Why haven't African Americans assimilated into American culture...?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
holy shit! did i call it or what..just read page one annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd..ding! ding! ding!
*sigh*

the FBI Rape Stats were selected, by me, not for the emotional baggage of that particular crime, but the crime's immunity to the "Socio-Economic Status" argument which inevitably reduces all discussion of race and crime to a pissing match.

poverty, oppression and bad schools have no bearing on rape, so theres no excuses.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
*sigh*

the FBI Rape Stats were selected, by me, not for the emotional baggage of that particular crime, but the crime's immunity to the "Socio-Economic Status" argument which inevitably reduces all discussion of race and crime to a pissing match.

poverty, oppression and bad schools have no bearing on rape, so theres no excuses.
no, actually it's pada's modus operandi to troll the conversation to rape..it's his pick-up line.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
yes. i understand that.
however, reducing the sample by under-reporting of rapes does not necessarily result in a change in the data points. the best you can assume is that if all rapes were reported the sample would get bigger, but most likely the details would remain largely unchanged.
There's absolutely no way you can accurately make that statement. Now I KNOW you're just blowing smoke out your ass. You're saying you know what the unreported rapes are to such an extent that you can claim that the stats are unaffected. Wow, you must be psychic.


again this has no bearing on the subject.
"socio-economic status" is still unrelated to rape.
You sure love blowing smoke. You have no idea why black men rape women at a seemingly disproportionate rate, and to state it has nothing to do with their status in society is borderline retarded. I'ma call you "Dr Gump"....



ending rape is not the subject at hand.
No, the topic is why black people haven't assimilated into America as easily as other cultures. Given the fact that the Civil RIghts marches were only a generation or two ago, I would say that the socio-economic status of black people plays a huge role in their current status. You didn't address any of the actual point I brought up. Education doesn't just instantly start, and neither does the drive to be educated. All of these factors play a role.


no, the "socio-economic status" argument is an appeal to emotion,
It's an appeal to fucking facts.

with no basis in reality,
How does the historical social, and economic status of a race not affect it's present status? Especially when it's such recent history?

which is why i selected Rape as the target stat. Rape is not a function of poverty, oppression or poor eductation, and as such it eliminates the tired old "SES" canard.
You are not in a position to tell anyone what rape is a function of. You're not an expert in the field, you're not black, and you're not willing to actually research the 'why' behind events.


and none of this makes men into rapists.
this is a raw appeal to emotion
Emotion is a real thing you fuck head. It affects how people act, and it's decidedly human. To attempt to do any type of 'equation' that involves the treatment, denigration, or discrimination of an entire race, and not include emotion, is just fucking retarded. How can you honestly be that stupid? Are you suggesting that people be emotionless towards the treatment of their grandparents/parents/families/themselves, and that it shouldn't affect how they view society as a whole?



still an appeal to emotion which is irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is "why do blacks commit so many more rapes than their representation in the population could possibly account for?"
You just reject any explanation as 'emotion'. I'm waiting for you to finally just say "Blacks don't possess the ability to have societies like white people". That seems to be the underlying tone to your writing, you certainly imply that black people created all their own problems, white people have nothing to do with it, and they're naturally violent, both physically and sexually.

which stll doesnt answer "Why All The Rapes?"

we can assume that the source of the rapes is not genetic, that would be ridiculous, therefore it must be sociological.

asserting that "SES" is the cause of Rape Behaviour is also ridiculous.
that leaves only social norms, and a systemic problem within black society.
What do you think were the factors leading to the sociological problems within their culture? Do you think white people had a role in making sure black people didn't have the same access to social mobility?

they have effectively segregated themselves from the rest of society, which does not have nearly the Rape Rate of the "Black Community" and thus the problem is not the "Black Race", or Whitey's Downpression" but something in their own "Black Culture" which give the message that rape is OK.
Black culture.... what the fuck is black culture? You mean white culture? Black culture was tribal existence in Africa. We enslaved black people, made them give up their culture, forced ours on them the best we could, then set them free and watched the chaos.... We have been figuratively dangling a carrot in front of their faces for like...300 years. We've never given black people (could be argued we are starting to now) equality opportunity to social mobility.

a casual perusal of any "Rap Videos will identify the cause readily.
women are considered Bitches and Hoes, treated as objects for the sexual gratification of the Black Elite (rappers) and thus, to become one of the "Black Elite" one must adopt their social norms. this inevitably results in a mindset which requires "Jocking The Bitches" and "Slapping The Hoes".
That started with Gangsters. Criminals. People who aren't good people to begin with.

This goes back to my statements about seeking 'the good life' by the best means available to you. Can't be a CEO? Be the CEO of the Crips.... only problem is hospitality and politeness aren't exactly desired traits of a gang member, you catching what I'm throwin' Dr. Gump?

observe also the reverence with which pimps are viewed, and note further that pimps routinely brutalize their "Bitches" to keep them in line, on the corner, and "Getting That Cheddar"
when this is the ideal of masculinity and manhood, then clearly anything one wishes from a "Hoe" can be taken by force, whether it is money or pussy.
It's about power. The only power available.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
There's absolutely no way you can accurately make that statement. Now I KNOW you're just blowing smoke out your ass. You're saying you know what the unreported rapes are to such an extent that you can claim that the stats are unaffected. Wow, you must be psychic.




You sure love blowing smoke. You have no idea why black men rape women at a seemingly disproportionate rate, and to state it has nothing to do with their status in society is borderline retarded. I'ma call you "Dr Gump"....





No, the topic is why black people haven't assimilated into America as easily as other cultures. Given the fact that the Civil RIghts marches were only a generation or two ago, I would say that the socio-economic status of black people plays a huge role in their current status. You didn't address any of the actual point I brought up. Education doesn't just instantly start, and neither does the drive to be educated. All of these factors play a role.



It's an appeal to fucking facts.


How does the historical social, and economic status of a race not affect it's present status? Especially when it's such recent history?



You are not in a position to tell anyone what rape is a function of. You're not an expert in the field, you're not black, and you're not willing to actually research the 'why' behind events.




Emotion is a real thing you fuck head. It affects how people act, and it's decidedly human. To attempt to do any type of 'equation' that involves the treatment, denigration, or discrimination of an entire race, and not include emotion, is just fucking retarded. How can you honestly be that stupid? Are you suggesting that people be emotionless towards the treatment of their grandparents/parents/families/themselves, and that it shouldn't affect how they view society as a whole?





You just reject any explanation as 'emotion'. I'm waiting for you to finally just say "Blacks don't possess the ability to have societies like white people". That seems to be the underlying tone to your writing, you certainly imply that black people created all their own problems, white people have nothing to do with it, and they're naturally violent, both physically and sexually.


What do you think were the factors leading to the sociological problems within their culture? Do you think white people had a role in making sure black people didn't have the same access to social mobility?



Black culture.... what the fuck is black culture? You mean white culture? Black culture was tribal existence in Africa. We captured black people, made them give up their culture, forced ours on them the best we could, then set them free and watched the chaos....

actually, black slaves were sold by black tribal leaders/warlords to whites..blacks were slaves of blacks in africa

That started with Gangsters. Criminals. People who aren't good people to begin with.

This goes back to my statements about seeking 'the good life' by the best means available to you. Can't be a CEO? Be the CEO of the Crips.... only problem is hospitality and politeness aren't exactly desired traits of a gang member, you catching what I'm throwin' Dr. Gump?



It's about power. The only power available.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 

thecoolman

New Member
In his book The g Factor (1999, Arthur Jensen cited data which showed that, regardless of race, people with IQs between 70 and 90 have higher crime rates than people with IQs below or above this range, with the peak range being between 80 and 90.
 

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
In his book The g Factor (1999, Arthur Jensen cited data which showed that, regardless of race, people with IQs between 70 and 90 have higher crime rates than people with IQs below or above this range, with the peak range being between 80 and 90.
I'm going to have to read more on that; been reading the last 30 mins or so.... Nice post though.

Here's what one particular reviewer had to say;

Because Jensen's simple, single-factor model can detect intellectual equality between men and women, it can also detect intellectual inequality between whites and blacks, if that's what the facts are. Although most responses to Jensen's equality/inequality model haven't risen above name-calling, obfuscation, guilt-by-association, and professional cowardice, there is a logical, fruitful alternative: develop a complex, multi-factor "diversity" model that rather than concentrating upon one difference among a very few groups, focuses on the many differences visible among many groups. Emphasizing the trade-offs necessary for achieving different goals, it makes toting up an overall winner look a little pointless.


The diversity perspective has much to offer, but only when it's thoroughly understood that it's inherently less empirically egalitarian than Jensenism. The diversity model's current popularity, however, stems from the wishful thinking that it discredits racial differences, on the assumption that since Diversity and Equality are both Good Things, they must be synonyms rather than antonyms. One particularly fashionable defense of empirical equality is to combine the doctrine that there "are no such things as races" (just swarms of little ethnic groups) with Harvard professor Howard Gardner's speculations about seven "multiple intelligences." Ergo, all groups must be equal, QED.


Let's do the math: assume, say, 100 ethnic groups and seven "intelligences." That's 700 data points. No way, no how could they all be equal -- our universe doesn't work like that. The more complex your model, the less equality and the more diversity you'll perceive in the world.


These kind of wooly-headed delusions that infest contemporary social thought stem fundamentally from the taboo against learning about humanity the way we'd learn about anything else: by noticing similarities and differences, which are the raw materials, the warp and woof, of information. The faster and more accurately a computer modem can discriminate the squawks coming down the phone line into 0's and 1's, the more information it can receive. Conversely, the more patterns it can discover among the data it's transmitting, the more it can compress the bits into similar groups, and thus the more information it can send. Disdaining to notice human contrasts isn't Respectable Science; it's intentional ignorance.


Even the 100 ethnic groups / seven intelligences model contains some useful truths. First, in the study of human biodiversity, as in any other science, there is a constructive tension, ultimately amounting to a symbiosis, between encyclopedically tabulating all genetic differences and devising parsimonious theories to cluster people according to their genetic similarities. The encyclopedist's glass is half full of fascinating ethnic anomalies that don't fit broad-brush racial theories. For example, the average Jewish IQ seems to surpass the average overall white IQ by as much as 17 points. Simultaneously, the theorist can half-fill his glass with sweeping racial patterns. For instance, he can frugally sum up much of the biodiversity that's blatantly obvious in America with Rushton's Rule: On most physical, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, the West African and Northeast Asian averages lie at opposite extremes, with the white average in the mediocre middle.


Those who deny the reality of the races rightly point out that nobody agrees exactly on their number, names, or constituents. This is a valid point, but the identical criticism could be made of the reality of "extended families" … precisely because races are extremely extended families. Races differ qualitatively from extended families only in being more coherent and longer lasting, due to greater in-breeding.


Second, are there are lots of mental abilities? Sure. I could rattle off many more than Gardner's seven that I, personally, lack. Like races, nobody can quite agree on precisely what they are. Do we need scores of different cerebral skills, or can we get by with Gardner's seven intelligences. Or is Jensen's g good enough? Since most of the literati still think in terms of Platonic essences, this multiplicity of approaches strikes many as a conceptual scandal, but it's a practical boon: you can pick the optimal trade-off between comprehensiveness and ease-of-use for your particular task.


Isn't there something unscientific about ignoring outlying data that doesn't fit the theory? Interestingly, Jensen and Gardner, despite being so often portrayed as mortal enemies (actually, they are mildly admiring of each other's work), are both reductionists. The highest scientific honors have always gone to the theorists like Newton or Darwin rather than the cataloguers like Tyco Brahe or Linnaeus, because there is simply too much raw data for us to handle. Without scientific hypotheses, rules-of-thumb, prejudices, and gut instincts, we'd be as immobilized as Funes, the Jorge Luis Borges character cursed with infinite powers of perceptual discrimination that cost him his ability to synthesize and abstract meaning out of his oppressively detailed memory-dump.


The narrower the field, the better that simple models like g forecast success. For example, if you look only at major team sports, African-Americans are on average genetically superior at "general athleticism." Thus, race proves useful in predicting success … until you contemplate a broader variety of sports. Then, the greater average muscularity that helps make men of West African descent the kings of football and basketball tends to cause them in, say, marathon-running, dogsled-racing, and English Channel-swimming to (respectively) overheat, freeze, and sink.


Ironically, while diversity models are now popular in the abstract, it's nearly a hanging offense in the current mainstream media climate to actually mention particular talents in which minorities are superior to whites. (Today, "celebrating diversity" is automatically assumed to mean "insisting upon uniformity.") Gardner, for instance, coyly refuses to discuss the obvious racial and sexual disparities implicit in his seven factor model.


In the most publicized recent attempt to honestly flesh out a diversity model, the Reverend Reggie White of the Green Bay Packers asked the Wisconsin legislature, "Why did God make us so different?" He then listed what he saw as the different strengths of America's races, and concluded, "When you put all of that together … it forms a complete image of God." Despite being black, a football hero, an outstanding citizen, obviously well-intended, and in at least some of his examples undeniably right (e.g., Asians are gifted at invention, "they can turn a TV into a watch"), the Rev. White was pilloried by the press: "Stereotypes!"


Of course, none of the tut-tutters asked: Is a diversity model needed to describe specific black mental advantages overlooked by g? As a Reggieist (i.e., one who considers human biodiversity both a reality and a net blessing), I'm pleased to point out that IQ tests can't accurately measure at least one mental faculty in which blacks tend to outperform whites and Asians in real life. Despite lower mean IQ's, African-Americans are not a race of talentless dullards, but are instead the most charismatic contributors to 20th Century popular culture. What mental factor underlies the black revolutions in music, sport, oratory, dance, and slang? Subjective, improvisatory creativity.


For example, like a lot of NBA stars, Scottie Pippen's below-market contract, ill-timed trade demands, team-damaging pouts, and numerous child-support obligations imply that when given time to think, he often chooses unwisely. Yet, in the flow of the game, he's a Talleyrand at real-time decision-making. Leading a fast break, there are no permanent right answers. Even "Pass the ball to Michael Jordan" gets old fast as defenses habituate. Similarly, the NFL running back, the jazz soloist, the preacher, and the rapping DJ all must heed others' expectations and instantly respond with something a little unexpected. IQ tests -- by necessity objective and standardized -- can never measure this adequately.


Further, despite his data's inevitable shortcomings in this regard, Jensen does report that blacks possess particular mental weaknesses and strengths. Among individuals with equal g's, whites and Asians (like males) are typically stronger in those visual-spatial skills so useful in engineering and many skilled trades. In contrast, blacks (like females) often enjoy better short-term memories and thus can mentally juggle more balls in social situations. (This probably contributes to the black advantage in improvisation). Jensen's findings confirm my intuition (NR, 4/6/98) that while whites and Asians tend to be less masculine than blacks in physique and personality, they are typically more masculine than blacks in mental abilities. Put bluntly, whites and Asians tend to be nerdier than blacks. How many blacks would sincerely disagree?


Thus, the IQ disparity is less apocalyptic than is generally assumed. In fact, it's not all that unique -- diversity is among the oldest and most pervasive problems / opportunities inherent in the human condition. Because everybody is less innately talented than somebody else at something, the human race has worked out some pragmatic ways to deal with this.

Definitely thought provoking.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
what second link in post #357?

youre on crack.

that post had no second link, and has clearly NOT been edited you dolt.

the rest of your inane nonsensical diatribe is incomprehensible jibberish.

it's not even fun arguing with delusional illiterate doofuses.

why dont you go shout at some clouds and cinch up your aluminium foil hat.

and yet you still cry and whine like a little bitch if someone uses an ad hom against you.

a racist and a hypocrite to boot. imagine that.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
its the last ditch defense of the leftist with nothing to support his assertions but appeals to emotion.
yeah, that's what it is. the very thing that explains so much is just a leftist plot to appeal to emotion.

even if that were true, and it is not, it would still be better and less disgusting than your repeated appeals to racism and melanin.
 

FreedomWorks

Well-Known Member
That is an understatement. Obama's attorney general doesn't even know what a hate crime is.


[video=youtube;YOABBn5Tnm0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOABBn5Tnm0&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Americans are so divisive, even to other Americans.

Bizarre.
not all of us are like kkkynes, who divides america into the REAL AMERICA and the multiculural wasteland of bullshit that threatens REAL AMERICA and must be defended against (perhaps walling up the "inner cities", as he suggested).

most of us understand that there is nothing about melanin that makes one more prone to crime, as much as he may try to push that angle. most of us understand that circumstances dictate behavior for the most part, and that not everyone is born into the most fortunate circumstances, and that unfortunate circumstances are not always self-generated.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
This thread shows just how ignorant, asinine, retarded, stupid and just plain dumb some can be.

First someone tell me what American culture is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top