People who don't get jobs are largely lazy. Let's say 50% of them.
White people are 8% unemployed. Therefore only 4% of whites are lazy.
46% of young blacks are unemployed. Therefore 24% of young blacks are lazy.
How do you expect Ian_T to come to a different conclusion about what people believe? He can't forget basic arithmetic, and some statements simply can't escape the consequences of doing the math.
@bwhitz the problem though is in a thread that starts out with:
"US:Unemployment where it says: 16.7% blacks (afro-american is politcorrect term) are officially unemployed, setting new record for last 30 years. Young black unempoyment is 46.5%."
..and then immediately getting a response like:
"Not surprised, can't make the lazy work when the Gov. allows them to suckle the taxpayers tit."
.. with nothing more said what should the average viewer take away from this? You see my point? This ties to my earlier example of how Europeans in my experience viewed black people from this country. It was because of the misrepresentations of the press. Well... a lot of folks read this thread. An answer like that, without any further explanation, leaves a certain impression on folks which pushes people further away from the root of the problem. This all feeds more ignorance. Now..the poster, KCG, meant something else. But that's not how it read which is why CBrandin and I took it the way we did. That's all.
@KCG...I apologize for taking your comment to heart but...I tried....to not jump into this thread...I did ...I really did try. :-)
Well, my point was... that it could have been an race in that position. The cards were just delt black people in that hand and point in time. Could have been whites, hispanics, asains, whatever. It just HAPPEND to be black people, it isn't BECAUSE of them. That's the racism line...
Yea I can see how it seemed racist... could have been a poor choice of wording. I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt at first. If they continue... then you tear them apart. ;)
Crap, made an edit and deleted that last part of my post. Basically... the point was, that there is no shortage of un-employed dumb white people in the south. ;)
I think most people confuse life reality with racism.
Racism is if you believe that someone if better or worse because he is born black (white, etc). I won't go here, just cite that all people are different by their abilities, they are not the same. It depends from parents, food, alcohol, narcotics etc.
Reality is what "all have equal possibilities" is not true. It is not racism. It is simple reality. If you born in quite poor black family with not so high education, you'll have less chances to compete, get good education, make proper connections, etc.
You guys make good points. I guess when it comes to reading stats like these I tend to look at "why" it is like it is. I always say that we should look at the root of the problem.
Vitaliy, that reality you described is true for a lot of people (no matter what color). Historically though if a black, white, Asian or Hispanic person in those situations tried to compete guess who would typically come out on top/bottom? It's not impossible for black folks....it just means he/she has to work twice as hard as their white (etc.) counterpart. This basically describes my wife's situation growing up. Her story is very impressive. To make a long story short just think about every possible barrier black folks in this country has gone through she has been there. Yet...she decided to set the example in her family and managed to reach Suma Kum Lati from UCONN graduate school. She, to me, is a shining example of one who can make it. In the end however...she still struggled to get that "position" on the job. I can't get into how unfair she was treated along the way. But...because of her persistence wouldn't settle for less than what she deserves. Not everyone that was in her situation had the same type of drive. Some are more broken than others.
@bwhitz "If welfare is to continue, it needs to be more strict... with IQ tests"
And those that score low should probably be interned in relocation camps so as not to keep riding on our tax money. Clearly, poor people are the cause of America's economic woes. We must purge America of inferior poor people.
> Generally, war had been result of the accumulated problems and it had been arranged and used as solution.
My stars VK. You've got yourself a great big conspiracy bug up your butt. Heard it before from many angles. And you know what- basically I agree. But
In such issues, as else where, it's all about the power struggles. I'm sure we've all experienced that in our own lives…having to deal with the boss who loves being the boss…and telling everyone what to do and how to do it, with much implied: kiss my ass or you're fired/not on the next show, etc...
War is the result of intolerable situations getting out of control. Some just say-" bomb the fuckers" ...while others may think they're the ones that are out of control.
It's very easy to see this as a racial issue. The numbers present it as such. But there's more going on than just old school crap about "Power" struggles and blame... as the rich get richer and the rest get screwed. We get mangled by distractions that they've produced…and we've helped them in our own deception.
"We don't need no stinkin' badges" because LEFT or RIGHT is the game we're playing against us all.
There's no single way or philosophy or govt. that works for everyone everywhere.
@brianluce "And those that score low should probably be interned in relocation camps so as not to keep riding on our tax money. Clearly, poor people are the cause of America's economic woes. We must purge America of inferior poor people."
Well what do you suggest then? If someone was forcing you to give up your own money (taxes) wouldn't you rather have it go towards helping smarter capable people, that could possibly make medical/science advancements someday (helps everyone), than to someone less intelligent who is going to, more or less, waste it? (helps nobody) I just don't understand the logic in your conclusion. I just don't think you're thinking objectively about it, you're just letting your emotions do all the thinking.
And no, poor people are not the problem. You're missing the point. The needs of the masses are starting to out-weigh the production of our society overall. This LEADS to poverty. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor, will only result in higher-prices for EVERYONE.. and will only lead to further class separation as the price of resources are raised to accommodate the deficit. If you take time, money, and resources from those who are producing and give it to those who are not... you will eventually destroy a civilization. This is just basic logic. This is not a problem that can simply be solved by "being nice to each other and helping". This solves problems on the kindergarten playground... it doesn't apply to real life.
And again, like the racism argument, people are not inferior BECAUSE they are poor. But intellectually inferior people do tend to be poor. It's not right or wrong. That's just how things are. It's nobody fault. Blame evolution, blame genetics, or blame your God... but do not blame other people. If you do, and then pass laws to hold somebody monetarily accountable for the blame... it just create a contradiction... and hurts our country as a whole.
This isn't about morals and what would be nice for everyone. This is about solving problems... sorry if it seems harsh.
@davhar ""We don't need no stinkin' badges" because LEFT or RIGHT is the game they're playing against us all. There's no single way or philosophy or govt. that works for everyone everywhere."
+1 very true.
@cbrandin "It's social darwinism, and I'm not a big fan. I don't think it works, either."
Nope. It's not social darwinism. It's IS darwinism. It just got more complex and evolved with us. What makes us so arrogant that we think we're above evolution all the sudden? It got us to this point right now... why should we stop all the sudden? Is evolving now becoming immoral or something?
What a load of crap. IQ tests measure only a small area of human capability and it's probably one of the most useless useless areas. There are so many things it doesn't measure that are better predictors of achievement
>>>>>>>>>.
The needs of the masses are starting to out-weigh the production of our society overall. This LEADS to poverty. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<br /> The socalled needs of the masses is the reason we have government and the nation state. What do you think it exists for? To serve the oligarchy?
And you solutions don't sound harsh, they just sound wrong and uniformed. You've got yourself a "Me first" ethic, a major culprit IMHO for the trouble in the world right now. Uprisings in Israel, Libya, UK rioting, that's the backlash against your attitude.
@brianluce "You've got yourself a "Me first" ethic, a major culprit IMHO for the trouble in the world right now. Uprisings in Israel, Libya, UK rioting, that's the backlash against your attitude."
Wrong. If I had a "me first" ethic. I would be FOR government hand outs... so that I could just stop working and sit on my butt all day.
"The socalled needs of the masses is the reason we have government and the nation state"
Umm... actually it's for protection from other nations and to uphold constitutional laws that protect our individual freedoms. This is basic.
"What a load of crap. IQ tests measure only a small area of human capability and it's probably one of the most useless useless areas. There are so many things it doesn't measure that are better predictors of achievement"
You're correct here actually. That's why I originally said "IQ tests and such". Obviously, current IQ tests would have to be revised to test for other things like creativity, mental stability, and logical reasoning. Not just information regurgitation... we have computers for that now. ;)
Again, there are no right or wrong answers. There are only choices. We can chose to help all the current humans by dividing up the current wealth and giving everyone a equal slice (this would end our social evolution and stagnate the human race... it's also very selfish) or we continue to let evolution take it's course, leave social Darwinism unchecked, and reach a global type-1 civilization some day... which will be good for everyone and end most problems we're disusing now.
If you chose the former because you're concerned that you may never see the type-1 utopia... then you're being selfish.
We're in for some rough times ahead. We need REAL solutions. Being "more compassionate" and "helping each other" are not really going to cut it... it's much bigger than that.
Shame I didn't take seriously english lessons... But I give it a try. @bhwitz I don't know what is the most scary part of your analysis : the conclusions or the fact that you (and many others I'm sure) genuinely believe it's true... Brrr! Your vision of the "progress" like something of the future that would benefit one day to humanity (level 1 or whatever pseudo-scientific assesment) is... What s that? I don t give a shit of thoses utopian fairy tales : in the end a lonely old genius remain in a spaceship kubrickian way. Useless. if progress don t serve immediatly to raise standart (education, medical, culture, etc) for the majority then all the rest is crap : not darwinism but eugenism. I don t accuse thoses who believe in thoses crap to be nazis, just short minded. Progress for progress without benefit for all is stupid. Maybe it s sellfish to think like that. Good, sellfinesh is good advise sometimes.
And for the racial part : shit don't just happen. If all thoses stats on black people are so negative it s not the result of bad luck (damn how can someone see social reality like that) or the so called "choice" (good/bad) made by thoses who are in such situations - but eh, there s hope cause black love to sing and dance and are going to succeed in our "societe du spectacle"... I Hope its a (bad) joke.
Its just happen that racial reality are crossing social realities. Poor without access to culture (to be short) are going te reproduce their situation. Period. For one story of a self made men (favorite fairy tale in the us; even among the poor for the satisfaction of oligarchy) million of poor and few riches just born/die in the condition of their parents : yeah shit happens, don t born poor (statstically better to not born black then).
Progress of the humanity (or whatever) can only be achieved by raising the situation of the actual people living right now. I m not Keynesian, but Keynes wasn't a sellfish poor thinking for its own good. Maybe he was just a smart sellfish rich who come out to the best (or the least worst) solution to protect his situation. If selfish rich don t want to be generous with the poor (and all the lazy, idiot among them) but are afraid of lumpen proletariat riots, they have to be logical. Build camp (stat of black/poor in prison?) or build school, rebuild welfare state to destroy social inegalities and offer to every genious of tomorrow regardless of their class the chance to succeed - and to the idiot the right to live and be happy too. Damn we re humans, not bugs...
Ps : I don t speak english so yeah major part of what I said doesn t make sense and don t reveal my thoughts (try to resume Bourdieu in chinese!). And debate politics in an unknown language prove that I m stupid in some way...
Ps 2 : @Ian_t europeans ppl don't think this or that about black americans... Some europeans are stupid and/or racist, some aren t, that's all.
@astraban "I don't know what is the most scary part of your analysis : the conclusions or the fact that you (and many others I'm sure) genuinely believe it's true... Brrr!"
It is true. Your fear of it is clouding your, and many other's judgments. It is human though, people fear what they don't understand. We're emotional animals, we like ideas that appeal to us on those levels the best. Once you learn to think on a non-emotional (objective) level, the answers become very obvious... although most people would fear and dismiss them, which is why it takes so long to implement change. If everyone though objectively, we could fix the world for everyone in about 50 years. This will probably never happen though.
And "level-1" society talk is not pseudo scientific. Again, your only saying that because you don't understand. There is a real scale physicists and astronomers use to rate the progress and milestones of a civilization. Until you study more into this field, please refrain from dismissing it as pseudo science.
"Progress of the humanity (or whatever) can only be achieved by raising the situation of the actual people living right now."
Wrong. This is Humanitarianism. Your mixing two different concepts. This is why it is important to establish premises before taking part in a debate. Anyways, there is no logical conclusion you can make that by improving the situation of everyone, that it will lead to progress. On the other hand, there is LARGE evidence that favoring the most adapt and intelligent will lead to progress. This is evolution... it's been pretty much proven. It's the reason you're typing on a computer right now, on the other side of the globe, taking part in this debate. And it didn't happen because of compassion, or helping, or any of that. It happened because smart/creative people had resources available to them and had the time and freedom to exploit them.
"And debate politics in an unknown language prove that I m stupid in some way..."
The point of this is not trying to prove anyone stupid... it's just the search for solutions.
@astraban You're right....there are dumb people everywhere. But I speak only of my own experience with the people I've met. I don't trust statistics. In many cases information like that is skewed. And like the media it can be lopsided enough to make a certain group look bad. The sad part about it all is people actually buy into that propoganda crap. Which is why I brought up that story.
@bwhitz "Wrong. If I had a "me first" ethic. I would be FOR government hand outs... so that I could just stop working and sit on my butt all day. " >>>>>>>
Very few people like and enjoy being on welfare. It's humiliating and provides a standard of living at the poverty line. So don't say you'd want it, you don't.
"Umm... actually it's for protection from other nations and to uphold constitutional laws that protect our individual freedoms. This is basic. " >>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, as I already said, government was created to benefit the masses. In democratic governments that might include upholding the law and protecting human rights, or it might not. Most governments and nation states throughout history aren't democratic though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"You're correct here actually. That's why I originally said "IQ tests and such". Obviously, current IQ tests would have to be revised to test for other things like creativity, mental stability, and logical reasoning. Not just information regurgitation... we have computers for that now. ;)"
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<br /> IQ tests have never tested the "Regurgitation of information". And good luck finding any standardized exam that tests mental stability and creativity.
"Again, there are no right or wrong answers. There are only choices. We can chose to help all the current humans by dividing up the current wealth and giving everyone a equal slice (this would end our social evolution and stagnate the human race... it's also very selfish) or we continue to let evolution take it's course, leave social Darwinism unchecked, and reach a global type-1 civilization some day... which will be good for everyone and end most problems we're disusing now."
>>>>>>>
A silly dichotomy here. Really. This is ridiculous.
@brianluce "A silly dichotomy here. Really. This is ridiculous."
That's only because you don't understand it yet. It's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a 5th grader... of course it's going to sound ridiculous. But I can assure you, I've thought out many scenarios, and the ones I've mentioned are pretty contradiction-free. I use to believe in Altruism and such... but when dissecting my though patterns, I found many contradictions, leading me to the conclusion (even though it I was afraid of it at first) that those principles were false.
Also, I'm not saying anyone is wrong... it's just different views that lead to different outcomes. Nothing can inherently be right or wrong. So sorry if any of this comes of as personal, it's not meant to be... it's just debate.
I m just saying that your scientist vision of progress of civilizations may sound modern but is an old dusty useless dream of some XIXe century fools... Like my humanitarian ideas that s true!! ;-) for you I have to scientificly study the civilization stories before arguing. For me you have to just understand basic sociology (yeah I teach that crap AND medieval history!) to see that on social reality your utopia is out topic.
Ps : to say the true, I really regret my poor english. It s very rare here to debate seriusly w/ a rock solid libertarian guy. And even if I m totally against your ideas(!!), I respect them and you - not considering you like an idiot.
@bwhitz "That's only because you don't understand it. It's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a 5th grader... of course it's going to sound ridiculous. " >>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately your personal theory of social evolution isn't quantum mechanics. To the contrary, You've reduced one of the most complicated subjects to an either/or construction of two cliche, sophomoric and clumsy choices. The presumptuousness in your argument is at astonishing levels.
Humanitarianism will lead to a more emotionally stable society (probably) but with the trade-off of progress. Resources will be spend on improving everyone's quality of life. Science and industry will have to take a backseat.
With my view, society may be more emotional unstable and competitive, but progress will happen faster, with the possibility that we will reach a "Type-1" civilization faster. In theory, a type-1 society will have solved energy and resource problems on earth and we will not even have the energy/power problem anymore. It will be the democracy of energy. This could be the foundation of a Utopic society...
@brianluce "Unfortunately your personal theory of social evolution isn't quantum mechanics. To the contrary, You've reduced one of the most complicated subjects to an either/or construction of two cliche, sophomoric and clumsy choices."
Well, first of all, it isn't my theory. It's just the one that has the least contradictions... so I believe it to be true for now. I didn't really come up with it or anything like you're suggesting.
"The presumptuousness in your argument is at astonishing levels."
Oh well, it is what it is I guess. What-evs. I guess I'm just a compassion-less, presumptuous, jerk-face. I guess I should go back to sharing-school or something... :)
No, you mean you object because he doesn't agree with you. If this logic had always existed we would have never progressed beyond our reptilian brains. Might does not make right. Evolution is about more enlightened, verses naive, standards. The ultimate manifestation of naivete is cynicism, as it is the way that people of limited understanding can feign wisdom. Cynicism = naivete + ugly. We assume that there is a sweetness that comes with naivete - simply not true. No cynic ever did anything to improve the lot of humanity - it's just a cop out. Cynics are just impotent people who are unable to participate in the advancement of humanity, relying instead on notions like "the ends justifies the means". That's cynical, I know - but the only way to combat cynicism is to fold it on on itself.
So, do you have an analytic understanding of quantum mechanics? And does @brianluce have the intellect of a 5th grader? You may want to skate on having said that - but you can't. We have to live with the implications of what we say, not just the overt statements. An unwillingness do do so is passive aggressive.