pretense that the holohoax was real.
"holohoax" topkek
WW2 was a hoax made by the US government in order to brainwash people who were too intelligent to fall for their other tricks!
Edit: you let ITT fall all the way to the second page you fucking heretics
Edit: you let ITT fall all the way to the second page you fucking heretics
and it will go down soon enough one more time
till political shit ends xD
till political shit ends xD
I mean whatever floats your boat. You're the 33 year old ponylover here who spends an hour bringing down a thread, so keep doing whatever you think is the best.
Who deleted my rename itt2
I mean, at 21:27 in almost night i can do whatever the fuck i want to make my bedtime fun ;]
tru, 134 pages left for me to draw this thread down into oblivion
even if you rule over this forum, you'll still only rule over a pile of shit
OT is not a osu!forumRailey2 wrote:
even if you rule over this forum, you'll still only rule over a pile of shit
And I am just having fun, that's all
For autistic people who see problem with their own lack of interest in wide area of things - yes.Milkshake wrote:
33 and MLP seems like a problem.
I don't even care lul.
True
Yes i can be your daddy
hey daddy
oh yeah
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia means fear of long words.
Mikrophobiakai99 wrote:
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia means fear of long words.
-_-
best 40 secs of my life
ITT2 a.k.a Political Debate Thread should be on top
One shall not simply dump this legendary thread to the oblivion
One shall not simply dump this legendary thread to the oblivion
no
Black people had it great in the 1960s and welfare's existence is the only thing contributing to black households not succeeding? Are you fucking stupid?B1rd wrote:
https://youtu.be/chph_EPNNAs?t=10m53s
Social Democracts BTFO
How are people so willfully ignorant of MASSIVE amounts of history, able to look at 2 data points and say "Yep, see, I'm completely justified in my worldview!"
I have to ask you B1rd: why do you enjoy baiting people?
I'm almost 100% sure he's not baiting but is actually standing behind his posts. I mean it's Birdman, the edgiest man alive. :p
You're creating a strawman and twisting words into something no one has said, and your typical tactic of using correlation vs causation arguments is weak and you can't just explain away all evidence against you that way in stead of actually coming up with a valid counter arguments. If you have to resort to using such weak argumentation methods all the time you really have to question the validity of your position. I guarantee that Sowell has pored over far more statistics than you have, and knows far more about history than you do, so don't try and again make the false claim that people are making wide-sweeping and definite conclusions from a few out of context cherry-picked pieces of statistics.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Black people had it great in the 1960s and welfare's existence is the only thing contributing to black households not succeeding? Are you fucking stupid?B1rd wrote:
https://youtu.be/chph_EPNNAs?t=10m53s
Social Democracts BTFO
How are people so willfully ignorant of MASSIVE amounts of history, able to look at 2 data points and say "Yep, see, I'm completely justified in my worldview!"
If that Blacks are far worse off now after the welfare state than in the 20th century when they had just come out of slavery and the Great Depression was in effect (really doesn't sound like a "great time for blacks" to me), you really have to question of a fundamental level this affirmative-action doctrine of yours, if it not only comes at a large cost to the taxpayer, but evidently is a detriment to the elements of society that it purports to benefit.
Why, then, is this not a problem in other countries that have generous welfare states, but is one in America? You're making the direct implication that black people fuck themselves over because of the "generous welfare state" that exists in the US, while other countries have -better- support and don't have the same "side effects" that you're talking about.
I can understand one single supporting argument against such a thing, though- one supported by evolutionary biology. But since you've never mentioned that particular argument then I'll just assume you're trying to imply the usual:
Black people in the 1960's can't have kids because they get no support.
Support is introduced and they take advantage of the system by having children out of wedlock, pumping out kids for dat welfare $, etc.
Black people are now worse off than they were before, due partly to their own choices, partly due to the system that they're living in.
Am I mischaracterising your argument there, or is that an accurate summary?
I can understand one single supporting argument against such a thing, though- one supported by evolutionary biology. But since you've never mentioned that particular argument then I'll just assume you're trying to imply the usual:
Black people in the 1960's can't have kids because they get no support.
Support is introduced and they take advantage of the system by having children out of wedlock, pumping out kids for dat welfare $, etc.
Black people are now worse off than they were before, due partly to their own choices, partly due to the system that they're living in.
Am I mischaracterising your argument there, or is that an accurate summary?
Sigh, to think that I actually have to watch whatever Bird posted in order to understand what kind of bullshit you're spouting now. :V
Aurani wrote:
Sigh, to think that I actually have to watch whatever Bird posted in order to understand what kind of bullshit you're spouting now. :V
I mean, after having watched that video I have to say that I have absolutely no idea why the black people in murrica are abusing the welfare whilst they aren't doing so in other countries (according to what you said). That might stem from me not having a single clue about the murrican welfare system in the first place, so the only thing I could really say about that is that they differ in some way(?).
Aurani wrote:
I mean, after having watched that video I have to say that I have absolutely no idea why the black people in murrica are abusing the welfare whilst they aren't doing so in other countries (according to what you said). That might stem from me not having a single clue about the murrican welfare system in the first place, so the only thing I could really say about that is that they differ in some way(?).
It's an awfully complicated situation in America, as it is for just about anything. To point at a single factor (the welfare state existing) and then to extrapolate massive conclusions from that one factor is dishonest at the very least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-A ... e#Theories
Here's a wikipedia article with a bunch of different possible reasons for how African-American families have ended up the way they are today.
I just really, really dislike the kind of disingenuous arguments that get jerked about in any political discourse. People who buy into that kind of thing without even questioning it are letting themselves turn into idiots.
Something worth noting: Putting more money (gasp) into helping black families, encouraging two-parent households, may be a great help. For example, guaranteed paid parental leave when a baby is born.
" The chance that black males will be arrested and jailed at least once in their lifetime in many areas around the country is extremely high. For Washington, D.C., this probability is between 80 and 90%."
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
Yes, exactly. I can't actually say what's wrong with the welfare system in America, but it definitely isn't the best in the world. Perhaps resources are being spent where they shouldn't be, perhaps in other areas there isn't enough. I'm certainly no expert and can't be the one to say "I know how to fix this, just do X and Y". The problem is that people will often be very happy to do the exact same thing, just in a different way- "Welfare in America is a problem, we need to remove it all together, because I know that would fix things." They're not qualified to say that, so why are they even proposing anything?Aurani wrote:
" The chance that black males will be arrested and jailed at least once in their lifetime in many areas around the country is extremely high. For Washington, D.C., this probability is between 80 and 90%."
Holy fuck, what........
I mean, one thing is for certain: welfare alone CAN'T be the sole reason they are as they are today. It's a fucking ridiculous claim and a sane person would never accept it as an answer, however, there MUST be some correlation between the welfare system and today's black communities in murrica.
It's highly likely that it's just as you said - an incredibly complicated web of variables that make up what we see today in the black communities.
I generally have these complaints relating to right-wing claims because they're the ones who are being the most ridiculous right now, as well as being the people who have the most influence (since Trump won the election, etc).
Not many other welfare states have large black populations. I don't know what you're talking about when you say evolutionary biology, we have already established blacks have a biological disadvantage in industrial societies, but from what I remember of the last argument, the statement was that affirmative action via welfare was needed to overcome these intrinsic disadvantages. What I'm calling into question now is the Leftist idea of radical egalitarianism, that we need to try and force equality with the redistribution resources from the worthy to the unworthy.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run. It seems that the hardest thing for the government to do is nothing, and we get used to the idea of the government being the universal solution for all problems, and so the role of the government continually expands without any good results.
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run. It seems that the hardest thing for the government to do is nothing, and we get used to the idea of the government being the universal solution for all problems, and so the role of the government continually expands without any good results.
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
That's the very thing I hate seeing in discussions, both real-life ones and the ones on public forums. Having ideas about something is something we should encourage and nurture, but blatantly saying that "X thing must be done in order to improve Y thing!" when you have no actual qualification to make such a claim and are just looking at one point/variable due to it is something called ignorance.
As with everything, we must question things. I'm going to neither protect nor blame the right-wing for their way of thinking, but we have to begin from somewhere. Things have not gotten to this point out of blue. We have to analytically resolve every issue at hand.
As with everything, we must question things. I'm going to neither protect nor blame the right-wing for their way of thinking, but we have to begin from somewhere. Things have not gotten to this point out of blue. We have to analytically resolve every issue at hand.
Jesus Christ no, I'd never agree to black people have a "biological disadvantage in industrial societies". But whatever, I'm not going to go into that.B1rd wrote:
Not many other welfare states have large black populations. I don't know what you're talking about when you say evolutionary biology, we have already established blacks have a biological disadvantage in industrial societies
I think redistribution of wealth can have great benefits, yes. I don't think it's immoral if the people within society are OK with it (i.e. most people are perfectly okay with paying taxes. The ones who aren't can leave, or at the very least stop using public resources that are paid for by taxation, for example.)B1rd wrote:
but from what I remember of the last argument, the statement was that affirmative action via welfare was needed to overcome these intrinsic disadvantages. What I'm calling into question now is the Leftist idea of radical egalitarianism, that we need to try and force equality with the redistribution resources from the worthy to the unworthy.
Because even disregarding the morality of such a thing, it seems the efficacy is sorely lacking as well.
Also the "worthy" vs "unworthy" claim is pretty.. weird. Who's deciding who is unworthy to benefit from redistribution of wealth/socialistic systems? How is that decided?
Works plenty well elsewhere. Scandinavian countries are pretty fucking top-notch as far as society goes, and many have generous welfare systems, for example. Look at Norway's wonderful rehabilitation prisons as a similar example. Also, I'd say your video quite ignorantly implies that America's welfare system is the cause of the African-American family structure to be failing, but whatever. You saying that "letting society do its thing" would be better is a quite extravagant claim that I really don't think you are qualified to make.B1rd wrote:
Now, no one is saying that a single factor is responsible for everything, that's just something you've made up. However what is evident is that it hasn't helped. Are you just gonna then say that it wasn't real welfare and we actually need mo money fo dem programs? This idea that we need top-down governmental intervention into the economy and society, to patch up various shortcomings with cash through various arbitrary programs and policies conceived by politicians, instead of letting society do its thing, is a tired old notion that really doesn't help society in the long run.
That's Communism, not Socialism. I also don't particularly advocate for either of them, I'm just capable of recognising the potential benefits of a Socialist society without simply discarding the idea entirely, as well as advocating for many socialistic policies existing in coexistence with economy that is Capitalist overall.B1rd wrote:
Also, you can hardly call right-wingers crazy after you yourself were advocating for socialism after it has proven to fail time and time again and been responsible for millions upon millions of deaths in the bloodiest century of human history.
DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Jesus Christ no, I'd never agree to black people have a "biological disadvantage in industrial societies".
Haven't we talked a lot about black people having lower IQ and thus lower intelligence? The evidence shows this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't accept this you're just being willfully ignorant of reality.
Aren't all Libertarian asking for it the ability to opt-out of taxes and pay for the individual services and utilities they use? Just leaving and going to another country with the exact same system isn't a solution. It's immoral because obviously not everyone is going to agree with their money being spent and taken with this way. If the people in society actually were all OK with it, you wouldn't need to enforce it with coercion would you.
By worthy, I mean people who have earned money through their own ability and therefore are worthy of it as opposed to people who've just taken it from someone else. It's like taking apples from a healthy apple tree and giving it to one that is withered and failing and then expecting them to be equal.
Just talking about Scandinavian countries is hardly a valid argument, considering they don't have a large black population like America. Arguing for the existence of a social safety net within a white homogenous country is one thing, which can be done voluntarily by the way. But as we will see in the coming years, these countries and their system won't cope well with a large influx of non-white non-Western immigrants. And the "safety net" will turn into something more like affirmative action.
If you want to talk about Scandinavian countries I can do that, I think they're more of a proof of the Right wing position than anything. Socialists like to make out they are proof of the superiority of democratic socialism over capitalism, but they don't realise that it's a lot more nuanced than that (talk about drawing large conclusions from a few bits of evidence). America is a good example of big-government crony-capitalism more than anything.
Considering that Capitalism has been responsible for some of the greatest successes in human history, and socialism some of the worst low points, I wonder why you throw out the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism and a classical liberal society in favour of a socialist one. And by the way, there is very little difference between Socialism and Communism, the Soviet Union called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Aren't all Libertarian asking for it the ability to opt-out of taxes and pay for the individual services and utilities they use? Just leaving and going to another country with the exact same system isn't a solution. It's immoral because obviously not everyone is going to agree with their money being spent and taken with this way. If the people in society actually were all OK with it, you wouldn't need to enforce it with coercion would you.
By worthy, I mean people who have earned money through their own ability and therefore are worthy of it as opposed to people who've just taken it from someone else. It's like taking apples from a healthy apple tree and giving it to one that is withered and failing and then expecting them to be equal.
Just talking about Scandinavian countries is hardly a valid argument, considering they don't have a large black population like America. Arguing for the existence of a social safety net within a white homogenous country is one thing, which can be done voluntarily by the way. But as we will see in the coming years, these countries and their system won't cope well with a large influx of non-white non-Western immigrants. And the "safety net" will turn into something more like affirmative action.
If you want to talk about Scandinavian countries I can do that, I think they're more of a proof of the Right wing position than anything. Socialists like to make out they are proof of the superiority of democratic socialism over capitalism, but they don't realise that it's a lot more nuanced than that (talk about drawing large conclusions from a few bits of evidence). America is a good example of big-government crony-capitalism more than anything.
Considering that Capitalism has been responsible for some of the greatest successes in human history, and socialism some of the worst low points, I wonder why you throw out the idea of laissez-faire Capitalism and a classical liberal society in favour of a socialist one. And by the way, there is very little difference between Socialism and Communism, the Soviet Union called itself Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
안녕하세요 나는 카이.
Bird mate, what is your definition of IQ? You seem to be the ignorant one here if you use that term when the term itself is of quite a debatable status when it comes to its definition.B1rd wrote:
Haven't we talked a lot about black people having lower IQ and thus lower intelligence? The evidence shows this beyond a reasonable doubt. If you don't accept this you're just being willfully ignorant of reality.
I'd also like to see actual evidence of what you claimed about them there (that is: evidence which is not from some random extremist or heavy right-wing source) since I could actually both agree with you or completely disagree with you based on the evidence that you provide and your answer on the question above.
I have my own opinion on that and it either aligns with yours or is completely different, based on what you say.
There is only one definition of IQ
I'm not gonna bother to dig out any evidence, I'm just gonna state the results, and that is that blacks have lower IQ than whites, even when factoring in sociolo-economic level. All the races vary in IQ to some degree.
I'm not gonna bother to dig out any evidence, I'm just gonna state the results, and that is that blacks have lower IQ than whites, even when factoring in sociolo-economic level. All the races vary in IQ to some degree.
Now, it's completely alright if you don't provide any links if you can't be bothered, since I mostly wanted to hear the IQ part, but for us to even begin discussing it we would need to be on the same page about generalization, which we're not. I can't for the life of me accept "racial variations in IQ" as IQ itself varies not based on race, but on culture, surroundings and genes.
Saying that I, as a white person, am in the same IQ bag as some inbred hillbilly from rural Georgia solely based on the mutual colour of our skin is both statistically distasteful and insulting to me as a human being.
Saying that I, as a white person, am in the same IQ bag as some inbred hillbilly from rural Georgia solely based on the mutual colour of our skin is both statistically distasteful and insulting to me as a human being.
Of course all those things that you mention influence IQ, but if all those factors are the same and race is the only variable, then there will be somewhat significant differences.
Well that's the thing. For all those factors to be the same, we would need to look at a much narrower picture. For example, you COULD compare blacks vs whites in, say, France, as they for the most part have an identical culture and surroundings. However, if we broaden it onto Europe and Africa we lose the core of what defines IQ - a black guy from Paris can't be mixed together with a black guy from Kongo.
To compare races on a planetary level, we'd need identical circumstances everywhere, which we can't get. Usually you could argue that statistics are valid and do not require every variable to be identical for the bigger picture to be formed, but in this case we're discussing something that completely DEPENDS on those same variables to be identical in order for it to work.
To compare races on a planetary level, we'd need identical circumstances everywhere, which we can't get. Usually you could argue that statistics are valid and do not require every variable to be identical for the bigger picture to be formed, but in this case we're discussing something that completely DEPENDS on those same variables to be identical in order for it to work.
Of course you can never get 100% the same set of circumstances, that's impossible, but you can get them close enough to sensibly draw conclusions.
I'm looking around and so far my suspicions are confirmed - there is no black-white test that spans the entire Globe. The only RELIABLE tests ever done were in United States and there it's obvious why blacks scored so low compared to whites - surroundings and culture. That is far from being a fair study, since the circumstances black and white children grow up in are vastly different.
I'd very much like to see a study done on all countries in the world, which we both know is something impossible, as you cannot reliably test children brought up in severe poverty or wartime (and MANY of the countries populated mainly by blacks are currently either poverty-stricken or unstable and behind the times) - something that falls under the surroundings variable.
I'd very much like to see a study done on all countries in the world, which we both know is something impossible, as you cannot reliably test children brought up in severe poverty or wartime (and MANY of the countries populated mainly by blacks are currently either poverty-stricken or unstable and behind the times) - something that falls under the surroundings variable.
Iceland 
feels good that I got these right
i like that test.
it's testing reading comprehension on a very high level, something most students nowaday severely lack, as proven by the results: 90 percent got the second question wrong - even though it had a very clear answer.
it's testing reading comprehension on a very high level, something most students nowaday severely lack, as proven by the results: 90 percent got the second question wrong - even though it had a very clear answer.
But pretty rough when you're just learning English and you only have 1-2 minutes to complete each question.
they are trying to select capable people, raising the bar very high is just the right thing to do if you're gonna go for that.
Looking at the youtube comments..
''An English editor would have a great time with these passages. The language is obviously designed for failed comprehension and is completely pointless as no one speaks, writes, or communicates that way. What's the point of this? Poor kids.'' (878 upvotes)
i'm commenting on this because i feel many people who come across the video might share this sentiment:
Few write like this in ''normal'' literature, but try reading philosophic essays or anything post-graduate and you'll have to face this level of convolution on a regular basis.
its not designed for miscomprehension, its just hard to comprehend.
what do you think about the test, B1rd?
Looking at the youtube comments..
''An English editor would have a great time with these passages. The language is obviously designed for failed comprehension and is completely pointless as no one speaks, writes, or communicates that way. What's the point of this? Poor kids.'' (878 upvotes)
i'm commenting on this because i feel many people who come across the video might share this sentiment:
Few write like this in ''normal'' literature, but try reading philosophic essays or anything post-graduate and you'll have to face this level of convolution on a regular basis.
its not designed for miscomprehension, its just hard to comprehend.
what do you think about the test, B1rd?
Wait, what was so hard about the second question? The first one was at least 5 times harder for me...
I'm guessing that last sentence in the second one screwed people over just for shits and giggles.
I'm guessing that last sentence in the second one screwed people over just for shits and giggles.
its amazing that 90 percent got the last question wrong.. thats worse than if everyone had picked at random!
And yet the people from buzzfeed could answer it, and B1rd and us two would probably have picked the correct answer too.
This is brilliant design: Everyone who tried to answer it without being entirely sure must have gotten the question wrong.
And yet the people from buzzfeed could answer it, and B1rd and us two would probably have picked the correct answer too.
This is brilliant design: Everyone who tried to answer it without being entirely sure must have gotten the question wrong.
Well as far as I understood, those questions were in English and were given to normal Korean students, correct? Even if English is their second language, most of them won't have better than average knowledge of the language, and even those who do, probably still struggle since these questions test the span of your vocabulary and core understanding of the language.
It's insane for a random fucking test. It's just as one of the guys said - made to make you fail.
It's insane for a random fucking test. It's just as one of the guys said - made to make you fail.
its not just a random test though, its an SAT-equivalent, a filter to select the people that can go to the best universities of the country.
i don't think it was ever meant to be possible for the majority to get high scores on it.
And thats how it should be, as it increases the tests efficiency as a filter.
i don't think it was ever meant to be possible for the majority to get high scores on it.
And thats how it should be, as it increases the tests efficiency as a filter.
These weren't too difficult, right? Also, buzzfeed, I'm not sure about the accuracy of it all. I highly doubt 90% would have that second one wrong.B1rd wrote:
feels good that I got these right
I actually thought they were pretty good questions. You have to dissect through the vocabulary, in essence. The questions themselves, after doing that, are surprisingly easy. It's really about how well you can understand what is written down.Aurani wrote:
Well as far as I understood, those questions were in English and were given to normal Korean students, correct? Even if English is their second language, most of them won't have better than average knowledge of the language, and even those who do, probably still struggle since these questions test the span of your vocabulary and core understanding of the language.
It's insane for a random fucking test. It's just as one of the guys said - made to make you fail.
keep in mind that its a test for highschoolers, the overwhelming majority not being english natives.
90 percent is insane, but not unbelievable. Many students probably followed the logic of the woman in the video:
''oh there's numbers, but that breaks the patter of the text! Can't be that one!'' *picks any of the other 4 options*
And i agree with you, i think its an excellent test (considering what it is for).
90 percent is insane, but not unbelievable. Many students probably followed the logic of the woman in the video:
''oh there's numbers, but that breaks the patter of the text! Can't be that one!'' *picks any of the other 4 options*
And i agree with you, i think its an excellent test (considering what it is for).
Oh, I missed the SAT part..... well that makes much more sense now. I take back what I said - those questions are fairly well structured and thought out if they're meant to test people who are supposed to attend the best unis in the country.Railey2 wrote:
its not just a random test though, its an SAT-equivalent, a filter to select the people that can go to the best universities of the country.
i don't think it was ever meant to be possible for the majority to get high scores on it.
And thats how it should be, as it increases the tests efficiency as a filter.
I do agree with you now.GladiOol wrote:
I actually thought they were pretty good questions. You have to dissect through the vocabulary, in essence. The questions themselves, after doing that, are surprisingly easy. It's really about how well you can understand what is written down.
to be more precise, they are supposed to pick people who are fit for uni in general, lower ranked universities included.
But a really high score will obviously send you to a top-university, so they kinda do both..
i do agree with what you said before: if this was just a random test, it would completely fail its purpose.
But a really high score will obviously send you to a top-university, so they kinda do both..
i do agree with what you said before: if this was just a random test, it would completely fail its purpose.
Interestingly enough, the tests here are in my opinion all incredibly easy even if you did not study at all for them, as it only really requires you to have paid SOME kind of attention in high school.
There is nothing remotely similar to these questions here....... and by that I mean not even in the same universe. If those questions were compared to the ones we have here, these ones would be elementary school admission questions. :V
There is nothing remotely similar to these questions here....... and by that I mean not even in the same universe. If those questions were compared to the ones we have here, these ones would be elementary school admission questions. :V
i don't like easy tests.
Most of the time the most important thing is your result, relative to others.
When you have an easy test, less capable people can still get very close to your performance, or even out-perform you when the right questions are asked.
When the test is hard, you are guaranteed to score way higher if you play out your strengths.
Hard tests are better even if you score lower in them, because your relative performance will always be way better if you even try only a little bit.
Tests that put you under heavy time pressure are my favourite, because i can easily outperform people that know more about the subject than me, simply because i am processing the questions faster :v
Most of the time the most important thing is your result, relative to others.
When you have an easy test, less capable people can still get very close to your performance, or even out-perform you when the right questions are asked.
When the test is hard, you are guaranteed to score way higher if you play out your strengths.
Hard tests are better even if you score lower in them, because your relative performance will always be way better if you even try only a little bit.
Tests that put you under heavy time pressure are my favourite, because i can easily outperform people that know more about the subject than me, simply because i am processing the questions faster :v
That's the thing, you just said that you don't like it when someone can outperform you based on a very specific circumstance, yet you like it when you can outperform others based on the sole factor of your ability to process things faster than average. :p
I personally hate time pressure, simply because I already know I'm going to nail the test, so the time factor only adds unnecessary micromanagement for me. I COULD answer the question in 10 seconds, but why do that when I can lean back and answer it within 30 and enjoy the atmosphere.
I guess I'm just a different type of person. :p
I personally hate time pressure, simply because I already know I'm going to nail the test, so the time factor only adds unnecessary micromanagement for me. I COULD answer the question in 10 seconds, but why do that when I can lean back and answer it within 30 and enjoy the atmosphere.
I guess I'm just a different type of person. :p
It's a good test.
I'm really quite fond of the private cram schools in South Korea, it really shows how good the schools can be when market principles are applied as opposed to top-down planned public schools. The schools are free to implement innovations like having classes based on students' ability rather than age, and teachers' incomes are based on their ability to teach rather that their seniority or whatever. Stuff that's pretty much impossible to implement in the public sector due to the mess of bureaucracy and interest groups like teacher's unions not wanting competition. I heard that some of the best teachers in South Korea can be payed in the realm of $4 million a year.
I'm really quite fond of the private cram schools in South Korea, it really shows how good the schools can be when market principles are applied as opposed to top-down planned public schools. The schools are free to implement innovations like having classes based on students' ability rather than age, and teachers' incomes are based on their ability to teach rather that their seniority or whatever. Stuff that's pretty much impossible to implement in the public sector due to the mess of bureaucracy and interest groups like teacher's unions not wanting competition. I heard that some of the best teachers in South Korea can be payed in the realm of $4 million a year.
(*´∇｀*) are we talking about the korean shit system now??
Of course i like it when the circumstances work to my advantage, who doesn't?Aurani wrote:
That's the thing, you just said that you don't like it when someone can outperform you based on a very specific circumstance, yet you like it when you can outperform others based on the sole factor of your ability to process things faster than average. :p
I personally hate time pressure, simply because I already know I'm going to nail the test, so the time factor only adds unnecessary micromanagement for me. I COULD answer the question in 10 seconds, but why do that when I can lean back and answer it within 30 and enjoy the atmosphere.
I guess I'm just a different type of person. :p
:V