Things that be all racist n' sheit

[andy7171]

I mean just wow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Getting loans and credit is typically easier as a white person. White people have an easier time climbing up corporate ladders, being promoted, and awarded contracts. Whites typically have higher salaries. Whites still disproportionately control political positions. And the opinions of white people typically have stronger value in American society (see complete dismissal of BLM movement).

And let's not even start with the justice system and the advantages whites face there.

It's been a while since I read The Bell Curve but if I remember correctly one thing they did is make a good case for believing that if you adjust for IQ a lot of that type of stuff disappears. The average Black with an IQ of 120, for example, does at least as well as the average White with an IQ of 120 does.

I bought a book called The Bell Curve Debate that was basically a series of counter arguments. But I did not see any convincing arguments on that point.

And I've seen anecdotal things in my own life that make it believable. For example: When each of my kids were preparing to graduate from high school their school held an awards night where they announced scholarships and such. In each case the students that got the most in terms of scholarships and scholarships from more highly rated universities weren't the highest achieving students. They were the highest achieving BLACK students. It was very clear that if one was a Black student who scored high on standardized tests and had a high GPA one was a coveted commodity.

In addition to that I noted that when my son applied for admission to Law schools they all had a question about how he would contribute to the "diversity" of the institution. And we all know what that means. That's basically a question about the bonus points you get for being a member of an "under represented minority."

When you're looking at stuff like climbing corporate ladders, etc., you have to understand that the average IQ of Blacks is one standard deviation lower than the average IQ of Whites is. This is an illustration of what that means:

Blacks are 13% of the population. Let's say that you assume an overall average IQ of at least 100 is necessary for a certain position. About 16% of Blacks can be expected to have an IQ of at least 100. That means that only about 0.13 x 0.16 = 0.02 or 2% of the people qualified for that position are Black.

Or let's say it takes an IQ of at least 115 to be a head football coach. That's not unreasonable. Being a head football coach is an administrative position. People with IQs of 115 or more make up about 16% of the population. But only about 2% of Blacks have an IQ of 115 or above. So one would expect that 0.16 x 0.02 = 0.0032 or 3 tenths of 1 percent of the people qualified to be a head football coach are Black.

That's the kind of cold, hard math that calls all the stuff about numbers of people in certain positions into question. It's not popular. But it's cold, hard math.

Do coaches IQ’s equate to wins/losses?

[CID1990]

I talked to a black guy on the phone yesterday.

Let the SPLC know - they'll put you on their wall of righteous people



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Do coaches IQ’s equate to wins/losses?

I don't know. It'd be interesting to do a study where they test the IQs of all the coaches at some levels then see if there is a correlation between IQ and winning percentage over some period.

But I would bet that the average IQ of, say, NCAA Division I or NFL head football coaches is somewhat above the population average of 100.

One thing is certain: The skill set necessary to be a successful head football coach is not the same as the skill set necessary to be a successful football player. Two completely different things. For sure doing something like saying "X percent of NFL players are Black and only Y percent of NFL head coaches are Black therefore there is unjust discrimination."

[Pwns]

And I've seen anecdotal things in my own life that make it believable. For example: When each of my kids were preparing to graduate from high school their school held an awards night where they announced scholarships and such. In each case the students that got the most in terms of scholarships and scholarships from more highly rated universities weren't the highest achieving students. They were the highest achieving BLACK students. It was very clear that if one was a Black student who scored high on standardized tests and had a high GPA one was a coveted commodity.

In addition to that I noted that when my son applied for admission to Law schools they all had a question about how he would contribute to the "diversity" of the institution. And we all know what that means. That's basically a question about the bonus points you get for being a member of an "under represented minority."

Your son is the deaf one, right?

I think that's a pretty good demonstration that the push for "diversity" is exactly what we thought it was all along - it's an excuse to discriminate against whites and high-achieving Asian minorities because otherwise it would be completely legally untenable.

There are so many ridiculous assertions and contradictions in the doctrines of "racial justice" and no one can really stand up to them without risking their jobs. You can see Apple's former black female diversity chief for saying an obvious truth that a group of white men can be diverse.

And you can see Sam Harris can get completely roasted for allowing Charles Murray to have a say on his podcast and daring to be intellectually honest that there are real genetic differences between human populations that have been geographically isolated for thousands of years.

[BDKJMU]

If you are an establishment that:
-has a requirement that restrooms are reserved for paying customers.
-have 2 people come into the establishment, use the restrooms, take seats, refuse to order anything, are politely asked to leave 3 times, refuse to leave, the police are called. That's is somehow racist if the 2 people are black.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/starb ... 80414.html

[BlueHen86]

If you are an establishment that:
-has a requirement that restrooms are reserved for paying customers.
-have 2 people come into the establishment, use the restrooms, take seats, refuse to order anything, are politely asked to leave 3 times, refuse to leave, the police are called. That's is somehow racist if the 2 people are black.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/starb ... 80414.html

It's racist if you treat whites, or any other color, differently.

That said, without any additional information, I have no problem with what the Starbucks and cops did here. All the guys needed to do was order 1 coffee, that's not asking too much.

[UNI88]

That's a good post UNI88. I don't agree with everything, but it's a well-thought out response. I've admittedly done a bad job reflecting my thoughts onto this thread (certainly not as well as you), so I'll simply refer to the many academic articles written about the subject 'cause they're essentially what I'm trying to say.

ps. I agree that Clinton's blanket statement of calling Trump supporters "deplorable" was wrong.

Trip, I think one of the most important things to understand is that things are rarely as cut and dried as people on either extreme would like to make them. Do I think there is some white privilege? Yes, but I think it is much less significant then what 93 so aptly calls wealth privilege. Let me ask you this, if you were a sentient soul and had the ability to choose between one of the following two situations to be born into which would you choose?
1) an African American male born to two middle class parents living in house in a middle class suburb, or
2) a white male born to two parents (or a single mother) earning below the poverty line and living in a single-wide in a trailer park.

I know I would choose #1. Yes I would likely face racism and discrimination but my chances of a happy and successful life would be significantly greater because I would go to better schools and my parents would push me to do well academically. I would also probably have less exposure to bad influences (drugs, gangs, lack of hope, etc.) that could derail me.

Please post links to the many academic articles. This is a topic that I've been interested in since before you were born. I took a course in college that was taught by a former director of Operation PUSH that spurred the interest.

[kalm]

If you are an establishment that:
-has a requirement that restrooms are reserved for paying customers.
-have 2 people come into the establishment, use the restrooms, take seats, refuse to order anything, are politely asked to leave 3 times, refuse to leave, the police are called. That's is somehow racist if the 2 people are black.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/starb ... 80414.html

Cornell Wm. Brooks
✔
@CornellWBrooks
TRUE CONFESSION: I ‘ve done the following (while Black):

loitered in @Starbucks, waiting for a friend;

loitered in @Starbucks, waiting for the rain to stop;

& EVEN asking my teenage sons to loiter & wait for me at @Starbucks.

ARRESTED for LOITERING w/o A LATTE. SMH @AP https://twitter.com/missydepino/status/ ... 3016094721 …

5:24 AM - Apr 14, 2018 · Virginia, USA
999
646 people are talking about this

[93henfan]

If you watch the Philly news (I'm in that TV market), they brush right over the facts. They basically present it as two black guys went to Starbucks, white people were scared, so they called the cops. Typical liberal media.

Starbucks rightfully kicked their asses out. You don't go to a business just to hang out without buying something. Anything. And then to refuse to leave after being asked, well then yeah, you're obviously trespassing. But of course they play the race card.

I can tell you for a fact that Starbucks is not a racist company. I roll into my go-to Starbucks between 5:30 and 6:30 each weekday morning in DC. They hand out free coffee to the homeless before 7am. I usually sit down among the zombies and download all my app updates. It's how I keep in touch with the pulse of the street!

[CAA Flagship]

If you watch the Philly news (I'm in that TV market), they brush right over the facts. They basically present it as two black guys went to Starbucks, white people were scared, so they called the cops. Typical liberal media.

Starbucks rightfully kicked their asses out. You don't go to a business just to hang out without buying something. Anything. And then to refuse to leave after being asked, well then yeah, you're obviously trespassing. But of course they play the race card.

I can tell you for a fact that Starbucks is not a racist company. I roll into my go-to Starbucks between 5:30 and 6:30 each weekday morning in DC. They hand out free coffee to the homeless before 7am. I usually sit down among the zombies and download all my app updates. It's how I keep in touch with the pulse of the street!

The smell of coffee-urine is just a notch above asparagus/brussel sprouts-urine.

[JohnStOnge]

Have to correct myself. I skipped something in some calculations.

Blacks are 13% of the population. Let's say that you assume an overall average IQ of at least 100 is necessary for a certain position. About 16% of Blacks can be expected to have an IQ of at least 100. That means that only about 0.13 x 0.16 = 0.02 or 2% of the people qualified for that position are Black.

Since only 50% of the population has IQ > 100 it's (0.13 x 0.16)/0.5 = 0.0416 or about 4%.

Or let's say it takes an IQ of at least 115 to be a head football coach. That's not unreasonable. Being a head football coach is an administrative position. People with IQs of 115 or more make up about 16% of the population. But only about 2% of Blacks have an IQ of 115 or above. So one would expect that 0.16 x 0.02 = 0.0032 or 3 tenths of 1 percent of the people qualified to be a head football coach are Black.

Since only about 16% of the people have IQs >115 it's (0.13 * 0.02)/0.16 = 0.01625 or about 1.6%.

I must've been buzzed. Especially with respect to that second one.

[JohnStOnge]

What I'm about to type really did turn out this way. I didn't force it to. I looked up the latest 12th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math test. 2015 is the latest. Then I said, "Ok, just to ball park it, I think it's reasonable to say you need to be in the top 10% in math ability to be an Engineer." I did the math and figured that just based on 2015 NAEP math test results you'd expect about 2.3% of that top 10% at math to be Black and about 13.8% would be Asian.

Then I did a quick Google to see percent Engineering degrees by race. The first thing I found is at https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publica ... sPart1.pdf. And it says that in 2014 3.5% of Engineering degrees were earned by Blacks and 13.1% were earned by Asians.

BTW that Asian figure brings up a persistent question: If "White Privilege" is such an impediment to non Whites, why do Asians do so well?

The Engineering degree thing relates to that question because Asians make up 5.7% of the US population but they earn 13.1% of the Engineering bachelors. But there's also things like the fact that the median household income of Asians is higher than that of Whites.

According to the 2016 Census Bureau Table A=1, available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017 ... 0-259.html, the 2016 median household income of Asians was $80,822 while that of Whites was $61,858. If it's so impossible for non Whites to succeed in the fact of "White Privilege," how did that happen?

[kalm]

What I'm about to type really did turn out this way. I didn't force it to. I looked up the latest 12th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math test. 2015 is the latest. Then I said, "Ok, just to ball park it, I think it's reasonable to say you need to be in the top 10% in math ability to be an Engineer." I did the math and figured that just based on 2015 NAEP math test results you'd expect about 2.3% of that top 10% at math to be Black and about 13.8% would be Asian.

Then I did a quick Google to see percent Engineering degrees by race. The first thing I found is at https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publica ... sPart1.pdf. And it says that in 2014 3.5% of Engineering degrees were earned by Blacks and 13.1% were earned by Asians.

BTW that Asian figure brings up a persistent question: If "White Privilege" is such an impediment to non Whites, why do Asians do so well?

The Engineering degree thing relates to that question because Asians make up 5.7% of the US population but they earn 13.1% of the Engineering bachelors. But there's also things like the fact that the median household income of Asians is higher than that of Whites.

According to the 2016 Census Bureau Table A=1, available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017 ... 0-259.html, the 2016 median household income of Asians was $80,822 while that of Whites was $61,858. If it's so impossible for non Whites to succeed in the fact of "White Privilege," how did that happen?

But the differences are cultural rather than genetic, right?

[Ivytalk]

What I'm about to type really did turn out this way. I didn't force it to. I looked up the latest 12th grade National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) math test. 2015 is the latest. Then I said, "Ok, just to ball park it, I think it's reasonable to say you need to be in the top 10% in math ability to be an Engineer." I did the math and figured that just based on 2015 NAEP math test results you'd expect about 2.3% of that top 10% at math to be Black and about 13.8% would be Asian.

Then I did a quick Google to see percent Engineering degrees by race. The first thing I found is at https://www.asee.org/papers-and-publica ... sPart1.pdf. And it says that in 2014 3.5% of Engineering degrees were earned by Blacks and 13.1% were earned by Asians.

BTW that Asian figure brings up a persistent question: If "White Privilege" is such an impediment to non Whites, why do Asians do so well?

The Engineering degree thing relates to that question because Asians make up 5.7% of the US population but they earn 13.1% of the Engineering bachelors. But there's also things like the fact that the median household income of Asians is higher than that of Whites.

According to the 2016 Census Bureau Table A=1, available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017 ... 0-259.html, the 2016 median household income of Asians was $80,822 while that of Whites was $61,858. If it's so impossible for non Whites to succeed in the fact of "White Privilege," how did that happen?

But the differences are cultural rather than genetic, right?

Is that a woolly bugger or a Royal Wulff?

[Ibanez]

And I've seen anecdotal things in my own life that make it believable. For example: When each of my kids were preparing to graduate from high school their school held an awards night where they announced scholarships and such. In each case the students that got the most in terms of scholarships and scholarships from more highly rated universities weren't the highest achieving students. They were the highest achieving BLACK students. It was very clear that if one was a Black student who scored high on standardized tests and had a high GPA one was a coveted commodity.

In addition to that I noted that when my son applied for admission to Law schools they all had a question about how he would contribute to the "diversity" of the institution. And we all know what that means. That's basically a question about the bonus points you get for being a member of an "under represented minority."

Your son is the deaf one, right?

I think that's a pretty good demonstration that the push for "diversity" is exactly what we thought it was all along - it's an excuse to discriminate against whites and high-achieving Asian minorities because otherwise it would be completely legally untenable.

There are so many ridiculous assertions and contradictions in the doctrines of "racial justice" and no one can really stand up to them without risking their jobs. You can see Apple's former black female diversity chief for saying an obvious truth that a group of white men can be diverse.

And you can see Sam Harris can get completely roasted for allowing Charles Murray to have a say on his podcast and daring to be intellectually honest that there are real genetic differences between human populations that have been geographically isolated for thousands of years.

I'm not sure If I ever mentioned this, but last year I had a boss (she was summarily fired 11 months into the job) who is SE Asian and White. We work with a lot of women and some men - but the whites are the minority in our group. White males (me and 1 other guy) were the least represented. She would always say how we're a picture of "Diversity" and she made this comment the last time I saw her in September to the wrong person (Mike - AppState alum).

Mike questioned her - "What makes your team diverse? Is it just their gender and skin color?" She stumbled and then Mike came back with something that makes a lot of sense to me. He said, " Diversity is the difference of thought and opinion. You get a group of people with the same skin color or same gender and you'll lack diversity. Diversity of thought is what we should be achieving. Skin color and gender are superficial. Get a diverse group based on experiences, education, etc..."

Diversity of thought. That's stuck with me.

[Pwns]

I'm not sure If I ever mentioned this, but last year I had a boss (she was summarily fired 11 months into the job) who is SE Asian and White. We work with a lot of women and some men - but the whites are the minority in our group. White males (me and 1 other guy) were the least represented. She would always say how we're a picture of "Diversity" and she made this comment the last time I saw her in September to the wrong person (Mike - AppState alum).

Mike questioned her - "What makes your team diverse? Is it just their gender and skin color?" She stumbled and then Mike came back with something that makes a lot of sense to me. He said, " Diversity is the difference of thought and opinion. You get a group of people with the same skin color or same gender and you'll lack diversity. Diversity of thought is what we should be achieving. Skin color and gender are superficial. Get a diverse group based on experiences, education, etc..."

Diversity of thought. That's stuck with me.

That pretty much nailed it.

Either you believe:

1. Diversity is diversity of appearance (which is really stupid).

2. Diversity is diversity of thought (which is massively hypocritical because you are using race as a proxy for type of thought).

OR

3. Diversity is just a non-preponderance of whites and males (which isn't diversity and just shows you are anti white male and not pro diversity).

I suspect the last one, honestly.

[kalm]

I'm not sure If I ever mentioned this, but last year I had a boss (she was summarily fired 11 months into the job) who is SE Asian and White. We work with a lot of women and some men - but the whites are the minority in our group. White males (me and 1 other guy) were the least represented. She would always say how we're a picture of "Diversity" and she made this comment the last time I saw her in September to the wrong person (Mike - AppState alum).

Mike questioned her - "What makes your team diverse? Is it just their gender and skin color?" She stumbled and then Mike came back with something that makes a lot of sense to me. He said, " Diversity is the difference of thought and opinion. You get a group of people with the same skin color or same gender and you'll lack diversity. Diversity of thought is what we should be achieving. Skin color and gender are superficial. Get a diverse group based on experiences, education, etc..."

Diversity of thought. That's stuck with me.

That pretty much nailed it.

Either you believe:

1. Diversity is diversity of appearance (which is really stupid).

2. Diversity is diversity of thought (which is massively hypocritical because you are using race as a proxy for type of thought).

OR

3. Diversity is just a non-preponderance of whites and males (which isn't diversity and just shows you are anti white male and not pro diversity).

I suspect the last one, honestly.

I often describe Cheney and the West Plains area to newcomers as diverse and eclectic. Dry land wheat farmers, college professors, active duty and a high population of retired military, etc. I've never thought about the racial component in using those terms and this area is extremely white, so I agree to a certain extent.

I would also think that racial diversity is accompanied by a diversity of experience and culture which helps to increase diversity of thought.

[Ibanez]

I'm not sure If I ever mentioned this, but last year I had a boss (she was summarily fired 11 months into the job) who is SE Asian and White. We work with a lot of women and some men - but the whites are the minority in our group. White males (me and 1 other guy) were the least represented. She would always say how we're a picture of "Diversity" and she made this comment the last time I saw her in September to the wrong person (Mike - AppState alum).

Mike questioned her - "What makes your team diverse? Is it just their gender and skin color?" She stumbled and then Mike came back with something that makes a lot of sense to me. He said, " Diversity is the difference of thought and opinion. You get a group of people with the same skin color or same gender and you'll lack diversity. Diversity of thought is what we should be achieving. Skin color and gender are superficial. Get a diverse group based on experiences, education, etc..."

Diversity of thought. That's stuck with me.

That pretty much nailed it.

Either you believe:

1. Diversity is diversity of appearance (which is really stupid).

2. Diversity is diversity of thought (which is massively hypocritical because you are using race as a proxy for type of thought).

OR

3. Diversity is just a non-preponderance of whites and males (which isn't diversity and just shows you are anti white male and not pro diversity).

I suspect the last one, honestly.

The diversity of thought argument is meant to avoid race/gender as a qualifier. It should be experiences, background, education, etc... If that means you have a group of women but everyone has something different to bring to the table, then that's diversity. But it's not diversity if you want a %white/black/red/yellow male/female and then ignore their true differences (again, their background and experiences.).

[Ibanez]

That pretty much nailed it.

Either you believe:

1. Diversity is diversity of appearance (which is really stupid).

2. Diversity is diversity of thought (which is massively hypocritical because you are using race as a proxy for type of thought).

OR

3. Diversity is just a non-preponderance of whites and males (which isn't diversity and just shows you are anti white male and not pro diversity).

I suspect the last one, honestly.

I often describe Cheney and the West Plains area to newcomers as diverse and eclectic. Dry land wheat farmers, college professors, active duty and a high population of retired military, etc. I've never thought about the racial component in using those terms and this area is extremely white, so I agree to a certain extent.

I would also think that racial diversity is accompanied by a diversity of experience and culture which helps to increase diversity of thought.

I can believe that - but if you're building a team and you use race/gender as the qualifier you will miss out on a lot of quality people. Not saying blacks, women, etc.. .aren't high caliber. But you're limiting yourself.

[CAA Flagship]

I'm not sure If I ever mentioned this, but last year I had a boss (she was summarily fired 11 months into the job) who is SE Asian and White. We work with a lot of women and some men - but the whites are the minority in our group. White males (me and 1 other guy) were the least represented. She would always say how we're a picture of "Diversity" and she made this comment the last time I saw her in September to the wrong person (Mike - AppState alum).

Mike questioned her - "What makes your team diverse? Is it just their gender and skin color?" She stumbled and then Mike came back with something that makes a lot of sense to me. He said, " Diversity is the difference of thought and opinion. You get a group of people with the same skin color or same gender and you'll lack diversity. Diversity of thought is what we should be achieving. Skin color and gender are superficial. Get a diverse group based on experiences, education, etc..."

Diversity of thought. That's stuck with me.

That pretty much nailed it.

Either you believe:

1. Diversity is diversity of appearance (which is really stupid).

2. Diversity is diversity of thought (which is massively hypocritical because you are using race as a proxy for type of thought).

OR

3. Diversity is just a non-preponderance of whites and males (which isn't diversity and just shows you are anti white male and not pro diversity).

I suspect the last one, honestly.

Diversity is the dilution of correctness.

[kalm]

That pretty much nailed it.

Either you believe:

1. Diversity is diversity of appearance (which is really stupid).

2. Diversity is diversity of thought (which is massively hypocritical because you are using race as a proxy for type of thought).

OR

3. Diversity is just a non-preponderance of whites and males (which isn't diversity and just shows you are anti white male and not pro diversity).

I suspect the last one, honestly.

Diversity is the dilution of correctness.

He who questions training
only trains himself at asking questions.

[CAA Flagship]

Diversity is the dilution of correctness.

He who questions training
only trains himself at asking questions.

He who laughs last didn't get it.

[kalm]

He who questions training
only trains himself at asking questions.

He who laughs last didn't get it.

When I eat tater tots, my farts smell like French fries.

[Pwns]

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/985896896433602565

Wait a minute, you're telling me Starbucks has a fvcking combination lock to the restroom?

That's a new one with me.