Facing Reality: Two Truths about Race in America

I forget the name, but the one where a white guy takes pills and dyes his skin to look black and goes around to various places in America.

They're playing word games. Race is a construct, but ethnicity isn't. Race has no common cluster of genes, but ethnicity does. It's a lie of omission.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 56.13K)

it's funny how quickly race became biological again when it came to rachel dolezal

Whenever someone’s opinions are based on the critical race theory you know it’s better to stop talking and never interact with that person again in any way.

It is. No one is on the same page on what 'white' even means. Different people have different definitions.

It is but you can say anything is a social construct. You can say life is a social construct, food is a social construct. Play with that enough and you will end up dead though. It's up for you to decide what is real.

Nothing is real. Everything is just a pattern of input that we experience.

Black drivers are stopped more frequently. Difference shrinks at night where police has hardee tine telling skintones apart.

Are there statistics about this?

nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2020/may/black-drivers-more-likely-to-be-stopped-by-police.html

Not him but blacks are far more criminal than whites and other races so you can't blame cops for assuming they're up to no good.
Especially considering how much cops interact with black criminals and see how prevalent being a law-breaking (and often law-hating) shithead is among them.
It's not systemic because cops aren't instructed to do so. It's not part of their job to stop blacks more often like they have some sort of black stop quota.
It's simply a common occurrence due to the cops being human and having pattern recognition that makes any given car more suspicious if driven by a black guy.
It's the same reason why stop and frisk policies are so effective.
Of course blacks get disproportionately checked if they're disproportionately criminal.

This will not and can not ever change untill the root cause changes, meaning blacks need to exercise a tiny bit of introspection and realize that if their community gets treated like it's more criminal than other races it's because it is.

Or, you can ignore the real problem and just try to force the outcome you want by forcing cops to pretend blacks aren't more criminal, but we've seen what an absolute disaster this kind of policy is in Europe with migrants.

>Be white
>Pulled over
>What seems to be the problem officer?
>Be black
>Pulled ove>told by everyone that police want to kill you.
>Act nervous
>'racist pig, I ain't do nothing.'
Who do you think gets searched?
>Blacks searched twice as much as whites.
>Whites have higher possession rates.
Because only wigger chimps get searched.

Next time post a link to the study instead of a clickbait, second-hand news article about the study.

>Not him but blacks are far more criminal than whites
>while they were less likely to be carrying drugs, guns, or other illegal contraband compared to their white peers.
Also, "systemic racism" doesn't mean that there explicit racism in law.

It's not a flaw of the system is what I mean.
It's the inevitable consequence of the behavior of black people.

By your definition blacks have a "systemic crime problem" and cops have "systemic doughnut consumption". Just because something is widespread it doesn't make it an intrinsic part of how the system is built, which is the connotation that the word "systemic" carries.

>stop people who are less likley to transfer contaband more frequently
>system is Working As Intended

When it comes to social science, the problem with "systemic" anything is that everything can be explained by some problem in a nebulous system somewhere, i.e. no one is responsible for anything. And what's more, no one can ever quantify the moment when a systemic phenomenon of some sort stops (or starts) being systemic, and for what reason. It's a matter of philosophy and faith more than science.

>system is Working As Intended
You're still talking about a flaw in the system when it's clear that this has nothing to do with the system

>less likely
This is what the article says. The actual source (which is a project entirely based around the idea that cops need to stop stopping blacks more, so it's also extremely biased) says they're roughly in line with one another.
openpolicing.stanford.edu/findings/
And besides, this is misleading, first because traffic stops aren't just for finding contraband, but also to check for alcohol/substance use (the page does mention driving behavior as a possible cause), outstanding warrants, a broken taillight, etc.
And even if they were exclusively for contraband, my point about blacks being more criminal (particularly when it comes to violent crimes) can only make cops think they're more criminal, which makes them automatically look more suspicious.
The site also mentions hispanics, which are also a race with a similar reputation, but it doesn't mention other races that don't (like asians of all kinds and maybe arabs). I assume it's because the data reflects the reputation they have, therefore highlights the blame that blacks have in making everyone think they're criminals.

And it's being used to propagandize upside down ideologies that burn down city centers to demand policy changes based on the same made up problems that exist solely in order to avoid looking at the real problems (which are verboten, as they imply that groups are treated based on how they act and not based on some evil group above you in the equally made up privilege hierarchy).

>The actual source (which is a project entirely based around the idea that cops need to stop stopping blacks more, so it's also extremely biased
This pretty much. The whole study is based on the "veil of darkness test" which inherently assumes that black people getting stopped in some areas more frequently than whites after the sunset is solely the result of willful racial discrimination. This is not a conclusion one can draw from the test, but nevertheless the whole study is based on this.

I'm not saying cops don't do it, but this study is not illuminating the phenomenon in any way, or indeed even proving that it happens.

Except Murray's data show that even black cops arrest black people at the same disproportionate rates that white people do. Suggesting that the black cops are either every bit as racist as the white ones or - maybe, just maybe - all the data showing that blacks just commit more crimes are generated properly.

It can be simultaneously true that police are afflicted by some degree of racism, and that blacks, for whatever reason, at this point in time, are more criminally prone on the average than whites.

Murray goes to great pains to argue against this kind of thinking.

Yes, there is sometimes utility in racial profiling. Much like there might sometimes be utility in invading another country and stealing their resources.

You don't do these things because they are immoral. Just because something has utility, doesn't mean it is justified.

>black cops
ACAB

All Blacks Are Criminals.

I can make nasty, thoughtless generalisations that serve my political ends as well.

Except it categorically true that cops are class traitors.

What's immoral to me isn't necessarily the same as what's immoral to you.
To me it's not immoral to stop people who match the characteristics of who's more likely to commit crimes, even if it ends up in more checks on innocent members of those groups (for whom it shouldn't be a problem, as they'll be found innocent) because it leads to more criminals getting caught.
Not doing it is the immoral thing because it leads to more suffering for everyone else thanks to all the criminals who don't get stopped and can continue to inflict pain to the rest of the population.
Simply deeming anything racial as immoral is based on the fallacy that anything racism and racism-aadjacent is automatically evil and can't ever be the right choice (except when it's against races who don't have a bad reputation, in which case they're evil oppressors who deserve it), when in reality it's part of real life and as long as there are differences between groups (genetic or cultural) you have to take them into account because if you don't you end up with far worse problems.

>class traitors.
Made up nonsense

It’s true. Our current racial categories are a social construct. In fact, they’re inaccurate in dividing humans into clones for many reasons, such as grouping East Africans and West Africans together despite their enormous genetic divergence.

But they neglect to mention three things about social constructs: 1) social constructs are still real to one extent or another; 2) our social constructs are enduring because they reflect something real about basic differences; and 3) when social constructs describe and prescribe living beings, those beings begin to be shaped accordingly thanks to genetics.

If progressives think they’ll be free from race by labeling it a social construct and calling it a day without breaking down every possible racial distinction (especially those that benefit POCs), then they’ll be sorely mistaken.

clines* not clones

Immoral would be not conpensating root causes of higher crime: redlining and hostile infrastructure projects.

>without breaking down every possible racial distinction
This is the opposite of what critical race theorists are trying to do. They embrace racism and racial differentation through skin color and other such qualities. The point of this is, according to the theorists, facilitate "positive discrimination*, i.e. elevate races that face perceived discrimination over other races, especially those that are responsible for the perceived discrimination. So in a layman's terms it's ok to racially discriminate against certain groups when it benefits certain other gorups. The problem with this is of course that it's pure racism in the most clear cut manner.

>I found the numbers and conclusions obvious, and I did not need much convincing to believe it's true.
Yes, because you're just like every other fucking retard collectively dooming our nations to complete collapse, who already have your preconceived beliefs and notions about the world and only seek out material which validates them without question. Your ancestors weep. I didn't read the rest od your post.

It’s only going to reify race and eventually make it more biologically valid.

It being pure racism isn't the issue.
The problem is that it doesn't fix the problems that these supposedly disadvantaged groups have, it creates policy that doesn't work and exacerbates the issues like putting a bandaid on an infected wound, and it punishes the groups that are doing well thanks to their own qualities (whether they're from nature or nurture) and not because of some kind of oppression, which creates more racial tension, which creates more discrimination, and the feedback loop continues.

Instead of trying to force equality of outcome no matter how shit blacks are, make the blacks less shit.
In the 60s they were a million times more oppressed than now, yet their culture was more about being a good member of society, studying, working, caring for your family, etc.
Now that's being a race traitor because if you're not larping as the Darwinian missing link you're not a real black.
No wonder almost every stat has been going down for decades.
Blacks are becoming more shitty and society gets more and more convinced that there's nothing wrong with them and that all groups have the same proclivities, cultures, attitudes, etc. (so if they have it bad it can only be due to oppression from those who don't).

This is only causing more of the same issues at the core of the problem and everyone suffers because of it.
It being muh racism pales by comparison.

>They embrace racism and racial differentation through skin color and other such qualities
No?

>I didn't read the rest od your post.
You should've before making that post.

>The problem is that it doesn't fix the problems that these supposedly disadvantaged groups have
I agree. It doesn't take a genius to notice that their theories don't hold up to any scrutiny. Let's suppose in a hypothetical future there is only "one race" left. Did this solve any problems? How?

Even if this were true, it has nothing to do with black cops disproportionately arresting black criminals.

Maybe. After all, even if some pedophiles never offend (and some apparently don't), there is zero chance I will ever let one babysit my children. That's discriminating against individuals on the basis of their group membership.

At the same time, living in an America that does systematically treat people differently on the basis of their race sounds profoundly unhealthy and unpleasant.

Maybe it has something to do with the relative frequency of offending and the harm caused when people do.

I mean, I for one have spent hours reading Steven J. Gould, Erik Turkheimer, Kathryn Harden, James Flynn, and other vocal and respected critics of the hereditarians. I don't think their arguments stack up. By contrast, I don't think most of Murray's critics have ever listened to him at all, given it is impossible to listen to Murray outline his worldview and conclude he is a White supremacist, unless you believe he has been systematically lying and acting in full accordance with that lie for forty years. Everything Murray does is entirely consistent with his own account of his worldview.

>profoundly unhealthy and unpleasant.
That's the unfortunate reality of many aspects of our world. You don't always have the option to choose between good and bad. Some times your only options are different flavors of poison.

Right, I just prefer the opposite poison to you.

A multiracial society won't ever cohere unless people don't make race an issue. If your argument is that you are being practical, why would you look to create a black underclass who KNOW they ARE being subjected to discrimination on the basis of their race? Imagine the woke left except every single one of their conplaints is actually true. How long do you think an America like that can last without devolving into race war?

Is there a single nigger on the planet who believes that race is a social construct? It seems such a notion is a whiteys game, while the nigs and nogs experience a very clear race destiny

No geneticist is able to decide whether race is real or not because that is a metaphysical question dealing with universals. If you're a nominalist, which most scientists are, then you have to say race and species are social constructs, and the only real things are individuals.
Now a nominalist can still insist on the importance of race as a social construct because of medical or sociological reasons. Perhaps it is useful to classify people in this way. But the most common counter-argument to that position from progressives is that race as a construct is used nefariously in politics and society, and so it would be morally better to do away with it.

>subspecies
The most rigorous definition of a subspecies says that if two animals are of a different subspecies it is unlikely that they will produce fertile offspring, or at least the males will likely be infertile. Again, though, this is just a taxonomic definition which has proved useful and doesn't apply in all cases.

TL;DR: The real question of race boils down to a metaphysical debate between nominalism and essentialism, not genetics and biology. Essentialists can perhaps make a coherent race-realist argument, but for nominalists the salient question is: "Does the concept of race provide any use to us?" That's when the debate gets into politics, morality, history, sociology, and so on, medicine only playing a minor role.

But that's not the solution I'm for.
I'm for fixing the root cause so that blacks are elevated from their current state (from which all their problems and almost all the discrimination they face originates) as I said in the second paragraph here As long as blacks are in their current (ever declining) state they'll always be the underclass. They'll always have issues and be treated as more criminal, less intellectually capable, etc. Because compared to other races they literally are (as a group).
So pretending they're not isn't ever going to improve their situation (as I said in the first paragraph of that post).

>why would you look to create a black underclass who KNOW they ARE being subjected to discrimination on the basis of their race? Imagine the woke left except every single one of their conplaints is actually true.
In their view this is already the society we live in, so whether they mistakenly think it's true or it's actually true makes no difference in this regard.
It would be better for everyone to accept their situation and fix it rather than pretend they have no fault and their condition is the product of some sort of invisible oppression that good groups impose on them by merely existing.

And I say this as an Arab who was born and raised in Europe.
My situation isn't even close to that of American blacks, but it's very similar in regards to the introspection necessary to see that if your group is treated a certain way it's because of how members of your group act.
I was a shithead who grew up in a bad neighborhood and acted like a retard. I will forever suffer spiritually and practically because of it, and that's after realizing how much of a shithead I was I started being as good as I possibly can and the difference between me and the other "good" Arabs, and the typical Arab you see on the street is very clear.
I can't ever blame Europeans for not liking having Arabs in their countries because they literally ruin them (only the extent of the damage is debatable).
So how do I look at the discrimination we face and be upset at the Europeans and not at my fellow Arabs who've made the Europeans see them this way?
Other minorities who don't act like us don't get the same treatment so it's clearly our behavior.
I don't think most Arabs here will make this realization so they'll remain an underclass for at least another generation, and the same goes for African Americans. Until they accept their half of responsibility and fix that, the other half will never go away (and they'll be so brainwashed by ideology to ever see that as anything other than gratuitous racism).

Not him but the issue is that race in the real world is a multi-dimensional spectrum where the delimiting lines can be extremely blurry, while race the colloquial term is an oversemplification of the above where clear-cut lines are drawn around groups.
The latter is a social construct, while the former is just the distribution of the genetic differences between groups, no matter what you call it, and it's what the aforementioned social construct is derived from.

The social construct of race can be useful for making certain issues more manageable by choosing a workable "resolution" (you can go anywhere from as granular as looking at individual people to looking at all living beings as one group), otherwise dealing with anything related to race would be too complex for our monkey brains to handle.
One day we'll have a database of the genes of the entire world's population (which will have its own huge set of ramifications), that, thanks to software, will allow us to look at genes in a granular yet workable way. Until then dividing people in groups will be a necessity whether it's immoral or not.

You're talking a lot out of your ass
>genetics has managed to cluster different races
Mathematics has managed to cluster together different races. I don't know why certain so called race realists harp on this. It's a basically just the pigeonhole principle.

>dog breeds don't exist
Bad example because dog breeds are in fact a social construct. Every year the various breeding clubs declare, or occasionally decertify, breeds. Same for cats.

>doctors use race
No sane doctor will prescribe, or not prescribe, a treatment because of race. Public health doctors might consider race in policy making.

>races are a physical reality
I think you mean you feel very strongly about it. Despite all the (incorrect) "science", the fundamental problem is not even race realists cannot actually define what race is. Genetic anthropology, which is the study of population ancestry, is a science. But it is vastly different from race. For example Indians, Persians and Mediterraneans are ethnically indo Europeans and share a common ancestor and language. This is of course vastly different from what people think as white today.

I see, I misunderstood where you were coming from.

I'm not confident on the reasons for black criminality. I am relatively confident on black general intelligence being lower than white general intelligence, on the average, for reasons that have not proved amenable to any treatment tried thus far.

Given the association between low IQ and criminality, I'm not sure you CAN fix the root cause with current technology (without really ugly authoritarian breeding programs).

I agree with you that blacks need to take responsibility for black criminality, and that "Racism, therefore how can I be responsible for my crimes" is beneath contempt.

But I think even if this happens, blacks will still lag behind whites. I think that's for genetic reasons. And I think that getting the wider culture to accept that, and then still great blacks like individuals, is the place we want to wind up. Unless they do accept this, the left will NEVER accept that the fate of blacks can be due to anything but discrimination.

In the case of Arabs: I think that's an admirable position you've reached. I suppose I'd like to see us discrimate against people because they are violent shitheads, not because they are blacks or arabs. And I believe that is something we can screen for, in immigration, at least. This may lead to disproportionate screening out of certain races, but it would gave nothing directly to do with people BEING those races.

Doctors DO prescribe based on race. Certain races react to certain medications differently or are susceptible to certain diseases/disorders. You absolutely learn about how to care for races differently in medicine
t.nurse

If race doesn't exist, ipso facto, there can be no discrimination against blacks, and the left can shut up about the existence of racism, which is clearly an incoherent and impossible thing. Of course, you won't.

This is an annoying kind of linguistic chicanery where you argue that there is no such thing as race when talking about racial differences, but then immediately turn around and talk about blacks as a coherent group when trying to win them equity. It's transparent and absurd.

The issue is still going to boil down ultimately to nominalism vs essentialism. As you point out yourself, everyone's DNA is different, and we can divvy people however we want (eye-colour, height, family, species, even individuals). Even if you set a rigorous litmus test as to what defines a white man, you still have to justify why you've set the boundary there and not elsewhere. An essentialist could argue for that position, but he would have to use extra-scientific means to do so. A nominalist would simply have to say "it's useful" which would, once again, bring the debate to sociology, politics, morals, and history.
In a word, it's impossible to settle this question scientifically. It's a metaphysical question.

It's true that a lower IQ would make them always lag behind whites and other model minorities, but by fixing their culture they can still reach a good level of civility and while they won't have as many geniuses and people at the highest level, they can largely still become perfectly respectable members of society with good values and non-destructive behaviors (albeit with greater difficulty).
Unfortunately I don't see this ever happening without them accepting their part of the responsibility.

>I suppose I'd like to see us discrimate against people because they are violent shitheads, not because they are blacks or arabs. And I believe that is something we can screen for, in immigration, at least. This may lead to disproportionate screening out of certain races, but it would gave nothing directly to do with people BEING those races.
That's the case when dealing with individuals on a micro level. You can only discriminate against the qualities of the individual.
However, when you're dealing with people on a macro level, for example on the effects of mass immigration, you have to look at the averages, because you're not dealing with the effects of individuals but of groups.
All groups have a spectrum of "good" and "bad" people (let's reduce the sum of all the influence they have on their surroundings to these two groups for simplicity), but their distributions aren't the same.
The distribution of, say, ethnic Icelanders is such that the society they create will be what we'd all consider good.
The distribution of Arabs is such that their society will have a lot of issues that are a direct reflection of their proclivities.
That's why any time there's a mostly-European area where a lot of immigrants of certain kinds move in, the quality of life plummets.
You can look at the individuals and say "this one's good, this one's bad" but as a group, what they do to your country is a reflection of their average, so importing millions of them will ruin your country, even if there are both good and bad Icelanders..
Importing millions of Icelanders won't, even if there are both good and bad Icelanders.

If you could screen for "bad" immigrants, between those who are shitheads and those who can't contribute anything of value, you'd end up sending back almost all of the ones from groups that racists hate.
And that's IF you can screen for them. I honestly have no idea how you'd do it.

>The distribution of, say, ethnic Icelanders is such that the society they create will be what we'd all consider good.
>The distribution of Arabs is such that their society will have a lot of issues that are a direct reflection of their proclivities.
Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest crime rates in the world because they actually do something about degenerates roaming around the streets. Try rape someone in Saudi Arabia and you'll get your head lopped off on the public square. Do that in Iceland and you might get sent to a 2 star hotel for a year and forced to attend seminars on respecting women.
And you must not be a good student of history if you think culture doesn't change and shift constantly. In Medieval Europe the systems were run more like Saudi Arabia is today. The culture changed radically, but the genes did not. That's a direct refutation of biological determinism.

Just to prove it.

Attached: Capture.png (595x254, 10.4K)

Oi ya Git, stop finkin straight or else big bruda gonna get ya'

Attached: GENES RACES ASIANS.png (1304x848, 98.67K)

As long as you define people's race by being of one race you'll always have this dilemma.
A more accurate way of dealing with the issue would be (when the data is available) to classify people as "67% German, 15% Serbian, 4% Chinese, etc", which in informal settings would mostly be summarized with a more colloquial "mostly white" for ease, but when it's about actually dealing with race (for classification, studies, censuses, etc.) you'd use the percentages.

Obviously you'd have to still decide which criteria you want to create those groups you'd be a percentage of, so maybe something like haplogroups or even just geographic area would be good enough.
Certainly much better than treating people as being one race or another.

Bullshit.
If there are any minorities that are smarter than any whites or any minorities that are less violent than any whites, then policy defined by race means you are leaving out all those whites that are stupid and commit crimes.

This is the kind of bad management from stupid white people that created all the problems we have that they are now blaming on minorities.

If you whites are so smart, then why is everything fucked up? If your system were so perfect than why is it so easily screwed up, leaving you miserable? But by your own logic, just saying the problems are minorities and that you have to get rid of them still leaves you with all the stupid and violent white people who. by the way, are the ones pointing the finger at "the other" because they are too stupid to see that their culture and "intelligence" is what is creating all the problems to begin with.

I will say this: a dividing line is certainly being set between those who believe this nonsense and the rest of us who don't. You should watch out that your stupid strategy doesn't backfire on you when THEY exclude you back for thinking such stupidity is the answer. The enemy is always your brother or sister, not the one down the street. To find out who your enemy is, just look at who is pointing the finger, not where the finger is pointing.