Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 30, 2016, 06:22:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
94240 Posts in 2307 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Science, Culture, & Humanities
| | |-+  Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print
Author Topic: Race, religion, ethnic origin, LGBT, "discrimination", & discrimination.  (Read 121424 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #600 on: December 29, 2015, 05:41:32 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/james.frazier.399/videos/757867674246941/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #601 on: January 03, 2016, 03:00:07 PM »

A Christmas inspired column by Walter Russel Mead well worth your time to read, IMHO, embodying the largest issues humankind faces today.  (read it all)

One for All
WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
The Christmas story suggests that we can somehow try both to be loyal members of our nations, our families, our tribes—and also to reach out to the broader human community of which we are also a part.
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/01/one-for-all-4/

... People seem pulled in two directions. On the one hand, we form strong group identities and these identities are the basis of our political loyalties; on the other, we recognize universal values and acknowledge a duty, at least in the abstract, to help people everywhere regardless of their race, language, color, or creed.
It’s a puzzle. Human beings need roots in a particular culture and family and those roots shape them; at the same time, human beings have values (like freedom and democracy) and ideas (like the Pythagorean theorem and the laws of thermodynamics) that demand to be recognized as universal. ...
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #602 on: January 05, 2016, 02:48:22 PM »

Very good article.  Please post in the Organized and Unorganized Religion thread as well.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2946


« Reply #603 on: January 08, 2016, 01:26:47 PM »

. . . to other blacks:

http://www.city-journal.org/2016/bc0106jr.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #604 on: January 13, 2016, 09:48:13 AM »

http://takimag.com/article/smashing_through_the_glass_coffin_jim_goad/print#ixzz3x8fENGbj
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #605 on: January 17, 2016, 11:38:13 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I47Y6VHc3Ms
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #606 on: January 20, 2016, 01:33:28 PM »

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/collateral-damage-same-sex-marriage-private-religious-schools-and-parental/17474
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #607 on: February 09, 2016, 12:24:07 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/rosieroyjr/videos/1036195299740607/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #608 on: February 09, 2016, 01:15:38 PM »

These recordings are a national treasure.  

I never knew these existed.

Thanks CD for the post.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2016, 09:58:23 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #609 on: February 16, 2016, 11:03:31 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/shockwave1/videos/10156471502290627/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #610 on: February 18, 2016, 10:54:16 AM »

Jason Riley on Powerline, commercial-free interview, well worth a listen. Blacks were making way more progress before modern civil rights http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/the-power-line-show-episode-33-with-jason-riley.php

Early minimum wage laws were designed to keep blacks out of good jobs.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 10:56:33 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #611 on: February 18, 2016, 08:47:47 PM »

Jason Riley on Powerline, commercial-free interview, well worth a listen. Blacks were making way more progress before modern civil rights http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/the-power-line-show-episode-33-with-jason-riley.php

Early minimum wage laws were designed to keep blacks out of good jobs.

The dems need an underclass.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #612 on: February 18, 2016, 10:04:04 PM »

The dems need an underclass.

Yes, but does the underclass reallyneed its oppressors?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #613 on: February 22, 2016, 08:34:35 AM »

Founder of Nation of Islam was a rather mysterious character.

Appears to have left his first wife and child and then evidence he had 3 other "wives" at least.

Was arrested a number of times and used aliasis and changed his name multiple times.  Sounds like a con man basically.

Seems to have gotten the idea for NOI from a guy named Drew Ali who founded the Moorish American Society in the 1920s.  He may have gotten his idea to some extent from Marcus Garvey.

Fard or Ford or whatever his real name was mysteriously disappears off the face of the Earth in 1934.  At that time his student Elijah Mohammed takes over.

Whatever happens to Fard is unknown.  Even the FBI could not figure it out.  He either changed his name and identity or I suspect he was murdered.  I  don't know if Elijah was responsible but it seems plausible knowing that he was likely behind or at least aware of the murder of Malcom X.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #614 on: February 29, 2016, 12:36:04 AM »

https://www.facebook.com/lucy.wanjiku.18/videos/10154434081347662/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #615 on: March 16, 2016, 08:07:08 PM »

https://www.facebook.com/firstbtnomb/videos/979847208730765/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13456


« Reply #616 on: March 17, 2016, 01:44:38 PM »

http://takimag.com/article/did_africans_sell_africans_into_slavery_lets_ask_some_africans_jim_goad

Not PC.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 314


« Reply #617 on: March 17, 2016, 02:21:23 PM »


Also funny.....

"The always interesting Nation of Islam argues that these treacherous go-betweens weren’t truly “African” anyway—they were instead Portuguese Jewish half-breeds known as lancados who’d DELIBERATELY interbred with indigenous Africans in order to swindle and kidnap them before handing them over to Jewish slave traders who’d shlep them to the Americas."

Just wow.... I ever tell you about the time I got into a fight with three of them (NOI)? If we're ever enjoying a glass of ice tea, I'll do that.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #618 on: March 21, 2016, 12:50:03 PM »

Just a point of curiosity.  This could go under constitution but someone should mention it somewhere.  If Merrick Garland is confirmed, the U.S. Supreme Court will have 5 Catholics and 4 Jewish Justices and no other religions represented.  No big deal except that the current regime is SO consumed with people being part of a demographic sub-group.

I like Jewish people  smiley , some of my best liberal and conservative friends are Jewish.  I find it mostly irrelevant in my dealings, friendships, politics, even dating.

That said, doesn't the over-representation of these groups that have histories of being discriminated against and of being blamed for disproportionate control (banks, networks, etc.), on a Court with a history of wrongly decided cases, risk the future possibility that a future bad decision will incite blame and inflame future anti-Semitism?

Just a thought that I might point back to someday...
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #619 on: March 21, 2016, 01:00:58 PM »

Charles Murray was co-author of The Bell Curve, a very long scientific book that became a landmine for a small point in it that exposed differences in intelligence between races, therefore author is a racist...  His co-author died about when this was published so he has owned the work over the two decades since it was published.  

Intelligence is 40%-80% inherited, a wide range that is nowhere near zero or 100%.

People tend to marry near their own intelligence making the difference grow rather than equalize over time.  He predicted this would have societal effects that have most certainly become true.

Being called a racist for publishing scientific data is nothing new, but Charles Murray has received more than his share of it.  What he could of or should have done is cover up the real results to fit what people like to hear, like the climate scientists do.  He didn't.

Most recently his work received a public rebuke from the President of Virginia Tech.

His response to that is a bit long but quite a worthwhile read that will save you the time of reading his 3-4 inch thick hardcover book if you haven't already read this important work.

https://www.aei.org/publication/an-open-letter-to-the-virginia-tech-community/

Charles Murray
March 17, 2016 9:00 am

An open letter to the Virginia Tech community

Last week, the president of Virginia Tech, Tim Sands, published an “open letter to the Virginia Tech community” defending lectures delivered by deplorable people like me (I’m speaking on the themes of Coming Apart on March 25). Bravo for President Sands’s defense of intellectual freedom. But I confess that I was not entirely satisfied with his characterization of my work. So I’m writing an open letter of my own.

Dear Virginia Tech community,

Since President Sands has just published an open letter making a serious allegation against me, it seems appropriate to respond. The allegation: “Dr. Murray is well known for his controversial and largely discredited work linking measures of intelligence to heredity, and specifically to race and ethnicity — a flawed socioeconomic theory that has been used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics.”

Let me make an allegation of my own. President Sands is unfamiliar either with the actual content of The Bell Curve — the book I wrote with Richard J. Herrnstein to which he alludes — or with the state of knowledge in psychometrics.

The Bell Curve and Charles Murray
I should begin by pointing out that the topic of the The Bell Curve was not race, but, as the book’s subtitle says, “Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.” Our thesis was that over the last half of the 20th century, American society has become cognitively stratified. At the beginning of the penultimate chapter, Herrnstein and I summarized our message:

Predicting the course of society is chancy, but certain tendencies seem strong enough to worry about:
An increasingly isolated cognitive elite.
A merging of the cognitive elite with the affluent.
A deteriorating quality of life for people at the bottom end of the cognitive distribution.
Unchecked, these trends will lead the U.S. toward something resembling a caste society, with the underclass mired ever more firmly at the bottom and the cognitive elite ever more firmly anchored at the top, restructuring the rules of society so that it becomes harder and harder for them to lose. [p. 509].
It is obvious that these conclusions have not been discredited in the twenty-two years since they were written. They may be more accurately described as prescient.

Now to the substance of President Sands’s allegation.

The heritability of intelligence

Richard Herrnstein and I wrote that cognitive ability as measured by IQ tests is heritable, somewhere in the range of 40% to 80% [pp. 105–110], and that heritability tends to rise as people get older. This was not a scientifically controversial statement when we wrote it; that President Sands thinks it has been discredited as of 2016 is amazing.

You needn’t take my word for it. In the wake of the uproar over The Bell Curve, the American Psychological Association (APA) assembled a Task Force on Intelligence consisting of eleven of the most distinguished psychometricians in the United States. Their report, titled “Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns,” was published in the February 1996 issue of the APA’s peer-reviewed journal, American Psychologist. Regarding the magnitude of heritability (represented by h2), here is the Task Force’s relevant paragraph. For purposes of readability, I have omitted the citations embedded in the original paragraph:

If one simply combines all available correlations in a single analysis, the heritability (h2) works out to about .50 and the between-family variance (c2) to about .25. These overall figures are misleading, however, because most of the relevant studies have been done with children. We now know that the heritability of IQ changes with age: h2 goes up and c2 goes down from infancy to adulthood. In childhood h2 and c2 for IQ are of the order of .45 and .35; by late adolescence h2 is around .75 and c2 is quite low (zero in some studies) [p. 85].
The position we took on heritability was squarely within the consensus state of knowledge. Since The Bell Curve was published, the range of estimates has narrowed somewhat, tending toward modestly higher estimates of heritability.

Intelligence and race

There’s no doubt that discussing intelligence and race was asking for trouble in 1994, as it still is in 2016. But that’s for political reasons, not scientific ones.

There’s no doubt that discussing intelligence and race was asking for trouble in 1994, as it still is in 2016. But that’s for political reasons, not scientific ones. Once again, the state of knowledge about the basics is not particularly controversial. The mean scores for all kinds of mental tests vary by ethnicity. No one familiar with the data disputes that most elemental statement. Regarding the most sensitive difference, between Blacks and Whites, Herrnstein and I followed the usual estimate of one standard deviation (15 IQ points), but pointed out that the magnitude varied depending on the test, sample, and where and how it was administered. What did the APA Task Force conclude? “Although studies using different tests and samples yield a range of results, the Black mean is typically about one standard deviation (about 15 points) below that of Whites. The difference is largest on those tests (verbal or nonverbal) that best represent the general intelligence factor g” [p. 93].

Is the Black/White differential diminishing? In The Bell Curve, we discussed at length the evidence that the Black/White differential has narrowed [pp. 289–295], concluding that “The answer is yes with (as usual) some qualifications.” The Task Force’s treatment of the question paralleled ours, concluding with “[l]arger and more definitive studies are needed before this trend can be regarded as established” [p. 93].

Can the Black/White differential be explained by test bias? In a long discussion [pp. 280–286], Herrnstein and I presented the massive evidence that the predictive validity of mental tests is similar for Blacks and Whites and that cultural bias in the test items or their administration do not explain the Black/White differential. The Task Force’s conclusions regarding predictive validity: “Considered as predictors of future performance, the tests do not seem to be biased against African Americans” [p. 93]. Regarding cultural bias and testing conditions:  “Controlled studies [of these potential sources of bias] have shown, however, that none of them contributes substantially to the Black/White differential under discussion here” [p. 94].

Can the Black/White differential be explained by socioeconomic status? We pointed out that the question has two answers: Statistically controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) narrows the gap. But the gap does not narrow as SES goes up — i.e., measured in standard deviations, the differential between Blacks and Whites with high SES is not narrower than the differential between those with low SES [pp. 286–289]. Here’s the APA Task Force on this topic:

Several considerations suggest that [SES] cannot be the whole explanation. For one thing, the Black/White differential in test scores is not eliminated when groups or individuals are matched for SES. Moreover, the data reviewed in Section 4 suggest that—if we exclude extreme conditions—nutrition and other biological factors that may vary with SES account for relatively little of the variance in such scores [p. 94].
The notion that Herrnstein and I made claims about ethnic differences in IQ that have been scientifically rejected is simply wrong.

And so on. The notion that Herrnstein and I made claims about ethnic differences in IQ that have been scientifically rejected is simply wrong. We deliberately remained well within the mainstream of what was confidently known when we wrote. None of those descriptions have changed much in the subsequent twenty-two years, except to be reinforced as more has been learned. I have no idea what countervailing evidence President Sands could have in mind.

At this point, some readers may be saying to themselves, “But wasn’t The Bell Curve the book that tried to prove blacks were genetically inferior to whites?” I gather that was President Sands’ impression as well. It has no basis in fact. Knowing that people are preoccupied with genes and race (it was always the first topic that came up when we told people we were writing a book about IQ), Herrnstein and I offered a seventeen-page discussion of genes, race, and IQ [pp. 295–311]. The first five pages were devoted to explaining the context of the issue — why, for example, the heritability of IQ among humans does not necessarily mean that differences between groups are also heritable. Four pages were devoted to the technical literature arguing that genes were implicated in the Black/White differential. Eight pages were devoted to arguments that the causes were environmental. Then we wrote:

If the reader is now convinced that either the genetic or environmental explanation has won out to the exclusion of the other, we have not done a sufficiently good job of presenting one side or the other. It seems highly likely to us that both genes and the environment have something to do with racial differences. What might the mix be? We are resolutely agnostic on that issue; as far as we can determine, the evidence does not yet justify an estimate. [p. 311].
That’s it—the sum total of every wild-eyed claim that The Bell Curve makes about genes and race. There’s nothing else. Herrnstein and I were guilty of refusing to say that the evidence justified a conclusion that the differential had to be entirely environmental. On this issue, I have a minor quibble with the APA Task Force, which wrote “There is not much direct evidence on [a genetic component], but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis” [p. 95]. Actually there was no direct evidence at all as of the mid-1990s, but the Task Force chose not to mention a considerable body of indirect evidence that did in fact support the genetic hypothesis. No matter. The Task Force did not reject the possibility of a genetic component. As of 2016, geneticists are within a few years of knowing the answer for sure, and I am content to wait for their findings.

But I cannot leave the issue of genes without mentioning how strongly Herrnstein and I rejected the importance of whether genes are involved. This passage from The Bell Curve reveals how very, very different the book is from the characterization of it that has become so widespread:

In sum: If tomorrow you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the cognitive differences between races were 100 percent genetic in origin, nothing of any significance should change. The knowledge would give you no reason to treat individuals differently than if ethnic differences were 100 percent environmental. By the same token, knowing that the differences are 100 percent environmental in origin would not suggest a single program or policy that is not already being tried. It would justify no optimism about the time it will take to narrow the existing gaps. It would not even justify confidence that genetically based differences will not be upon us within a few generations. The impulse to think that environmental sources of difference are less threatening than genetic ones is natural but illusory.
In any case, you are not going to learn tomorrow that all the cognitive differences between races are 100 percent genetic in origin, because the scientific state of knowledge, unfinished as it is, already gives ample evidence that environment is part of the story. But the evidence eventually may become unequivocal that genes are also part of the story. We are worried that the elite wisdom on this issue, for years almost hysterically in denial about that possibility, will snap too far in the other direction. It is possible to face all the facts on ethnic and race differences on intelligence and not run screaming from the room. That is the essential message [pp. 314-315].
I have been reluctant to spend so much space discussing The Bell Curve’s treatment of race and intelligence because it was such an ancillary topic in the book. Focusing on it in this letter has probably made it sound as if it was as important as President Sands’s open letter implied.

But I had to do it. For two decades, I have had to put up with misrepresentations of The Bell Curve. It is annoying. After so long, when so many of the book’s main arguments have been so dramatically vindicated by events, and when our presentations of the meaning and role of IQ have been so steadily reinforced by subsequent research in the social sciences, not to mention developments in neuroscience and genetics, President Sands’s casual accusation that our work has been “largely discredited” was especially exasperating. The president of a distinguished university should take more care.

It is in that context that I came to the end of President Sands’s indictment, accusing me of promulgating “a flawed socioeconomic theory that has been used by some to justify fascism, racism and eugenics.” At that point, President Sands went beyond the kind of statement that merely reflects his unfamiliarity with The Bell Curve and/or psychometrics. He engaged in intellectual McCarthyism.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2016, 01:04:02 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #620 on: March 21, 2016, 05:51:27 PM »

I read parts of the book 20 yrs ago.

I notice this discussion does not mention that Asians were found to have IQs higher then whites who were higher then blacks.  I don't know if that has anything to do with so many Vietnamese and Indian valedictorians or not.

In forensic anthropology we used to call the races, mongoloid, caucasoid, negroid (1970s).

I guess using those terms now would get me shot.

We all know the fact that something like only one white has ever run a sub 10 second 100 meters, a race dominated by those of West African descent and East Africans dominate the long distance races is because they work harder at those respective endeavors.

Thank God for progress.  Science is not science when not politically correct.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #621 on: March 21, 2016, 06:00:32 PM »

"Thank God for progress."   - Agree.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker / billboard seen recently:

I am color blind.   - God
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 36590


« Reply #622 on: March 23, 2016, 11:01:36 AM »

Doug:

Thank you for posting Charles Murray's open letter.  It was very good!

Would you please post it on the Intelligence thread as well?

TIA,
Marc
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #623 on: March 23, 2016, 12:16:45 PM »

One followup point on the topic:

If you had in front of you the overlapping bell curves from sample data showing the intelligence range of 3 different race-ethnic groups studied for white, black and Asian for example, and you had in front of you 3 applicants, one each black, white and Asian, the group data would tell you nothing about the individuals.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #624 on: March 23, 2016, 07:36:06 PM »

I don't know if it is a word but "babyfication" seems to fit nicely:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506491/Emory-president-Students-scared-Trump-2016-chalk-signs.html

For a group that is not afraid of chlamydia gonorrhea or human papilloma virus, which are crazy rampant on campus they sure are wimps otherwise.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #625 on: March 30, 2016, 02:38:59 PM »

...for a self defense killing.

A couple of self appointed activists took over the county attorney's press conference trying to say all the things that might set off the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore. 

Note to activists:  He wasn't shot because he was black.  He was shot because he went for the officer's gun and a reasonable person would conclude he was about to kill them and endanger others.

[This occurred 2 blocks from a property of mine.]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/us/jamar-clark-shooting-minneapolis.html?_r=0

It took the DA 31 hours to read through the evidence that is now posted for the public to see.  Forensic evidence proves he got to the officer's gun and that he was not handcuffed when shot, as 'eyewitnesses' had said.  Activists were able to reach their conclusion without the delay or burden of seeing evidence.

Let the looting begin.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #626 on: March 30, 2016, 04:00:51 PM »

"Let the looting begin."

Lets hear the comment from the White House.  Also lets hear that Sharpton is visiting him 2 x a week now instead of every week.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7794


« Reply #627 on: March 31, 2016, 12:20:46 PM »

"Let the looting begin."

Lets hear the comment from the White House.  Also lets hear that Sharpton is visiting him 2 x a week now instead of every week.


It seems quiet after the no charges decision in the Minneapolis police shooting.  The D.A. is a Dem; happened to be competent and thorough.  The police didn't do anything wrong.  The forensic evidence straightened out the contradictions of the people present.  The victimhood crowd was left with just saying the system's all wrong, police abuse etc except this wasn't a case of that.  The lead speaker was a professor who is the NAACP chapter president.

(He was shot because he was fighting to take one officer's gun, not for skin color.)

The so-called (black) community protest against police just extends the problem that no qualified blacks want to join the police and do that job.  These guys (white I presume) were hired with experience from some other town, not from the Northside 'community'.

Like the Sharpton reference by ccp, this is another case of self appointed activists trying to stir something up and elevate themselves, not a general feeling from people in their homes, living their lives, that police are out committing crimes where none previously existed.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #628 on: April 01, 2016, 06:26:58 AM »

Doug ,
Did you see this yet on the greatest civil rights leader of our day.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/03/al-sharpton-civil-rights-politics

rich famous goes to the white house frequently and probably whenever he wants
"everything is on the line" now with this election.
Whatever that means.  I suppose if someone other than Hillary is in , he is out?

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5308


« Reply #629 on: April 26, 2016, 03:10:20 PM »

Anti-White Racism

This pretty much sums up Obama and the left:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/04/26/anti-white-racism-hate-dares-not-speak-name-2/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!