All things Racist...USA edition (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

I was looking for a place to put this so we could discuss but didn't really find a place that worked so I created this thread so we can all place articles, experiences, videos and examples of racism in the USA.

This is one that happened this week. The lady even called and filed a complaint on the officer. This officer also chose to wear the body cam (apparently, LA doesn't require this yet). This exchange wasn't necessarily racist IMO until she started with the "mexican racist...you will never be white, like you want" garbage. That is when it turned racist IMO

All the murderer and other insults, I think are just a by product of CRT and ACAB rhetoric that is very common on the radical left and sadly is being brought to mainstream in this country.

Another point that I think is worth mentioning is she is a teacher and the sense of entitlement she feels is mind blowing.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-teacher-berates-latino-la-221235341.html

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I do not disagree CM. I wish I share your seriousness regarding this issue.

The fact that you don't tells me two things:

1. You don't understand the situation at all, and;

2. You don't have the required knowledge to form an educated opinion.

I feel that the level of discourse on this board (and in life as a whole) will rise drastically if people educate themselves on topics and situations before they form opinions. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, that doesn't make their opinion worth considering. Not all opinions carry (or should carry) the same weight.

 

[Paul]

The fact that you don't tells me two things:

1. You don't understand the situation at all, and;

2. You don't have the required knowledge to form an educated opinion.

I feel that the level of discourse on this board (and in life as a whole) will rise drastically if people educate themselves on topics and situations before they form opinions. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, that doesn't make their opinion worth considering. Not all opinions carry (or should carry) the same weight.

I understand some people need to elevate their poor self esteem by putting others down.

Please continue the attack if that makes you feel better. No worries!

A very smart man once said: "I only know I know nothing".

Let it go CD

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I understand some people need to elevate their poor self esteem by putting others down.

Please continue the attack if that makes you feel better. No worries!

A very smart man once said: "I only know I know nothing".

Let it go CD

It's constructive criticism, Paul. You seem to be suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.

You're also a condescending meanie, but that's another topic.

 

[Paul]

It's constructive criticism, Paul. You seem to be suffering from a severe case of Dunning-Kruger.

There you go again. I will not reply to your last insulting remark.

You say you are so intelligent over and over again.
I quoted Socrates by saying "I only know I know nothing" and you come back with the Dunning-Kruger insult. What a great mind you are! That was so witty! LOL

 

[cuddlemonkey]

There you go again. I will not reply to your last insulting remark.

At least you didn't mislabel it as an ad hominem attack. My baby boy is growing up.

 

[RobF]

Replying from the Colin Powell thread as it's clearly more appropriate here.

You make a good point as to why the ID says white. Do not forget that slavery lasted much longer in Cuba and as in any other colonized nation the light skin is seen as desirable. This also happens among black Americans. American slave masters were aware that people with a low percent of black DNA would try to pass as white and they designed the one drop rule. I believe there is no one drop rule in Cuba. That is why the ID says white. Lastly white in the USA means pure North European. White in Latin America does not follow that definition. That definition was created by slave owners in America,

You claimed that there is no classification of people by skin colour in Cuba. The point is that you are wrong.

The gish-gallop of nonsense you've put out above doesn't do anything to change that.

There is probably an infinite way of classifying people according to looks Robf. White people do it too with regards to looks among themselves.

Recognition is undeniable, but classifying people according to phenotype is racism. And once you classify people according to group-------- division and tribalism are not far away. That is why America is so divided.

People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice. Can't you?

Nice straw man Robf. I say the differences are ignored and every person is treated as an individual rather than as a member of a group. As soon as you treat someone as a member of a group you have racism. When persons are evaluated as individuals racism goes away.

Paul, you literally say "the differences are ignored" and "racism goes away." And you're doing this in the context of claiming a race-blind approach makes things better. So the statement that pretending racial categories don't exist doesn't make them go away is clearly directly pertinent to your claims, not a straw man.

And while being prejudiced against people according to a perception of their racial group is racism, that means what you're saying above is literally the equivalent of saying, "If there is no racism, then there's no racism!" It's a tautology. It's a fantasy of how a world without racism might behave. It's not a roadmap to how you get there. As evidenced by the fact that every single place you refer to as being 'race-blind' is very much not race-blind in reality.

Another straw man Robf. A comment that was not needed in your argument.

I'll repeat that what Paul is claiming is a straw man is the accurate observation that the "let's all just pretend racism doesn't exist and ignore ethnicities" argument is a fantasy beloved of bigots who would love nothing more than for everyone to stop talking about racism, pretend it's gone away, and just let them carry on with it.

It's both accurate, and pertinent.

Yes, equal outcomes are impossible because there is no equality. Humans exist in a spectrum of talent. Is this something you fail to grasp? I will admit that people that descend from slaves have a much harder time as a group. However, at the individual level anything is possible. There is no such thing as a collective mind.

This is in response to, 'We're talking about unequal outcomes between groups here, specifically, racial groups. And you're, again, saying, "It does not work because humans exist in a spectrum of competence and talent."'

When someone repeatedly asserts that such differences exist because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent', it becomes increasingly evident that they think some racial groups are, overall, lacking talent compared to other racial groups. Which is racist.

Tagging on, "Oh, but that doesn't apply to individuals!" doesn't change that, any more than, "I have a black friend!" shows someone to not be racist. You're trying to pretend you're not being racist by defining racism as an absolute, all-or-nothing, so just as if someone 'has a black friend' they 'can't be prejudiced against black people', so if someone 'thinks individuals can do well', they 'can't think their group is typically less able than others'. Both of those are clearly false. People can do both those things. And those people are racist.

You are falling for the trap of judging people as members of a group. For example as a group East Asians score higher than blacks in SAT exams. However at the individual level there are plenty of blacks that outscore East Asians. That is why you judge people as individuals and forget the stats of the group.

Paul. You repeatedly say things like, "Cubans are among the top most successful Latin Americans in the USA. Jamaicans are also very successful. They run circles around black Americans." So you are clearly familiar, and all too comfortable, with observing outcomes along the lines of racial groupings.

What has become really obvious is that your schtick is being racist when we're talking about groups, clearly and repeatedly asserting that some groups do better than others, and that this is because "humans exist in a spectrum of talent," and then when challenged on it pretending that you're really against "judging people as members of a group." But you're plainly not. You do it all the time.

As a typical religionist of the extreme left you are calling me a heretic because I do not accept your gospel. That is why your religion is dangerous Robf.

I'm not calling you a heretic. I'm stating, as a fact, that if you think unequal outcomes between racial groups exist because "humans exist in a spectrum of talent," you're either racist, by definition, or are just randomly making statements unrelated to anything, i.e. babbling incoherently.

But at this point, despite your usual attempts at evasion, it's really obvious whether you're being explicitly racist, or you're babbling incoherently.

Turns out it's both.

 

[Paul]

Replying from the Colin Powell thread as it's clearly more appropriate here.


You claimed that there is no classification of people by skin colour in Cuba. The point is that you are wrong.

The gish-gallop of nonsense you've put out above doesn't do anything to change that.


People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice. Can't you?


Paul, you literally say "the differences are ignored" and "racism goes away." And you're doing this in the context of claiming a race-blind approach makes things better. So the statement that pretending racial categories don't exist doesn't make them go away is clearly directly pertinent to your claims, not a straw man.

And while being prejudiced against people according to a perception of their racial group is racism, that means what you're saying above is literally the equivalent of saying, "If there is no racism, then there's no racism!" It's a tautology. It's a fantasy of how a world without racism might behave. It's not a roadmap to how you get there. As evidenced by the fact that every single place you refer to as being 'race-blind' is very much not race-blind in reality.

Once again you fail to grasp a very basic concept. People should be treated and judge as individuals and not as members of a group.
Do you agree? Yes or no?

I'll repeat that what Paul is claiming is a straw man is the accurate observation that the "let's all just pretend racism doesn't exist and ignore ethnicities" argument is a fantasy beloved of bigots who would love nothing more than for everyone to stop talking about racism, pretend it's gone away, and just let them carry on with it.

It's both accurate, and pertinent.

The differences are obvious, however, despite the differences in groups one should always treat all people as individuals and not as members of a group. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

This is in response to, 'We're talking about unequal outcomes between groups here, specifically, racial groups.

Unequal outcomes among groups are evident. Do you agree? Yes or no? Despite unequal outcomes between groups many individuals in the group perform in a different manner and hence it is best to judge people as individuals. Gosh, i hate to sound like a broken record, but you do not get it. That is why I suspect you see woke as religion. The analogy I have is an atheist trying to convince a fundamentalist Evangelical that perhaps God does not exist.

And you're, again, saying, "It does not work because humans exist in a spectrum of competence and talent."'

Do you disagree? If you have eyes and cognition it is obvious that humans have different levels of talent. I play the piano, but I will never be a concert pianist. The talent to play piano is not the same from human to human. Why do I even have to explain something this basic?

When someone repeatedly asserts that such differences exist because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent', it becomes increasingly evident that they think some racial groups are, overall, lacking talent compared to other racial groups. Which is racist.

The spectrum of talent exists at the individual level. I have said at nauseam that a member of an underperforming group can have more talent than a member of a high performance group. Group tendencies do not define the individual. That is why we should treat and judge everybody as an individual.

Tagging on, "Oh, but that doesn't apply to individuals!" doesn't change that, any more than, "I have a black friend!" shows someone to not be racist.

That is the worst analogy in the planet and all it shows is your tendency to yell racism when you cannot make an argument.

You're trying to pretend you're not being racist by defining racism as an absolute, all-or-nothing, so just as if someone 'has a black friend' they 'can't be prejudiced against black people', so if someone 'thinks individuals can do well', they 'can't think their group is typically less able than others'. Both of those are clearly false. People can do both those things. And those people are racist.

There you gho again yelling racism. I am in fact giving you a solution to end raciosm.

Paul. You repeatedly say things like, "Cubans are among the top most successful Latin Americans in the USA. Jamaicans are also very successful. They run circles around black Americans." So you are clearly familiar, and all too comfortable, with observing outcomes along the lines of racial groupings.

Groups have tendencies. Your religious fervor does not allow you to understand that,

What has become really obvious is that your schtick is being racist when we're talking about groups, clearly and repeatedly asserting that some groups do better than others,

Why are you willing to ignore that East Asians score higher in the SAT? Why is that?

I'm not calling you a heretic. I'm stating, as a fact, that if you think unequal outcomes between racial groups exist because

Yes, I am able to see reality and you cannot because you are a member of the WOKE religion.

 

[RobF]

Once again you fail to grasp a very basic concept. People should be treated and judge as individuals and not as members of a group.
Do you agree? Yes or no?

So this is in response to the points that :

You're wrong about there being no classification of people by skin colour in Cuba.

People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice.

That you're claiming that if "the differences are ignored" then "racism goes away", and that consequently the reality that pretending racial categories don't exist does not, in fact, make them go away is accurate and pertinent and not a straw man.

And that claiming that if people did so there would be no racism is essentially a tautology since it's the equivalent of "if there were no racism, there would be no racism," and that it's clearly not how you get to a world without racism as evidenced by the fact that it doesn't work.

You've quoted all those points, but you haven't responded to any of them.

Instead you've just repeated the assertion that "People should be treated and judge as individuals and not as members of a group", despite the fact that you yourself repeatedly make judgments about people as members of a group.

People are both individuals and members of groups, Paul. You can't be prejudiced against one, and pretend you're not against the other. That's not how that works.

The differences are obvious, however, despite the differences in groups one should always treat all people as individuals and not as members of a group. Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

This is in response to the statement that the "let's all just pretend racism doesn't exist and ignore ethnicities" argument is a fantasy beloved of bigots who would love nothing more than for everyone to stop talking about racism, pretend it's gone away, and just let them carry on with it.

Again, you've quoted it, but you haven't addressed it, instead repeating your previous statement, the limitations and flaws of which were already addressed by all the points you ignored above.

Unequal outcomes among groups are evident. Do you agree? Yes or no? Despite unequal outcomes between groups many individuals in the group perform in a different manner and hence it is best to judge people as individuals. Gosh, i hate to sound like a broken record, but you do not get it. That is why I suspect you see woke as religion. The analogy I have is an atheist trying to convince a fundamentalist Evangelical that perhaps God does not exist.

The point is that claiming that unequal outcomes between racial groups are because 'humans exist on a spectrum of talent' is racist. Which it is, by definition.

Do you disagree? If you have eyes and cognition it is obvious that humans have different levels of talent. I play the piano, but I will never be a concert pianist. The talent to play piano is not the same from human to human. Why do I even have to explain something this basic?

So what you've done here and above is crudely attempt to separate the point into two, creating two straw men, one, "there are no unequal outcomes between groups," and two, "humans all individually have equal levels of talent."

Whereas in reality, the point is, again, that claiming that the unequal outcomes that exist between racial groups are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent' is racist.

The spectrum of talent exists at the individual level. I have said at nauseam that a member of an underperforming group can have more talent than a member of a high performance group. Group tendencies do not define the individual. That is why we should treat and judge everybody as an individual.

Here you contradict yourself, since if the 'spectrum of talent' exists only at the individual level, then it would have no bearing on unequal outcomes between racial groups, since if it only exists at the individual level then by definition the distribution of talent would be similar between racial groups. But the fact that you repeatedly link the 'spectrum of talent' to unequal outcomes between racial groups clearly shows that you do think it exists at the group level. Which is racist.

That is the worst analogy in the planet and all it shows is your tendency to yell racism when you cannot make an argument.

It is an apt analogy, and this, and the rest of your post, shows your tendency to make false accusations and yell 'woke' when you cannot address an argument.

There you gho again yelling racism. I am in fact giving you a solution to end raciosm.

I've shown, with reason and evidence, that you are being racist, and that you are absolutely not 'giving a solution' but instead perpetuating a fantasy. Since this is a forum, and anyone can read the posts and see the reasoning and evidence, misrepresenting it as simply 'yelling racism' will get you nowhere.

Groups have tendencies. Your religious fervor does not allow you to understand that,

This is in response to the point that you repeatedly judge people as groups. Doing it again reaffirms the point.

Why are you willing to ignore that East Asians score higher in the SAT? Why is that?

And then doing it again further reaffirms said point, which is that you hypocritically and repeatedly judge people as groups.

You cut off the rest of the quote, but the point being made was that your thing is "clearly and repeatedly asserting that some groups do better than others, and that this is because "humans exist in a spectrum of talent," and then when challenged on it pretending that you're really against "judging people as members of a group." But you're plainly not. You do it all the time."

Making an entire post in which you do just that very much reaffirms that particular point.

Yes, I am able to see reality and you cannot because you are a member of the WOKE religion.

You also cut this quote off. The full quote was "I'm not calling you a heretic. I'm stating, as a fact, that if you think unequal outcomes between racial groups exist because "humans exist in a spectrum of talent," you're either racist, by definition, or are just randomly making statements unrelated to anything, i.e. babbling incoherently." It was in response to your previous unfounded accusations of religiosity.

Which you've chosen to simply repeat, in an example of an actual ad hominem, which further reaffirms the point about how you yell 'woke' when you can't make an argument.

If you want to just repeat yourself again, you can, but I will just point out that's all you're doing, again.

 

[Paul]

Here you contradict yourself, since if the 'spectrum of talent' exists only at the individual level, then it would have no bearing on unequal outcomes between racial groups, since if it only exists at the individual level then by definition the distribution of talent would be similar between racial groups. But the fact that you repeatedly link the 'spectrum of talent' to unequal outcomes between racial groups clearly shows that you do think it exists at the group level. Which is racist.

OK, Robf. I believe the above is the issue that bothers you. And as far as I am concerned the center of the discussion. You are sticking to your guns and claim:

1. It is racist to say group have tendencies.
2. It is racist to state humans exist in a spectrum of talent.

You also have made assumptions:

1. That the distribution of talent would be similar between racial groups (BTW, there is only one human race, so let's call them groups).
2. That I link the 'spectrum of talent' to unequal outcomes between racial groups. I actually never said that.


In any event I will try to explain this one more time. Let's look at the Netherlands as a group. The average male height in Netherlands is almost six feet (6'). The average male height in Japan is a bit over 5'7". That is a five inch difference.

Assume you are a movie director casting for an actor that is not short in height. You get an applicant from a Japanese actor. Should you immediately set the application aside and not look at the credentials of the Japanese actor? I say you should probably look at the application because even though the average height in Japan is 5'7" the Japanese actor could be 6'2" and perfect for the role. This only works because you as the director judge each applicant as an individual and not as a member of a group.

Why is this so complex for you?

Let's look at the distribution of talent. If you pick 100 students at random in a school and give them a music aptitude test you will find one student with great musical aptitude and one that is tone deaf. The rest will place in the middle with variable music skills. The musical aptitude will not be the same for all. Do you agree or disagree?

The kid with the best aptitude may one day become a famous musician. The kid that is tone deaf has no chance. There is no equality Robf.

Ideally the distribution of talent between groups should be similar given equal conditions and opportunity, but we know that not all kids come from the same background. That is a reality Robf. Describing reality does not mean racism. For example the SAT correlate with the level of education of the parents. That means that the most educated parents are likely more invested in the education of the children. It is not racist to describe reality.

Average SAT Scores by Parental Education Level, 2018

Parental Level of Education	Average Combined Score
No high school diploma	944
High school diploma	1005
Associate degree	1039
Bachelor's degree	1129
Graduate degree	1197

SAT scores are up, but gaps remain significant among racial and ethnic groups

College Board data show increasing gaps between different racial and ethnic groups.

www.insidehighered.com

 

[RobF]

OK, Robf. I believe the above is the issue that bothers you. And as far as I am concerned the center of the discussion. You are sticking to your guns and claim:

1. It is racist to say group have tendencies.
2. It is racist to state humans exist in a spectrum of talent.

First, in all the below, you're still avoiding the points that:

You're wrong about there being no classification of people by skin colour in Cuba.​

​

People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice.​

​

That you're claiming that if "the differences are ignored" then "racism goes away", and that consequently the reality that pretending racial categories don't exist does not, in fact, make them go away is accurate and pertinent and not a straw man.​

​

And that claiming that if people did so there would be no racism is essentially a tautology since it's the equivalent of "if there were no racism, there would be no racism," and that it's clearly not how you get to a world without racism as evidenced by the fact that it doesn't work.​

And as I said, I will point out that you're ignoring all of that. And more, but I'll refer to the previous posts rather than quote all of it.

That said, with regard to the above, I literally just told you that was a straw men, and explained why:

So what you've done here and above is crudely attempt to separate the point into two, creating two straw men, one, "there are no unequal outcomes between groups," and two, "humans all individually have equal levels of talent."​

​

Whereas in reality, the point is, again, that claiming that the unequal outcomes that exist between racial groups are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent' is racist.​

Ignoring that and repeating yourself does not reflect well on your ability to comprehend the post you're replying to.

You also have made assumptions:

1. That the distribution of talent would be similar between racial groups (BTW, there is only one human race, so let's call them groups).
2. That I link the 'spectrum of talent' to unequal outcomes between racial groups. I actually never said that.

As I said before, you were either linking the 'spectrum of talent' to unequal outcomes between racial groups, or you were babbling incoherently by bringing it up in the context of unequal outcomes between racial groups for no reason. Since then, you've repeated it in the context of unequal outcomes between racial groups multiple times, so it is entirely clear that you have, in fact, linked the 'spectrum of talent' to unequal outcomes between racial groups.

And no, we won't call them groups. As the Census Bureau states, racial categories "generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically." You've repeatedly referred to racial groups in this context, you don't get to pretend they don't exist and shouldn't be referred to now.

In any event I will try to explain this one more time. Let's look at the Netherlands as a group. The average male height in Netherlands is almost six feet (6'). The average male height in Japan is a bit over 5'7". That is a five inch difference.

Assume you are a movie director casting for an actor that is not short in height. You get an applicant from a Japanese actor. Should you immediately set the application aside and not look at the credentials of the Japanese actor? I say you should probably look at the application because even though the average height in Japan is 5'7" the Japanese actor could be 6'2" and perfect for the role. This only works because you as the director judge each applicant as an individual and not as a member of a group.

Unequal outcomes between racial groups on a national level aren't determined by movies casting solely by height, Paul.

Why is this so complex for you?

It isn't. The person who's finding it too complex is the one who has to ignore every refutation to their arguments in favour of repeating themselves. That would be you, Paul.

Let's look at the distribution of talent. If you pick 100 students at random in a school and give them a music aptitude test you will find one student with great musical aptitude and one that is tone deaf. The rest will place in the middle with variable music skills. The musical aptitude will not be the same for all. Do you agree or disagree?

The kid with the best aptitude may one day become a famous musician. The kid that is tone deaf has no chance. There is no equality Robf.

Great. Now all you have to show is that musical aptitude is inherently different between racial groups and that this accounts for the overall unequal outcomes between racial groups, and you'll have an argument.

Ideally the distribution of talent between groups should be similar given equal conditions and opportunity, but we know that not all kids come from the same background. That is a reality Robf. Describing reality does not mean racism. For example the SAT correlate with the level of education of the parents. That means that the most educated parents are likely more invested in the education of the children. It is not racist to describe reality.

Now you're describing unequal outcomes due to unequal opportunity, not due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent'.

But if you want to withdraw your notion that unequal outcomes between racial groups are due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent', and instead say that they're due to unequal opportunity, that'd be a good idea.

Oh, and if you were thinking of pivoting to a, "But that's what I meant the whole time," both the examples you offered above, height and musical aptitude in children, apart from being inherently flawed, are examples of innate, not learned, characteristics.

And here you're deploying the idiotic meme racists deploy when they're correctly described as being racist.

Similarly to when people who are losing an argument in a particularly idiotic way get correctly called an idiot, they attempt to reframe being called an idiot as something that can only ever be done falsely, by someone losing an argument.

Except calling someone an idiot, or a racist, can also clearly be done correctly, when someone is being an idiot, or racist.

And I haven't just called you a racist; I've pointed out exactly what you're saying that's racist, and why it's racist.

So I'm afraid, here, you're being correctly called a racist because you're saying racist things. And you're losing a political argument.

 

[Paul]

First, in all the below, you're still avoiding the points that:

You're wrong about there being no classification of people by skin colour in Cuba.​

​

People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice.​

Sure, we all have eyes. We can tell physical differences. However categorizing and classifying people according to physical features as it is done in America is ultimate racism.

"The head of the delegation stressed that Cuba was proud of its mixed ethnic and racial diversity, which constituted its national strength. There was no concept of pure origin in Cuban culture. Accordingly, there had never been a legal or political recognition of different ethnicities or national minorities. The concept of “Afro-Cuban” or “Afro-descendant” was alien to the Cuban reality, as were “Hispano-Cubano” and “Indo-Cubano.” Everyone was Cuban. "

And here you are correct!

"Mr. Albuquerque Silva noted that racial discrimination continued to be present in Cuban society, in spite of the efforts of the authorities in the past decades."

OHCHR | Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers Cuba's report

www.ohchr.org

​

That you're claiming that if "the differences are ignored" then "racism goes away", and that consequently the reality that pretending racial categories don't exist does not, in fact, make them go away is accurate and pertinent and not a straw man.​

I did not say that. I am disappointed in this cheap 3rd rate straw man Robf. All I said was:

TREAT AND JUDGE EVERY PERSON AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF A GROUP.

​

And that claiming that if people did so there would be no racism is essentially a tautology since it's the equivalent of "if there were no racism, there would be no racism," and that it's clearly not how you get to a world without racism as evidenced by the fact that it doesn't work.​

Racism will never be eliminated. Let me help your argument Robf. I will present your point of view with logic rather than straw men. On a theoretical basis racism would not exist if humans judge each other as individuals. However, that is not likely and humans will stereotype people according to the group they belong to. There you go, that was not that hard Robf.

​

Whereas in reality, the point is, again, that claiming that the unequal outcomes that exist between racial groups are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent' is racist.​

That is not what I said. You are dishonest Robf. The spectrum of talent involves all humans and not a select few. A black, Asian, white, or purple person can be a virtuoso at the piano.

And no, we won't call them groups. As the Census Bureau states, racial categories "generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically." You've repeatedly referred to racial groups in this context, you don't get to pretend they don't exist and shouldn't be referred to now.

That sort of race definition is racist.

Unequal outcomes between racial groups on a national level aren't determined by movies casting solely by height, Paul.

Your weakest argument to date Robf. I want to to go back to the casting director analogy and refute the argument in an intelligent manner. You are clever, give it a shot.

Great. Now all you have to show is that musical aptitude is inherently different between racial groups and that this accounts for the overall unequal outcomes between racial groups, and you'll have an argument.

Tsk, tsk. You have repeated that straw man at nauseam.

But if you want to withdraw your notion that unequal outcomes between racial groups are due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent', and instead say that they're due to unequal opportunity, that'd be a good idea.

It is both Robf. Talent and unequal opportunities. However, you need to get this inside your head. We will never achieve equal outcomes.

I bet you cannot form an argument without crying racism.

 

[RobF]

Sure, we all have eyes. We can tell physical differences. However categorizing and classifying people according to physical features as it is done in America is ultimate racism.

One of the points you just responded to was that "People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice." Since you appear to think that even acknowledging someone's membership of a group is 'ultimate racism', are you claiming you can't?

"The head of the delegation stressed that Cuba was proud of its mixed ethnic and racial diversity, which constituted its national strength. There was no concept of pure origin in Cuban culture. Accordingly, there had never been a legal or political recognition of different ethnicities or national minorities. The concept of “Afro-Cuban” or “Afro-descendant” was alien to the Cuban reality, as were “Hispano-Cubano” and “Indo-Cubano.” Everyone was Cuban. "

Now actually read the article I linked to ages in the first place, by the professor you cited, the one that shows that's not the reality: https://www.theroot.com/one-on-one-with-afro-cubans-what-it-means-to-be-black-1790860590

And here you are correct!

"Mr. Albuquerque Silva noted that racial discrimination continued to be present in Cuban society, in spite of the efforts of the authorities in the past decades."

OHCHR | Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considers Cuba's report

www.ohchr.org

Is this where you do the "You're correct about me being wrong," thing, but then carry on pretending you're not wrong regardless?

I did not say that. I am disappointed in this cheap 3rd rate straw man Robf. All I said was:

TREAT AND JUDGE EVERY PERSON AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF A GROUP.

Again, this is a forum, Paul, everything you say is right there for people go back and look at. Here is what you said:

I say the differences are ignored and every person is treated as an individual rather than as a member of a group. As soon as you treat someone as a member of a group you have racism. When persons are evaluated as individuals racism goes away.

Let's see... "the differences are ignored", check, "racism goes away", check. Yes, you said that.

And if you're going for, "But I didn't mean it like that," you also literally claimed this is a solution for ending racism. Well, 'racisom'.

I am in fact giving you a solution to end raciosm.

The fact that you've also contradicted yourself, as you're about to do by saying "Racism will never be eliminated," doesn't change the fact that you've said it, and responding to it is very much pertinent, and not at all a straw man.

You seem to think if you say racist stuff and also contradict yourself, that negates the racist stuff and somehow makes responding to it a straw man. No, it doesn't. It just means you're racist and incoherent.

Racism will never be eliminated. Let me help your argument Robf. I will present your point of view with logic rather than straw men. On a theoretical basis racism would not exist if humans judge each other as individuals. However, that is not likely and humans will stereotype people according to the group they belong to. There you go, that was not that hard Robf.

Yet again, not a straw man. And no, it's not hard, considering I already said it: "And while being prejudiced against people according to a perception of their racial group is racism, that means what you're saying above is literally the equivalent of saying, "If there is no racism, then there's no racism!" It's a tautology. It's a fantasy of how a world without racism might behave. It's not a roadmap to how you get there. As evidenced by the fact that every single place you refer to as being 'race-blind' is very much not race-blind in reality."

Of course, that was one of the many points you simply ignored. Hey, here's an idea, maybe try reading the posts you're replying to?

That is not what I said. You are dishonest Robf. The spectrum of talent involves all humans and not a select few. A black, Asian, white, or purple person can be a virtuoso at the piano.

Yes, it is what you said as, again, anyone can go and see. And, again, pretending that what was said to you was "humans all individually have equal levels of talent," when it was actually "claiming that the unequal outcomes that exist between racial groups are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent' is racist." is an actual straw man.

That sort of race definition is racist.

No, it isn't.

Your weakest argument to date Robf. I want to to go back to the casting director analogy and refute the argument in an intelligent manner. You are clever, give it a shot.

Just did. Really leaning into this "If I pretend I can't see it, it means it's not there" thing, aren't you?

Tsk, tsk. You have repeated that straw man at nauseam.

Still not a straw man.

It is both Robf. Talent and unequal opportunities. However, you need to get this inside your head. We will never achieve equal outcomes.

See, here you've just explicitly said that you do think unequal outcomes between racial groups are due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent', which is the thing you've just spent most of this post calling a straw man, further underlining that it isn't. All you've done now is add, "Oh, and unequal opportunities too."

Except that remains entirely racist: because if you think unequal outcomes between racial groups are in part due 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent' and in part due to unequal opportunities, that means you think that, if given equal opportunities, there would still be unequal outcomes and this would be due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent', which is implicitly stating that you think one racial group's distribution across that spectrum is more towards one end than the other. Which is, literally, racist.

I bet you cannot form an argument without crying racism.

Of course I could form an argument about your racist posts without explicitly pointing out they're racist. I mean I won't, but I could. Why would I? When you post racist stuff, it will be pointed out that it's racist. You can keep trying to misrepresent reasoned and evidenced posts pointing out the racism as 'yelling racism', and 'crying racism', and keep trying to imply that no accusation of racism can be well-founded, but they clearly can be, they clearly are here, and basically going, "Please stop," isn't going to work.

Stop posting racist stuff, then I'll stop pointing out that it's racist. That's how that works.

 

[Paul]

One of the points you just responded to was that "People can perceive someone to be a member of a group without believing said membership indicates inferiority or superiority, and without treating them with adverse prejudice." Since you appear to think that even acknowledging someone's membership of a group is 'ultimate racism', are you claiming you can't?


Now actually read the article I linked to ages in the first place, by the professor you cited, the one that shows that's not the reality: https://www.theroot.com/one-on-one-with-afro-cubans-what-it-means-to-be-black-1790860590


Is this where you do the "You're correct about me being wrong," thing, but then carry on pretending you're not wrong regardless?


Again, this is a forum, Paul, everything you say is right there for people go back and look at. Here is what you said:


Let's see... "the differences are ignored", check, "racism goes away", check. Yes, you said that.

And if you're going for, "But I didn't mean it like that," you also literally claimed this is a solution for ending racism. Well, 'racisom'.

I explained it was theoretical and that on a practical level people will continue to judge others according to the stereotype. However, there are people out there that actually judge the individual and not the group stereotype. This continues to be the argument Robf. The rest is you playing the silly "gotcha" game instead of seeking wisdom. You know exactly what I am saying and yet you resort to silly microscopic analysis of words here and there to use your favorite weapon in an argument which is crying racism.

"If there is no racism, then there's no racism!" It's a tautology.

You are misrepresenting my point and misusing the word tautology.

I will say it again: IT IS BEST TO TREAT PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT AS MEMBERS OF A GROUP. I agree with you that it does not fully eliminates racism because many will continue to judge others according to the group stereotype.

Yes, it is what you said as, again, anyone can go and see. And, again, pretending that what was said to you was "humans all individually have equal levels of talent," when it was actually "claiming that the unequal outcomes that exist between racial groups are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent' is racist." is an actual straw man.

There you go again: I will say it one more time. Feel free to refute this without yelling racism: HUMANS EXIST IN A SPECTRUM OF TALENT. Feel free to refute the term using logic.

See, here you've just explicitly said that you do think unequal outcomes between racial groups are due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent'

Different outcomes between groups is multifactorial. Each group may exist is totally different positive or negative circumstances. A different outcome among a set of individuals with the exact same of circumstances is likely due to difference in talent.

Robf: Try to write one post in your life where you do not cry racism.

 

[Optimus Prime]

First time hearing about this trial
=========================
As hundreds of white supremacists prepared to descend on Charlottesville in 2017, they hashed out logistics in private chat groups.

They suggested a dress code of polo shirts during the day and shirts with swastikas at night. They worried about mayo on sandwiches spoiling in the August heat. And they swapped tips on how to turn ordinary objects into lethal weapons, according to messages cited in court papers.


Such detailed planning is central to a lawsuit filed by nine Charlottesville residents who allege physical harm and emotional distress during Unite the Right, the deadly two-day rally where a torch-carrying mob chanting “Jews will not replace us!” awakened the country to a resurgence of far-right extremism.

After four years of legal wrangling, a civil trial begins Monday in a federal courtroom in Charlottesville, where a jury will decide whether the organizing of the rally amounted to a conspiracy to engage in racially motivated violence.


“Defendants brought with them to Charlottesville the imagery of the Holocaust, of slavery, of Jim Crow, and of fascism,” the plaintiffs say in the complaint. “They also brought with them semi-automatic weapons, pistols, mace, rods, armor, shields, and torches.”……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/charlottesville-unite-right-rally-lawsuit/2021/10/23/3a99652a-32a4-11ec-a880-a9d8c009a0b1_story.html

 

[RobF]

I explained it was theoretical and that on a practical level people will continue to judge others according to the stereotype. However, there are people out there that actually judge the individual and not the group stereotype. This continues to be the argument Robf. The rest is you playing the silly "gotcha" game instead of seeking wisdom. You know exactly what I am saying and yet you resort to silly microscopic analysis of words here and there to use your favorite weapon in an argument which is crying racism.

Paul, ignoring everything you're quoting and repeating yourself, only in bold, is not going to get you anywhere.

I will also continue to accurately quote you and hold you accountable for the things you have said. And quoting, for example, someone saying, "I am in fact giving you a solution to end raciosm," and interpreting it as them saying that they are, in fact, giving a solution to end racism is doing just that. Attempting to reframe it as 'silly microscopic analysis of words' is yet another attempt to reframe being held to account as something not reasonable, in the vain hope that the person you're talking to will adopt that frame and stop doing it. By now you should have noticed that doesn't work here.

And, even putting aside that, again, accurately pointing out that someone is being racist is not 'crying racism', you appear to have missed that in the section you quoted, there was no mention of you being racist.

You are misrepresenting my point and misusing the word tautology.

Nope, as can be seen by the previous posts that lay out exactly why that's the case.

I will say it again: IT IS BEST TO TREAT PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT AS MEMBERS OF A GROUP. I agree with you that it does not fully eliminates racism because many will continue to judge others according to the group stereotype.


There you go again: I will say it one more time. Feel free to refute this without yelling racism: HUMANS EXIST IN A SPECTRUM OF TALENT. Feel free to refute the term using logic.

You just literally quoted "And, again, pretending that what was said to you was "humans all individually have equal levels of talent," when it was actually "claiming that the unequal outcomes that exist between racial groups are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of talent' is racist." is an actual straw man." Here's a hint: repeating yourself only in caps and bold doesn't change that.

Different outcomes between groups is multifactorial. Each group may exist is totally different positive or negative circumstances. A different outcome among a set of individuals with the exact same of circumstances is likely due to difference in talent.

They're not in the "exact same of circumstances". Without showing that the groups inherently 'differ in talent', the hypothesis that they would have different outcomes due to differing in talent is a baseless assertion. And, when applied to racial groups, it's literally a racist one.

Robf: Try to write one post in your life where you do not cry racism.

I'll just repeat the response to this since you evidently didn't read it the first time:

"Of course I could form an argument about your racist posts without explicitly pointing out they're racist. I mean I won't, but I could. Why would I? When you post racist stuff, it will be pointed out that it's racist. You can keep trying to misrepresent reasoned and evidenced posts pointing out the racism as 'yelling racism', and 'crying racism', and keep trying to imply that no accusation of racism can be well-founded, but they clearly can be, they clearly are here, and basically going, "Please stop," isn't going to work.

Stop posting racist stuff, then I'll stop pointing out that it's racist. That's how that works."

 

[brandon]

Except that remains entirely racist: because if you think unequal outcomes between racial groups are in part due 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent' and in part due to unequal opportunities, that means you think that, if given equal opportunities, there would still be unequal outcomes and this would be due to 'humans existing on a spectrum of talent', which is implicitly stating that you think one racial group's distribution across that spectrum is more towards one end than the other. Which is, literally, racist.

I think we’ve been here more than once.

 

[Paul]

Stop posting racist stuff, then I'll stop pointing out that it's racist. That's how that works."

Robf, yelling racism 24/7 is not an argument. I think you are disingenuous on purpose, but there is a remote possibility you actually believe what you are saying.
The sophistry to defend your point is poor, but I give you some credit as I did not state my position clearly which allowed you to nitpick on the periphery without having to discuss the main thrust of the argument. You are sophist, no doubt.

Let's simplify and stick with the subject:

1. IT IS BEST TO TREAT PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT AS MEMBERS OF A GROUP.

What is wrong with the above?


2. HUMANS EXIST IN A SPECTRUM OF TALENT.

Agree or disagree?

3. GROUPS HAVE TENDENCIES (the reason is multifactorial).

Agree or disagree.

Three simple points Robf. I would appreciate if you can discuss.

 

[RobF]

Robf, yelling racism 24/7 is not an argument.

Accurately pointing out that something is racist, and why it's racist, is very much an argument, and one you seem to think you can simply ignore. Unfortunately, as I've said before, this is a forum and that can only work for you. Everyone else sees it.

Whereas ignoring an argument, repeating yourself in spite of everything you're saying having been thoroughly addressed one way or another, and misframing actual arguments as 'yelling racism', that's not an argument.

I think you are disingenuous on purpose, but there is a remote possibility you actually believe what you are saying.
The sophistry to defend your point is poor, but I give you some credit as I did not state my position clearly which allowed you to nitpick on the periphery without having to discuss the main thrust of the argument. You are sophist, no doubt.

Let's simplify and stick with the subject:

1. IT IS BEST TO TREAT PEOPLE AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT AS MEMBERS OF A GROUP.

What is wrong with the above?


2. HUMANS EXIST IN A SPECTRUM OF TALENT.

Agree or disagree?

3. GROUPS HAVE TENDENCIES (the reason is multifactorial).

Agree or disagree.

Three simple points Robf. I would appreciate if you can discuss.

Yeah, you're not doing that either. The subject I'm addressing, as started in the Colin Powell thread, is your misrepresentations of Cuba and Henry Louis Gates Jr's work on the subject of being black in Cuba, in pursuit of your fantasy of a race-blind nationalist utopia. And this was a repeat occurrence, after your previous similar misrepresentations of France and Japan.

The secondary subject I'm addressing, as continued in the Colin Powell thread, was your asserting that unequal outcomes between groups, specifically, racial groups, are because 'humans exist in a spectrum of competence and talent', which, as repeatedly addressed above and repeatedly ignored, is racist. This was also a repeat performance from you.

And both of those have been thoroughly addressed by the responses from myself and others in that thread and this one. You've repeatedly ignored them in favour of, amongst other attempts at evasion: repetition, misrepresenting the responses to you both in nature and content, a meme, shifting the goalposts, and most of those again, only in caps and bold. To be honest, I'm surprised you stopped before trying it with an increased font size.

But now you appear to have given up entirely, stopped even pretending you're responding to the argument, and are instead trying to avoid it completely by changing the subject to your three trite assertions above. But what you have there are three straw men. They don't refute the responses to the actual subjects above, as repeatedly shown in the previous posts.

So, no. The responses to all your previous posts stand, and anyone can read through them to see that you have, indeed, done exactly what I've just said you have. If you ever want to respond to them, instead of repeatedly ignoring them, they'll still be there. In the meantime, the fact that you haven't, speaks volumes.