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
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,167
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
You know, one day I will come over there and rape you when you least expect it. :V