🐱 My brain is racist. Does that mean I am?

CatParty


The “racist” label, applied to any person, place or thing, cuts deep. But what if we understood the moniker not as a scarlet letter of disgrace, but a brain default that we all share? And, more important, a default that we can overcome?

How? The only way our brains know how: Recognize and respond. Every action may well be followed by a reaction, but it must be preceded by recognition. Recognition sparks self-awareness. Self-awareness ignites good leadership.

To wit, there are two primary reasons my brain defaults to racist thinking. (For clarity, I’m invoking Ibram Kendi’s description that, “A racist idea is any idea that suggests that one racial group is inferior to — or superior to — another racial group in any way.”)

Reason No. 1: My life choices have been informed by a bounty of opportunities, experiences and privileges. Many I sought or earned, and many I did not. Some simply exist because I am white. For instance, not once has the color of my skin presented a potential barrier to a loan or job. Never has anyone asked what country I’m from or how I wear my hair. My skin color never warrants a second look.

Not having to weigh any one of those factors in the more than 2,000 choices I — and everyone — makes every waking hour impacts my deeds and decisions. As a result, the very neural pathways that make me me have formed largely without my conscious awareness of, let alone questioning, what it means to be white. I think therefore I am. And what I am is continuously shaped and reshaped by both my reflexive and reflectivethoughts and actions. These thoughts and actions create my brain’s default settings. Repetition strengthens them.

How do these same default settings lead to racist thinking? I feel better not having to be the spokesperson for every fair-skinned woman in the office; not having to mollify white colleagues who feel guilty about their own or others’ unintentional slights. In other words, I feel better off in my whiteness. In most dictionaries, “superior” is synonymous with “better.” Do these feelings make me racist? Not necessarily, but they root me in a racist system, and therefore I am capable of racist thoughts and ideas. These thoughts afford me the privilege of having privilege. To paraphrase Peggy McIntosh, noted author and white privilege theorist, I have accepted a career’s worth of promotions without worrying that peers suspect I got them because of my race.

Does this mean I’m a bad leader — or person? No, but it means I’m human. To be human is to be sentient but also capable of change. To change, however, I must first willingly recognize the ways in which my brain has been molded and influenced by my race.

Reason No. 2: Everything we perceive enters the brain as a sensation, keeping our brains constantly guessing using already existing contexts. Its emotion control center, the amygdala, receives these incoming sensations far beneath conscious awareness and dictates — multiple times per second — whether we have the luxury to pause and ponder, or should react and defend. The brain accomplishes this feat, in part, by recognizing (or not) the familiar. Our brains crave patterns and predictability like our bodies crave food.

Myriad studies have substantiated a stronger amygdala (i.e., emotional) response when white people are shown pictures of Black faces. This automatic vigilance response kicks in whenever we perceive the unfamiliar. Since all human beings divide our world into ingroups and outgroups, the same skin color offers the kind of quick and easy shortcut to familiarity that the brain gloms onto for assurance, especially if stress or uncertainty weighs on our coping mechanisms. This study of ingroup and outgroup bias earned Daniel Kahneman a Nobel Prize for the research he conducted with his colleague, Amos Tversky.

Let’s say two resumes cross my desk. One belongs to Sandy, a white woman referred by a trusted colleague, and the other belongs to a Black man, Lee, from a different industry. My brain will likely try to convince me to focus on the more familiar person. The person who “feels” right. The rationale of “fit” might even spring to mind. Is this racist? If I am convincing myself that someone is “better” than someone else without the proper due diligence — then I suggest it is racist. Can I do something about this potentially racist notion? Absolutely. But first, I must recognize my brain’s default settings at work. Only then can I respond most effectively.

The wonderful thing about my racist brain is that I am its boss. I possess the power to recognize when my default settings might be leading me astray, and to respond accordingly. As Kendi says, racist labels are not “permanent tattoos”: “No one becomes a racist or antiracist. We can only strive to be one or the other.”

So, even if my brain tries to convince me that Sandy is a better “fit” for the job, I can counteract these protective measures. I can make sure that she truly meets an objective set of job criteria. I can dig more deeply into Lee’s previous experience to ascertain whether he could be more of an asset to the organization.

The same study that found increased amygdala response among white people when shown pictures of Black faces showed no amygdala increase (i.e., more objectivity) when subjects were asked whether those same Black faces liked vegetables.

A simple, practical question about vegetables released the subjects’ perceptions from the clutches of the emotion-centered amygdala and steered them to the prefrontal cortex, its more reason-centric neighbor. Now, apply this finding to the two job candidates, Sandy and Lee, by substituting a sense about their “fit” for whether each candidate likes vegetables. It may sound simplistic, but this small shift pumps the brain’s braking system just enough to disengage any default settings. For example, asking myself to list specific ways Sandy really is more qualified than Lee may be all it takes to check potentially racist thinking. Job criteria become the vegetables that nurture anti-racist thinking.

Do I want to be racist? Of course not. Will my brain continue to push me in certain directions by favoring its default settings? Yes, our fundamentally lazy brains are bent on preserving energy by seeking the path of least resistance. Good leaders recognize this tendency. They respond accordingly. They choose to overcome.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
I'm not sure where in his posts, up to the point I responded with the post you quoted, he was saying that it was inherently because they were black. Pointing out statistics and statistical anomalies isn't racism. He even went as far as saying shit like:

This is sjw-tier shit. I haven't read past your reply yet in the thread as of writing this, but nothing he said led me to believe that he either is racist himself, or that he was saying anything racist.
You should have examined the exhibits he posted-- especially the first one, which falsely asserted that black-on-white violence rates exceeds black-on-black violence rates.

I criticized it during the exchange, but I'm somewhat familiar with wignats and the like forming incomplete arguments rife with analytical and logical fallacy (and the occasional false statistic) only to stop short of actually concluding them even though their argument wouldn't conclude at anything other than "blacks are genetically more predisposed to violence/lower IQs by a wide margin [look at these high crime rates/SAT score averages/IQ score averages], the cause isn't poverty [look at this study controlling for income, never mind that you didn't say anything about income], and the best predictor of crime is race [what is "single mother households" or anything else that contributes to crime? what factor interactions? here's a study of 100 people in a single state that deboonks that consideration while controlling for two whole factors]". I'm inclined to call it "Socratic", but it seems to be done out of cowardice, cunning, or both. On top of that, he said this:

You're telling me to control for every single possible variable, and examine every community individually, which is utter lunacy, all the while failing to explain what could explain things as neatly and uniformly as genetics.

He can say this or that line, but the entirety of his arguments betrays his intentions despite them. If you want to take the line he said at face value, and take this one at face value as well, then the best case scenario is that he's inconsistent.

I've seen it over and over again, and you lose the benefit of the doubt when you post /pol/ info memes, of all things. And if he's not an actual wignat or of another adjacent group, then he's certainly deeply influenced by their thought to the point that he uses both their arguments and argumentative style.
 
You should have examined the exhibits he posted-- especially the first one, which falsely asserted that black-on-white violence rates exceeds black-on-black violence rates.
Yeah, no, I saw that. I assumed it was some form of typo, or the like. Seeing as I assume it was meant to say that interracial violence is ten times more towards whites from blacks than the other way around, which is an actual famous statistic right there with the 13/50.
I criticized it during the exchange, but I'm somewhat familiar with wignats and the like forming incomplete arguments rife with analytical and logical fallacy (and the occasional false statistic) only to stop short of actually concluding them
That's the same "DOGWHISTLE! REEEE" horseshit progressives pull.
even though their argument wouldn't conclude at anything other than "blacks are genetically more predisposed to violence/lower IQs by a wide margin [look at these high crime rates/SAT score averages/IQ score averages],
That's a *you* problem if that's how you interpret the data presented. You can take shit at face value and not render further judgements, you know.
the cause isn't poverty [look at this study controlling for income, never mind that you didn't say anything about income], and the best predictor of crime is race [what is "single mother households"? here's a study of 100 people in a single state that deboonks that consideration]".
He didn't say any of that shit though. That's putting words in his mouth (text?).
I'm inclined to call it "Socratic", but it seems to be done out of cowardice, cunning, or both. On top of that, he said this:
He can say this or that line, but the entirety of his arguments betrays his intentions despite them. If you want to take the line he said at face value, and take this one at face value as well, then the best case scenario is that he's inconsistent.
Yeah? He also said this:
As for the third, of course it's not all black kids,
But go off I guess.
I've seen it over and over again, and you lose the benefit of the doubt when you post /pol/ info memes, of all things. And if he's not an actual wignat or of another adjacent group, then he's certainly deeply influenced by their thought to the point that he uses both their arguments and argumentative style.
This is seriously the same hyper-vigilant attitude I see everywhere from progressives. You seem to want to make this guy out as a racist because he brought up facts that make you uncomfortable. I didn't read racism into what he was saying, just that he was arguing the point that having a subconscious bias doesn't make you any more a racist than having a subconscious fear-avoidant reaction to flame.
 
Yeah, no, I saw that. I assumed it was some form of typo, or the like. Seeing as I assume it was meant to say that interracial violence is ten times more towards whites from blacks than the other way around, which is an actual famous statistic right there with the 13/50.
Your assumption is based on nothing except an expectation that has no reason to exist.

1617590638200.png

It says blacks commit more violence against whites. Then it says that most victims of black violent crime are white. Then it goes on about how many times more likely they are to commit crimes against whites. And then it talks about how there's no such thing as white-on-black crime (another falsehood I didn't even call out).

The person who wrote this pamphlet either has the worst case of butterfingers and buttermind, or you're being generous beyond all reason.

That's the same "DOGWHISTLE! REEEE" horseshit progressives pull.
When progressives talk about "dogwhistles", they're suggesting that a person is saying something that only means something to their intended audience (i.e. other wignats or the like). It's the verbalized form of a wink that conveys more information.

I'm arguing that he's actively working to steer the reader to their conclusion without having the guts to state the conclusion themselves, and that they do so using fallacious argumentation and statistical analysis. This isn't dogwhistling-- neither the intended audiences nor the methods are the same.

You accuse me of being hypervigilant, but it seems your heuristics are underfit.

That's a *you* problem if that's how you interpret the data presented.
Dude, I literally quoted him talking about how genetics was a more uniform and natural answer versus actually controlling for various factors (which he derided as a task in examining "every single possible variable" and "examining every community individually").
Yeah? He also said this:
What you're quoting doesn't provide any more weight than the other thing you quoted him saying that conveyed the same exact idea. It's not as though whatever he says more automatically has more weight than something else he said that contradicts it, as to possibly nullify it.

This is seriously the same hyper-vigilant attitude I see everywhere from progressives. You seem to want to make this guy out as a racist because he brought up facts that make you uncomfortable.
He posted a pamphlet that stated outright falsehoods that I demonstrated were false while he couldn't even bring up the source for said falsehoods.

He brought up a study with a sample size of 130 (and with some of the children being mixed) and tried to make it seem as if it was a good enough study to demonstrate that controlling for income and parental status, black children still came out staggeringly behind.

He proffered an income-controlled table of SAT score comparisons between whites and blacks to point out that the richest black kids barely perform better than the poorest white kids, as though squashing an entire distribution is supposed to be sufficiently illustrative of anything more than something interesting. For goodness sake he didn't even use the term "regression to the mean" properly.

Are these the "facts" you're referring to? Necessarily non-representative studies? Falsehood-laden propaganda that can be disproven with a single Google search? Inert statistical data? Misemployment of statistical terms?

Guy tried to argue that there are minimal cultural differences between states because it would have been understood that the national aggregation of crime rates was improper on account of erasing indicators of contributing factors (e.g. geographic distribution, which can allow one to better isolate regional cultures and other demographic details).

I give him statements of historical trends (animus between Northern and Southern blacks post-war, differences in support for MLK and Malcolm X between Northern and Southern blacks during the Civil Rights era) in order to demonstrate regional cultural differences only to be summarily dismissed.

I suppose this is the "logic" part-- the dismissal of attestable trends and common sense (it's not as if we've designed our presidential elections around the issue of different states having different cultures, interests, and needs).

I mean, he just up and said that he needed to do more state-level research to account for the aforementioned cultural differences, which was part of the crux of my counterargument, so I don't know what you're white-knighting now, because the argument that was had, had little to do with the banal point you're saying he was making.
 
Your assumption is based on nothing except an expectation that has no reason to exist.

View attachment 2059680
It says blacks commit more violence against whites. Then it says that most victims of black violent crime are white. Then it goes on about how many times more likely they are to commit crimes against whites. And then it talks about how there's no such thing as white-on-black crime (another falsehood I didn't even call out).

The person who wrote this pamphlet either has the worst case of butterfingers and buttermind, or you're being generous beyond all reason.
Okay. That doesn't really negate the point that I was making that the assertion he was making fit with the 10 times more likely statistic. I'll agree that that pamphlet is a bit ridiculous if there are no other sources to confirm the rest of it.
When progressives talk about "dogwhistles", they're suggesting that a person is saying something that only means something to their intended audience (i.e. other wignats or the like). It's the verbalized form of a wink that conveys more information.
I know what a dogwhistle is, no need to be condescending. It's also not just verbalized, they oft complain about "dogwhistles" in text, much like you.
I'm arguing that he's actively working to steer the reader to their conclusion without having the guts to state the conclusion themselves, and that they do so using fallacious argumentation and statistical analysis. This isn't dogwhistling-- neither the intended audiences nor the methods are the same.
You're using it the same way progressives do jackass. That's what I'm saying - they often complain about "dogwhistling" even in cases where it wouldn't necessarily fit, in an identical fashion to the way you are now. You're just doing it without mentioning the word "dogwhistle".
You accuse me of being hypervigilant, but it seems your heuristics are underfit.
Not really. You made a shitload of assumptions and put words in the dude's mouth, again in a manner similar if not identical to the way hyper-vigilant progs do.
Dude, I literally quoted him talking about how genetics was a more uniform and natural answer versus actually controlling for various factors
Completely out of fucking context. The context in which he said that implied he was saying that, out of the population he was discussing, the ones who commit crime have a genetic component to their criminality. Now, I might disagree with that notion for various reasons, but he wasn't saying all blacks are genetically inclined towards criminality. Which is obvious if you don't laser-focus on the parts of that post that make your jimmies rustle.
(which he derided as a task in examining "every single possible variable" and "examining every community individually").
Re-read his post. I'm not going to quote it again since this will be a long enough post as it is.
What you're quoting doesn't provide any more weight than the other thing you quoted him saying that conveyed the same exact idea. It's not as though whatever he says more automatically has more weight than something else he said that contradicts it, as to possibly nullify it.
What drivel. So you can quote someone out of context to spin it to your satisfaction, but a quote that adds further context to it is somehow invalid? Get the hell out of here with that.
He posted a pamphlet that stated outright falsehoods that I demonstrated were false while he couldn't even bring up the source for said falsehoods.
Okay? I can print out a pamphlet that says the sky is usually blue, and that grass is usually pink. Does the latter claim have anything to do with the validity of the former? The salient part of that pamphlet was the part that is actually accurate, which again was the occurrence of interracial crime towards whites from blacks.
He brought up a study with a sample size of 130 (and with some of the children being mixed) and tried to make it seem as if it was a good enough study to demonstrate that controlling for income and parental status, black children still came out staggeringly behind.
So? There's plenty of other studies he could've brought up. That said, that alone doesn't make someone a racist. Calling someone racist over having bad sources is ridiculous.
He proffered an income-controlled table of SAT score comparisons between whites and blacks to point out that the poorest white kids score higher on average than the richest black kids, as though squashing an entire distribution is supposed to be sufficiently illustrative of anything more than something interesting. For goodness sake he didn't even use the term "regression to the mean" properly.d
...and? What's your point? I read those posts and they were all in service to the argument that having a subconscious bias isn't inherently a bad thing. Matter of fact, you were the one who made it about supposed racial inferiority, he didn't even bring it up as a topic.
Are these the "facts" you're referring to? Necessarily non-representative studies? Falsehood-laden propaganda that can be disproven with a single Google search? Inert statistical data? Misemployment of statistical terms?

Guy tried to argue that there are minimal cultural differences between states because it would have been understood that the national aggregation of crime rates was improper on account of erasing indicators of contributing factors (e.g. geographic distribution, which can allow one to better isolate regional cultures and other demographic details).

I give him statements of historical trends (animus between Northern and Southern blacks post-war, differences in support for MLK and Malcolm X between Northern and Southern blacks during the Civil Rights era) in order to demonstrate regional cultural differences only to be summarily dismissed.
Okay. None of this shit has anything to do with the argument he was initially making nor does it have anything to do with the topic at hand. This is all shit you brought up because what he brought to the discussion apparently lit a fire under your ass to try and jump to defend an ethnic group against an argument he wasn't even making. And fucking lol at the idea that a google search is going to yield anything even remotely related to this topic that doesn't counteract any statistical data that proves anything other than what you're saying. Again, get the hell out of here with that.
I suppose this is the "logic" part-- the dismissal of attestable trends and common sense
A wise man once said that the world isn't intuitive. Common sense should be reserved for topics that are surface-deep. Like, for instance, whether or not a man is a man by virtue of being born with a penis.
(it's not as if we've designed our presidential elections around the issue of different states having different cultures, interests, and needs).
..."we didn't", for starters. And the entire system wasn't designed with different cultures in mind, either. But that's getting into the weeds of the U.S. political system and why it was designed in the manner it was in the first place, which is yet another discussion that doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
I mean, he just up and said that he needed to do more state-level research to account for the aforementioned cultural differences, which was part of the crux of my counterargument, so I don't know what you're white-knighting now, because the argument that was had, had little to do with the banal point you're saying he was making.
For starters I'm not white-knighting, you're witch-hunting. Or more accurately, perhaps, tilting at a windmill. And like I said in my initial post, you were talking at cross-purposes. He was very obviously trying to argue and kept making the argument for the point that a subconscious bias isn't necessarily a shameful or negative thing to have. Meanwhile, you're sperging about a perceived attack on the dignity of black people by a perceived racist. I have no dog in the fight as I don't really care about that particular conversation in either direction, so that's probably why I'm not getting all "activated" about it the way you are - I'm not on the "lookout" for racists. I don't give a shit if someone's racist or not. Unlike - very clearly - you do.
 
No you stupid motherfucker, your brain is learning patterns so your moronic ass won't walk into fire thinking this time it won't burn.
Dude, don't bother. The new left is anti-science, anti-fact, anti-truth. Everything about about the brain and about how humanity has been able to evolve and survive over millions of years is considered racist/white-supremacist. I'm counting down the days to when someone inevitably cancels Darwin.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: LurkTrawl
Dude, don't bother. The new left is anti-science, anti-fact, anti-truth. Everything about about the brain and about how humanity has been able to evolve and survive over millions of years is considered racist/white-supremacist. I'm counting down the days to when someone inevitably cancels Darwin.
The bible-beaters made a pretty good fucking stab at it a while ago.
 
The bible-beaters made a pretty good fucking stab at it a while ago.
And that's what makes it all so crazy, isn't it? The religious right was doing it and now the far left is doing it but for entirely different reasons. It would be so nice if people just fucked off and left well enough alone.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: LurkTrawl
The only thing worse than niggers is white niggers, as this thread so clearly demonstrates.

Sargon of Applebees was right again.
 
I know what a dogwhistle is, no need to be condescending
Obviously not, if you're arguing that what I'm accusing him of is dogwhistling.

You're using it the same way progressives do jackass. That's what I'm saying - they often complain about "dogwhistling" even in cases where it wouldn't necessarily fit, in an identical fashion to the way you are now. You're just doing it without mentioning the word "dogwhistle".
...what?

Completely out of fucking context.
You realize that not even he suggested that I took that out of context, right? This is what I meant when I accused you of white knighting-- now you're reinterpreting what he said.

What drivel. So you can quote someone out of context to spin it to your satisfaction, but a quote that adds further context to it is somehow invalid? Get the hell out of here with that.
It doesn't add context, and you don't even try to use it to build context. It says the same thing you quoted him saying prior, and you used it in an attempt to negate the contradictory thing I pointed out-- I come to that conclusion because I already attempted to synthesize the first statement of his you quoted and the contradictory statement I quoted in response and came to the conclusion that he was being inconsistent at best, at which point you threw another quote at me conveying the same idea with but with no argument of intent.

Okay? I can print out a pamphlet that says the sky is usually blue, and that grass is usually pink. Does the latter claim have anything to do with the validity of the former? The salient part of that pamphlet was the part that is actually accurate, which again was the occurrence of interracial crime towards whites from blacks.
That's the exact bullshit that I posted sourceable statistics to disprove, that he couldn't source.

So? There's plenty of other studies he could've brought up.
So, where are they? Why did he choose an extremely weak individual study with n=130 and a scope of one state if there were other studies he could have brought up?

That said, that alone doesn't make someone a racist.
Of course it doesn't make someone a racist on its own. None of this is being posted on its own, though.

I've also made no definitive claims of anyone being a racist, not that it matters-- I've asserted that he's either a wignat, an adjacent group, or one whose ideas are heavily influenced by the aforementioned groups.

...and? What's your point? I read those posts and they were all in service to the argument that having a subconscious bias isn't inherently a bad thing.
What the hell do SAT score averages by race and income range have to do with proving that subconscious biases aren't inherently bad?

Okay. None of this shit has anything to do with the argument he was initially making nor does it have anything to do with the topic at hand. This is all shit you brought up because what he brought to the discussion apparently lit a fire under your ass to try and jump to defend an ethnic group against an argument he wasn't even making.
Ah, yes. His argument was originally "13 does 50", and then I pointed out that this couldn't possibly be the case since not every single black person is a criminal. We both agree with the fact that there's a crime issue among black Americans, and then he posts the bullshit pamphlet and the SAT score average table (inherently irrelevant seeing as we were talking about crime).

You can talk about his original intent. Here's the thing, though: my intent was to talk about how he was reading his stats wrong, and talk about how aggregate statistics lose a lot of detail. And so, that's what we ended up talking about. That's what he ended up engaging me about. There's zero problem here-- I chose to engage with him over something specific that he said, and he perpetuated that conversation.

And fucking lol at the idea that a google search is going to yield anything even remotely related to this topic that doesn't counteract any statistical data that proves anything other than what you're saying.
I'm sorry, I can't parse this for the life of me. Are you saying that I wouldn't have gotten anything other than what I did find from Google? Because I cited a federal entity, like the pamphlet purported to be referring to. And even that aside, it was a conservative talking point at least least election season that most black victims were victimized by other black people, and there was no move to actually deboonk that specific point but rather criticize the whataboutism in talking about that when police brutality against black people was being talked about.

..."we didn't", for starters. And the entire system wasn't designed with different cultures in mind, either.
"Culture" is a component of "needs" and "interests".

Meanwhile, you're sperging about a perceived attack on the dignity of black people by a perceived racist.
I'm chiefly arguing that his statistical analysis, as well as the very statistics he proffered, are at best only useful as a premise for further investigation, and on average is bullshit. You're white knighting a guy who's said he needed to do more research on the very things he invoked as statistical evidence after willingly arguing about statistics and statistical literacy even after I made clear what my argumentative focus was.

I have no dog in the fight as I don't really care about that particular conversation in either direction, so that's probably why I'm not getting all "activated" about it the way you are
You're playing detached and objective as you default to anti-SJW kneejerks and defend a guy at points he didn't even defend himself.

I don't give a shit if someone's racist or not. Unlike - very clearly - you do.
The issue here and now isn't someone being racist or not. Being a racist is something that, by itself, doesn't have enough substance. I don't butt heads with everyone that talks about how they used to be not racist but after years of apologia for black people as they did heinous things they came to no longer be able to stand those blacks.

I have a problem with deliberately malformed conclusions stemming from poor statistical literacy and plainly fabricated statistics on top of that. It's absolutely slimy.
 
Last edited:
Obviously not, if you're arguing that what I'm accusing him of is dogwhistling.
...
...what?
It's not a difficult concept. You're accusing the guy of halfway making a point (in a manner similar to the traditional definition of dogwhistling) without ever actually making a complete point. It's shit that progressives accuse people of all the time, whilst butchering/watering down the meaning of the term. Similar to how they're always misusing the phrase "gaslighting". You're effectively accusing him of making an argument he never made by saying that what he said could, possibly lend itself to said argument.
You realize that not even he suggested that I took that out of context, right? This is what I meant when I accused you of white knighting.
You realize that what you did was literally take that out of context, right? This is what I meant by saying you're witch-hunting.
It doesn't add context, and you don't even try to use it to build context.
Yes, it fucking does. You're trying to say that the guy is saying all black people are genetically dispositioned towards criminality when he's literally fucking said he wasn't making that point.
It says the same thing you quoted him saying prior, and you used it in an attempt to negate the contradictory thing I pointed out-- I come to that conclusion because I already attempted to synthesize the first statement of his you quoted and the contradictory statement I quoted in response and came to the conclusion that he was being inconsistent at best, at which point you threw another quote at me conveying the same idea with but with no argument of intent.
Here, to quote for context, parts relevant to my point bolded:
You're now giving me the impossible task of investigating every single black community in the country and then assembling a view from that. Are they all the same? Of course not. Do I have to look at literally every single one and then make a judgement from there? No, that's insane, and looking at national aggregates gives an idea. I know how aggregates can be misleading.
As for the third, of course it's not all black kids, it's meant to compare black kids to white kids, and control, at least partially, for income and parenting, because it's a statistical fact that a lot of black kids are from single mother homes. Sure, 130 is a small sample size, but again, this does seem to indicate something. You're telling me to control for every single possible variable, and examine every community individually, which is utter lunacy, all the while failing to explain what could explain things as neatly and uniformly as genetics.

And all of this, mind you, is you contesting the assertion that, to the layperson with rudimentary knowledge of statistics, or even unconscioous knowledge, combined with an evolutionary predisposition to oppose "otherness", there's some manner of unconscious bias towards blacks.
You took one line out of an entire post and tried to pretend that it's not out of context, when that's damn near the definitive definition of taking something out of context.
That's the exact bullshit that I posted sourceable statistics to disprove, that he couldn't source.
Here's a good start. I'm not about to spend my entire evening combing through crap I've already seen linked a million other times on the internet, but it's not a number from nowhere just because Google of all fucking sources doesn't give you any results when you type in anything relating to it. I mean seriously acting as if that's some kind of "own" is fucking mental, m8.
So, where are they? Why did he choose an extremely weak individual study with n=130 and a scope of one state if there were other studies he could have brought up?


Of course it doesn't make someone a racist on its own. None of this is being posted on its own, though.
Christ I hate this kind of stupid bullshit. Oh, of course he's just being a secret racist. You know, a racist on the sly when not a single actual avowed no-shit white supremacist or nationalist who's ever visited A&N gave two shits whether or not you knew they were a racist. Give me a break.
I've also made no definitive claims of anyone being a racist,
If that's all his point is, he doesn't need to post exhibits from sources transparently trying to bring legitimacy to their racism.
Yeah, okay. Guess we're onto the outright lying part of the discussion now?
not that it matters-- I've asserted that he's either a wignat, an adjacent group, or one whose ideas are heavily influenced by the aforementioned groups.
Which is calling him racist without saying it. Much like you're accusing him of "dogwhistling" (in the manner a progressive would, anyhow) without actually saying it.
What the hell do SAT score averages by race and income range have to do with proving that subconscious biases aren't inherently bad?
Fuck if I know but it doesn't make someone a racist.
Ah, yes. His argument was originally "13 does 50", and then I pointed out that this couldn't possibly be the case since not every single black person is a criminal.
Yeah, it's actually worse than that since out of that thirteen percent, the group that's committing the most crime is males aged 15-30 or something like that.
We both agree with the fact that there's a crime issue among black Americans, and then he posts the bullshit pamphlet and the SAT score average table (inherently irrelevant seeing as we were talking about crime).
So you do realize that that bolsters your own argument, that it's a poverty issue right? Because not getting into higher education has a correlation with poverty. Or were you too pissed off by perceived racism to realize that?
You can talk about his original intent. Here's the thing, though: my intent was to talk about how he was reading his stats wrong, and talk about how aggregate statistics lose a lot of detail. And so, that's what we ended up talking about.
Sure buddy. Since we're quoting shit here I might as well dredge this up:
That's fallacious on several levels.

There's a crime issue in the black community, to be sure, and it should be expected when you disintegrate their family structure between a botched war on poverty, sexual revolution, and pumping drugs into urban centers where many of them dwell. But to say that "13% does 50%", or 52% or 56% is to assert that every single person in that 13% is a criminal, and that's a fundamental misreading of statistics.

The reality, first of all, is that the number is at absolute worst in the thereabouts of 1-2%, because it's the minority of any community that are criminals, particularly when said community comprises of millions. Secondly, though, even accounting for that, the statistic doesn't count for crime distribution. If you sample several separate black communities, you're not going to find the same crime-by-race breakdown, because the FBI stat you're referring to is a national aggregate that doesn't and isn't meant to take into account the peculiarities of each individual municipality, county, and state.
Literally none of this shit has anything to do with the topic or what he posted aside from "umm, ackshually" levels of white-knighting against an, again, perceived racial attack. Which you yourself have admitted that you saw it as such.
That's what he ended up engaging me about. There's zero problem here-- I chose to engage with him over something specific that he said, and he perpetuated that conversation.
Yes let's remove any and all nuance surrounding it so that you seem less like a dangerhair going off on someone you think might be a - GASP - racist.
"Culture" is a component of "needs" and "interests", so "we" indeed did.
No, "we" didn't and the culture in which the system was made was more or less a monoculture. And the people who made it damn well certainly didn't have anything even remotely resembling today's socio-political landscape in mind when creating it.
I'm chiefly arguing that his statistical analysis, as well as the very statistics he proffered, are at best only useful as a premise for further investigation, and on average is bullshit. You're white knighting a guy who's said he needed to do more research on the very things he invoked as statistical evidence after willingly arguing about statistics and statistical literacy even after I made clear what my argumentative focus was.
I'll say again: I'm not "white-knighting" anybody you clown. I'm just sick to my gums of right-wingers of all fucking people being just as eager to jump on someone's ass and accuse them of racism when they speak about race outside of the accepted dogmatic paradigm of larger society. Which is exactly what you're doing. Again, if anybody's white knighting here, it's you for an entire ethnic group against a very much perceived rather than actual attack on the aforementioned group's character. I don't have a horse in this race other than I both detest this kind of mealy-mouthed bullshit as well as having been on the receiving end of people who were, due to being ass-blasted by parts of what I said in a post, refused to read it as a whole and derived from it an entirely different meaning than what was actually typed out. Which is what you're doing to the guy we're talking about.

It's as if though there's some people who lose all capacity for reading comprehension when they infer something from a post that they dislike intensely, even if it's an incorrect inference.
You're playing detached and objective as you default to anti-SJW kneejerks and defend a guy at points he didn't even defend himself.
I'm not playing anything. I am being detached and objective because as I keep saying, I don't have an agenda other than the fact that it genuinely irks me when nitwits start calling people racist and tilting at windmills when anyone mentions anything that they don't like regarding the topic. And it's not a "kneejerk" if it's what you're actually doing... which it is. No offense Antipathy but I really couldn't care less about how people perceive you, it's more that, again, people calling others racist - especially right-wingers of all fucking people to do it - as a knee-jerk reaction to an otherwise neutral or at the very least non-racist statement is something I find loathsome and worth calling out. It's that very particular brand of bullshit that's keeping literally anyone and everyone from ever having an honest discussion on the topic in public.
The issue here and now isn't someone being racist or not. Being a racist is something that, by itself, doesn't have enough substance. I don't butt heads with everyone that talks about how they used to be not racist but after years of apologia for black people as they did heinous things they came to no longer be able to stand those blacks.

I have a problem with deliberately malformed conclusions stemming from poor statistical literacy and plainly fabricated statistics on top of that. It's absolutely slimy.
Yeah and I have a problem with making people out to be boogeymen because they bring up topics and/or statistics that you find uncomfortable. Not everyone who brings shit like that up is a racist, supremacist, or any other kind of -ist, -phobe, whatever. The dude was making an argument that was entirely and completely different from the one you took away from his post, as evidenced even by the last two sentences of this quoted section. The only conclusion he postulated was that it's not unnatural nor unreasonable to have a subconscious bias. You took that to mean - somehow - that he was a wignat or garden-variety racist/supremacist who was trying to promote propaganda. You know, just like a hyper-vigilant, annoying progressive would to anybody who says anything contrary to their own views and conclusions on racial issues/topics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nigger of the north
No offense Antipathy but I really couldn't care less about how people perceive you,
I don't particularly care either, my arguments did have quite a few errors, and if you look at all in my post history, you'll see I'm a massive sperg either way.

This is a retard observation forum and online is where I act stupid and get into bizarre arguments, because I can't do so in real life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LurkTrawl
It's not a difficult concept. You're accusing the guy of halfway making a point (in a manner similar to the traditional definition of dogwhistling)
You really need to revisit the concept of dogwhistling.

without ever actually making a complete point.
Which is what was actually happening. "Here's some stats-- gee, why is it that black people just seem to have the same problem all over the West? Can't be poverty-- statistically, poverty doesn't cause crime [I never proffered poverty as an explanation before he refuted the idea, by the way]". The pamphlet he posted was meant to make the case that black people are more criminal than white people-- inherently, since it also sought to control for poverty to make the point that they were more criminal than white people under similar economic and educational circumstances (of course, the pamphlet is rubbish, so...).

You realize that what you did was literally take that out of context, right?
You realize that's his call and not yours, right? If what I said was out of context, then he would have clarified himself. He would have at least called me out. He did neither, continuing the conversation instead. You can type it until your fingers fall off, but that's observably not the case and the fact that you're continuing to argue it makes it look like you're over-invested in the argument, contrary to your claims.

Yes, it fucking does. You're trying to say that the guy is saying all black people are genetically dispositioned towards criminality when he's literally fucking said he wasn't making that point.
He literally said that genetics was a neater and more uniform explanation for the trends he saw when the alternative for him was to examine every single factor and factor interaction as well as every single community, casting the latter two as "lunacy".

I'll say it for the third time: taking everything he said into account, the most charitable conclusion you could come out with is that he's inconsistent. You keep talking about how he said X, and Y, but you keep steering clear of how he said Z. You're not even trying to treat it, that's the worst part-- well, the worst part is that you're not treating it while you keep falsely accusing me of not treating X and Y.

You keep saying "oh, but he said THIS" and I keep acknowledging that he said that, but I explicitly pare it out with what else he said. That's why I didn't care about the second quote you threw at me after I quoted the "genetics was a neater explanation" line-- you weren't trying to bring more context, you were trying to play dueling quotes, since the quote you brought up advanced the same idea as the first quote you brought up. Even if he said a third thing like the first thing he said, I still have to pare it out with the thing I pointed him out saying. The only argument to be made in opposition to that method is that what he said about genetics being a neater answer was a fluke given the other things he said.
Learn to read tables.

1617629530900.png

How in the hell does this demonstrate what the pamphlet was saying? Do you even know what the pamphlet was saying?

Christ I hate this kind of stupid bullshit. Oh, of course he's just being a secret racist. You know, a racist on the sly when not a single actual avowed no-shit white supremacist or nationalist who's ever visited A&N gave two shits whether or not you knew they were a racist.
...Of course an avowed white supremacist or nationalist wouldn't be ashamed of being a racist. What's the point of this tautology?

I figure you mean to say that nobody that's actually racist would be ashamed of that mindset here, but that's presumptuous. You know what else is presumptuous? You assuming that I'm calling him a "secret racist" when I've already said that such is just at least possible, and that it's also possible that he inculcated much of their thought processes because the arguments he made were similar to theirs from my experience.

Yeah, okay. Guess we're onto the outright lying part of the discussion now?
I was referring to the sources themselves, dingus. You want to prove you're not white-knighting, how about you pay attention who I refer to as "he" and who's referred to as "them"?

Which is calling him racist without saying it.
JonTron wasn't a racist for employing poorly digested /pol/ memes in his debate with Destiny. He was just proving why celebrities shouldn't be involved in political discourse.

Yeah, it's actually worse than that since out of that thirteen percent, the group that's committing the most crime is males aged 15-30 or something like that.
That's not "worse" in the context I was referring to-- my point was that not every single black person could be a criminal. The correct understanding of the stat isn't that "13 does 50", it's that "some subset of that 13 does >=50", but lots of people keep defaulting to "13 does 50" without paying attention to what they're saying.

It is worse in the sense that that means that there's a minority of a minority generating at least half of all violent crime in the country, but to then better understand what that means, you have to look at the distribution of that crime, since the crime rates aren't going to be uniform across the country.

But, I repeat myself.

So you do realize that that bolsters your own argument, that it's a poverty issue right?
My point was never that it was a poverty issue-- what the hell are you talking about?

That wasn't anyone's point. That's not the argument he was making, and I principally blame the broken family structure for the perpetuation of most of the ills in the black American community.

Literally none of this shit has anything to do with the topic or what he posted
Yeah, it has to do with what I wanted to point out to talk about, and even then, it was an inherent part of his argument all the same. You're making a particularly worthless point, right now.

aside from "umm, ackshually" levels of white-knighting against an, again, perceived racial attack.
At that point of me making the comment you quoted, I didn't think anything of his comment at all aside from "you're misunderstanding that statistic". This isn't the first time I've made this exact point. It has nothing to do with defending black people and everything to do with basic statistical literacy.

But that actually proves my point about my intentions, no? My argument has never been anything like "you can't just judge all black people based on statistics!". It's consistently been "you're misunderstanding these stats", or "these stats don't have enough detail", or "this assertion isn't even supported by any statistic that actually exists". Meanwhile, the both of us agree that there's a crime issue in the black community, and elsewhere, I haven't been shy about pointing that out or how it's terrible that it and its causes are swept under the rug by politicians and activists desperate to convince themselves and everyone else that they're anti-racist.

This sprawling argument started entirely because I took objection to the way Antipathy read the "13 does 50" stat in defense of subconscious bias against black people. If he had said generally that it was more likely for a violent criminal to be black, statistically, there would be no further argument to make, and perhaps it would just be the consideration of distribution brought up.

But then, again, he was invested in the validity of national aggregate stats whereas I disagreed, so the argument would have likely still sparked.

Yes let's remove any and all nuance surrounding it so that you seem less like a dangerhair going off on someone you think might be a - GASP - racist.
I've already demonstrated that that's not the case, and that from observation it's possible for someone to employ arguments employed by no-shit racists while not being racists themselves. I think you have Trump-era PTSD, frankly, so you spring up in defense against anything that even slightly resembles SJW antics... to the point that you defend people where they deliberately didn't defend themselves.

That could be likened to me assuming his rhetoric came from his being a wignat or some other adjacent group, except that aside from my concern primarily being the shape of the arguments being similar to those used by wignats rather than them coming from wignats, I left open the possibility that he wasn't anything of the sort but did otherwise have his thought processes influenced by them.

No, "we" didn't and the culture in which the system was made was more or less a monoculture.
That's bullshit on its face. You have to have failed U.S. history to come to that conclusion. Actually, you have to not have attended a school in America to have come to that conclusion, so maybe I missed that you were being snide about your not being American. My mistake.

I'm just sick to my gums of right-wingers of all fucking people being just as eager to jump on someone's ass and accuse them of racism when they speak about race outside of the accepted dogmatic paradigm of larger society.
What even is that "accepted dogmatic paradigm"? I don't think it's accepted dogma that the root of the suffering of the black community has to do with the welfare state further incentivizing single motherhood which was encouraged by second-wave feminism and the Sexual Revolution-- I'm pretty sure the accepted dogmatic paradigm is anything in the thereabouts of "I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived".

I don't really think you're in a position, either way, to talk about this when you couldn't even tell that I wasn't blaming the lagging of the black American community on poverty. I'm willing to wager that interpretation of my arguments was itself a knee-jerk reaction to someone attacking another using statistics, with no concern for what was actually being criticized.

Yeah and I have a problem with making people out to be boogeymen because they bring up topics and/or statistics that you find uncomfortable.
And I have a problem with you bullshitting and trivializing blatant statistical illiteracy as "people bringing up topics and stats you find uncomfortable" while you fail to understand what anyone is saying. I'm not going to accept a human study of n=130 for anything other than a premise for further research. I would not do so for any study-- not one for rape incidence, not one for success measurements, not one for food preferences-- nothing. I most certainly won't accept any argument collection that falsely cites organizations for statistics the argument profferer (just so we're clear this time, I mean the writer of that pamphlet) pulled out of their ass altogether when the actual statistics can be brought up to show that they're bullshitting.

You're not encouraging free speech-- you're stifling it with boogeymen of your own and promoting ignorance while deluding yourself into believing that you're promoting free speech. Why the hell am I not allowed to talk about a supporting argument for its own sake? As a matter of fact, why would it matter if I called Antipathy a wignat?

Let's put aside that I didn't, and that I actually considered the possibility of either that or him being otherwise influenced by their arguments (à la early 2017 Jontron, again). What exactly does it matter in the grand scheme? It's one thing if I just write "YOU'RE A STINKY WHITE SUPREMACIST SO OBVIOUSLY EVERYTHING YOU SAY IS STUPID AND NOBODY SHOULD LISTEN TO YOUR DUMBASS" ad nauseam, but I was engaging with his arguments for what they were. Any suspicions of allegiance I had were trifling compared to my irritation with his statistical interpretations, premises (e.g. cultural homogeneity in the States) and even the truthfulness of some of his statistics. Even if I settled on calling him a white nationalist, how the hell would that make him a boogeyman here? What would it have mattered here?

It would have mattered if it was literally the only thing I did. But if the only thing that changed about this exchange was that I outright called him a white supremacist, there was still an entire argument about the validity of assertions purported to be statistically substantiated, non-representative studies, the variety of factor controls and considerations, and basic statistical literacy.

A progressive wouldn't have done any of that, most certainly not with anything more than a script that ends with them ragequitting and calling their interlocutor a Nazi.
 
Back