Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Michael, Feb 19, 2017.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I found this quite interesting, and I think groups (for example: BLM) are following right along in the same play book. Which is now garnishing the same consequences. Anyway, via the Jewish Telegraph Agency: ‘Remember the 11 million’? Why an inflated victims tally irks Holocaust historians.

    WASHINGTON (JTA) — “Five million non-Jews died in the Holocaust.”

    It’s a statement that shows up regularly in declarations about the Nazi era. It was implied in a Facebook post by the Israel Defense Forces’ spokesperson’s unit last week marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day. And it was asserted in an article shared by the Trump White House in defense of its controversial Holocaust statement the same day omitting references to the 6 million Jewish victims.

    It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis.

    Indeed, say those close to the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, its progenitor, it is a number that was intended to increase sympathy for Jewish suffering but which now is more often used to obscure it. The White House statement sent waves of dismay through the Jewish community, including among groups that have been supportive of President Donald Trump. By mentioning the “victims, survivors, [and] heroes of the Holocaust” without mentioning the Jews, said a host of Jewish organizations, the Jan. 27 statement risked playing into the hands of the European right, which includes factions that seek to diminish the centrality of the Jewish genocide to the carnage of World War II.

    In defending the omission of Jews from the statement, a White House spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, sent CNN a link to a 2015 Huffington Post-UK piece titled “The Holocaust’s Forgotten Victims: The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis.” Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman, on Monday appeared to cite the same source, saying that the Nazis’ victims included Roma, gays, the disabled and priests. He called complaints about the statement “pathetic,” although some of those objections came from two groups that otherwise have been supportive of Trump, the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Zionist Organization of America.

    In the wake of the controversy, the world’s two leading Holocaust museums, in Washington and in Jerusalem, issued statements emphasizing the centrality of the annihilation of the Jews to the understanding of the Holocaust; neither mentioned Trump. The “5 million” has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979, “I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews.”

    Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli Holocaust scholar who chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, said he warned his friend Wiesenthal, who died in 2005, about spreading the false notion that the Holocaust claimed 11 million victims – 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews. “I said to him, ‘Simon, you are telling a lie,’” Bauer recalled in an interview Tuesday. “He said, ‘Sometimes you need to do that to get the results for things you think are essential.’” Bauer and other historians who knew Wiesenthal said the Nazi hunter told them that he chose the 5 million number carefully: He wanted a number large enough to attract the attention of non-Jews who might not otherwise care about Jewish suffering, but not larger than the actual number of Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust, 6 million.

    It caught on: President Jimmy Carter, issuing the executive order that would establish the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, referred to the “11 million victims of the Holocaust.” Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, wrote in 2011 how the number continues to dog her efforts to teach about the Holocaust. “I have been to many Yom Hashoah observances — including those sponsored by synagogues and Jewish communities — where eleven candles were lit,” she wrote in an article in the Jewish Review of Books in which she lacerated Wiesenthal’s ethical standards. “When I tell the organizers that they are engaged in historical revisionism, their reactions range from skepticism to outrage. Strangers have taken me to task in angry letters for focusing ‘only’ on Jewish deaths and ignoring the five million others. When I explain that this number is simply inaccurate, in fact made up, they become even more convinced of my ethnocentrism and inability to feel the pain of anyone but my own people.”

    The problem, according to Bauer, who has debunked the number repeatedly in his writings over the decades, is not that non-Jews were not victims; they were. It is that Wiesenthal’s arbitrarily chosen tally of non-Jewish victims diminishes the centrality to the Nazi ideology of systematically wiping any trace of the Jewish people from the planet. In fact, he said, the term “genocide” could accurately be applied to the 2 million to 3 million Poles murdered and millions more enslaved by the Nazis. But the mass murder of the Poles, Roma and others should not come under the rubric “Holocaust,” a term that Holocaust historians generally dislike because of its religious connotations but nonetheless have accepted as describing only the annihilation that the Nazis hoped to visit on the Jews.

    “All Jews of the world had to be annihilated,” Bauer said. “That was the intent. There was never an idea in Nazi minds to murder all the Russians.” The number 5 million also adheres to no known understanding of the number of non-Jews killed by the Nazis: While as many as 35 million people were killed overall because of Nazi aggression, the number of non-Jews who died in the concentration camps is no more than half a million, Bauer said. Using the 11 million figure often leads to muddled history. The Huffington Post-UK article Hicks linked to, for instance, lists as a separate class “twins,” as if Josef Mengele, the murderous doctor at Auschwitz, sought out twins of any heritage for his experiments. In fact, they were chosen only from among the Jews and Roma arriving at the camp.

    Mark Weitzman, the director of government affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said that Wiesenthal, in advancing the number, “never intended to minimize the Jewish specificity of the Shoah,” the Hebrew word for Holocaust. “He was trying to draw attention to the fact that there were other victims of Nazi genocide,” Weitzman said. Nonetheless, Weitzman acknowledged that Wiesenthal’s formulation, decades later, was inadvertently contributing to the efforts among right-wing nationalists in Europe to minimize Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. “This is used as a political tool to minimize the Jewish aspect, to write it out of history, or to maximize other victims’ suffering to make them the prime victims and claim a place of honor in the role of victims,” he said. “Unfortunately to some people, it becomes a competitive game, especially for political purposes.”

    The White House has endeavored to show that the statement has Jewish approval. Spicer said a Jewish staffer descended from Holocaust survivors helped draft it, and Politico, citing a source, reported late Monday that it was Boris Epshteyn, a Russian-born Jew who is one of Trump’s advisers. The IDF spokesperson’s Facebook post, which also neglected to mention the Jewish victims, said that “11 million men, women, and children perished in the Holocaust. Share their stories and speak their names to keep their memory alive.” The post was later changed to include the 6 million Jewish victims, but the reference to 11 million remains.

    Rabbi Marvin Hier, who founded the Wiesenthal Center and delivered the benediction at Trump’s inauguration, told CNN on Tuesday that Trump’s statement was a “mistake,” but one he did not believe was intended to diminish Jewish suffering. “I do not accuse President Trump of wanting to dishonor the memory of the victims of the Holocaust who were Jewish, but it was a mistake,” he said. Lipstadt, writing this week in The Atlantic, is not so sure, given the affinity that some in the Trump administration – particularly Trump’s chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, have to the “alt-right,” a movement that has embraced the resurgent nationalism now prevalent in parts of Europe. “It may have all started as a mistake by a new administration that is loath to admit it’s wrong,” she wrote. “Conversely, it may be a conscious attempt by people with anti-Semitic sympathies to rewrite history. Either way it is deeply disturbing.” Bauer agreed. “The Trump statement makes a salad of the Holocaust,” he said. “This is soft denial.”

    --o--
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Regarding the 'Black Community'*, this university student gives zer personal opinion:




    * Again, to clarify my opinion, and to delineate it from the commentator, 1) there is no objective measurement of Black, White, Yellow, Red, Brown, etc..... Black is a subjective experience. Nigerian OTOH is a Citizenship in a Nation State with a strong correlation to a 'culture' (which again, is a subjective experience). 2) To say 'Black Community' is to say 'Islamic Science' or 'Society' or even the word 'Forest'. When in fact, there's only individual trees, and plants and animals. Just something to mull over.

    The US Government pretty much stopped publishing 'the numbers', because it didn't fit well with 'the narrative' which makes it difficult to 'scientifically' determine why some Americans are poorer than others. The numbers of gun shots recorded (objective); telephone 911 calls (objective) both correlate strongly with times police actually enter 'black' neighborhoods (objective). As an example.

    This suggests police are not 'targeting' (subjective) but in fact 'responding' in a correlative manner (objective).


    Lastly, I bet this girl has an IQ around 2 standard deviations above the average American. To ignore this, is to miss the real reason all the other correlations exist. Rates if murders and ice-cream sales correlate strongly. Ice-cream sales does NOT cause murders to increase. The variable that is important is warm weather. In our case, the important variable is IQ. Someday soon we'll find genetic and epigentic factors. Whether people like it or not.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,449
    And comparing your two posts, we see you are among those attempting to claim there was no such thing as "Jewish", that being "Jewish" was a subjective experience in 1938 Germany -

    and, therefore, no Holocaust of the Jews in particular?

    Look: If you need an "objective measure" other than the reams and reams of statistical data matching the self and other identifications of US people, then you should work hard to provide yourself with one.

    Because the idea that there is no such thing as race, racism, and the intersubjectively verifiable experience of it, in the US, is bizarre nonsense.

    And as your continual revisions of US history to omit racism and its effects show - over dozens of threads, pointed out to you in dozens of different contexts (remember when you chose pre Civil War America as its time of greatest political and economic freedom?) - it is intellectually crippling.
    No, it doesn't. Unless you are claiming that the police do not share the subjective experience of race - that the police are, uniquely, not aware of the racial identities of people in the US.
    So was the Holocaust based on IQ? (It was apparently correlated). Were the Nazis not "targeting" but instead "responding" to IQ-mediated features of the population?

    The most statistically significant biological factor measured so far to correlate with violent crime and police encounters is childhood exposure to lead and other heavy metals. (It is itself racially correlated in the US, of course). That would also, potentially, explain at least some of whatever correlation with IQ remains, once the other racial influences on IQ scores have been filtered out.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    What about social disadvantage? How do you disentangle lack of education, or poor education under low socioeconomic conditions, from esoteric factors like IQ?
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,449
    There is not, in fact, "only individual trees, plants, and animals".
     
  9. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Firstly, IQ is an objective measurement, it has a strong genetic component (that's quite objective - I mean, this is just chemistry) and correlates strongly with behavior.

    Secondly, often people with high IQ move out of low socioeconomic conditions (in a free society where movement is possible) whereas low IQ people move into low socioeconomic conditions. Ben Carson and Thomas Sowell come to mind. While those are anecdotes, there are studies on this out there (limited). Given the scientific evidence suggests IQ is 85% genetic, it's probable that low socioeconomic conditions result from a general low IQ. In other words, people with low IQ, are generally poor because of their low IQ. Not the other way around. The causation is low IQ causes low income. Not low income causes low IQ. Particularly in a modern society structured like ours, which, through regulatory capture and licencing, disenfranchise low IQ people.

    Of course, just like height and other physical attributes, IQ can be attenuated. It probably is. For example, beating children, is correlated with lowering of IQ. Which is to say, suppose a person has the potential to reach an IQ of 95, beating them may lower it to 90. Raising them well, won't necessarily raise their IQ much higher than 95.

    As analogy: imagine if we lived in a world where basketball fitness correlated with economic outcome. Now, here we have Michael Jordan and over there we have some short Asian guy. Pretending that they're both 'equal', that there's no difference - that's probably going to do a mind f*ck on the short Asian guy. He's going to look around at all the other short Asian guys and begin to see a 'conspiracy' as to why they're all so poor. What else could it be?! It's not like there's any 'natural' difference between them and Michael Jordan. Somehow, Michael Jordan is screwing them over.

    Asians have IQ's on average around 103-105. They're now pretty much considered "White" by many other minorities in the USA because somehow, they're successful. Well, the 'somehow' is their IQ. Which they, through no virtue of their own, just happen to have.

    Again, the data suggest that 85% of IQ is genetic. IQ is strongly correlated with economic outcome. IQ is strongly correlated with mental aptitude as well as behavior. Pretending that these differences doesn't exist, isn't helping, it's hurting. Maybe this isn't the world that we 'want' to live in. Perhaps we feel good thinking we're all 'equal' we all have the 'same chance at success' and it's up to us to do our best.

    That's just not the real world. In the real world, some people have brains physically structured to do better in our current educational system. And, they do.

    Funny enough, Universities use SAT/ACT scores and Medical Schools use MCAT scores, etc... These are easily correlated with IQ. AAMOF you can reliably predict your IQ based on your SAT score. No one gives it a second thought that we use these tests as entry scores. But my gawd, imagine if they called these tests IQ tests. Then, suddenly, people wouldn't be so happy about using them. Which is why they call them anything other than what they really are.

    Our system is not fair for low IQ people. They didn't do anything 'wrong'. They were simply born with a low IQ. We should take this objective fact into account and make sure that society gives everyone as equal a chance as is possible. Which is why we should advocate for massive deregulation, elimination of most government-enforced licencing scams (as these greatly favor high IQ people - unfairly I might add, it's not like you need a high IQ to sell BBQ chicken), and end the war on drugs (which was lost decades ago). We should return to the use of sound money (market derived) and basic common law (to protect property - including your body). I'd also suggest we should encourage peaceful parenting so that children are able to attain the highest IQ physically possible, as well as just simply become a good human being.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  10. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Each of those organisms is an individual (minus those living in symbiosis). An individual tree is just that - a tree, competing against all the other trees for resources to live and reproduce. The only 'forest' that exists is as an abstract idea we use to refer to a collection of things. Sure, it can be defined categorically and thus a category made (circular logic) but, in the real world, outside of our use of abstract concepts, there are only individual trees, plants, and animals.

    There's no 'forest' you can pick up. Or reach out and touch this thing called 'forest'. You cannot take a piece of 'forest' home in your pocket.

    It's just an idea.

    Not much different than the idea 'value', or 'Christendom' or 'triangle'. This is an important concept because people LOVE the idea 'society', and yes, we use this idea because it makes communication easier, but also less specific. It also allows for demagogues to pitch even more abstract ideas, like for the "Good of Society". "For God and Country".

    Something to bare in mind.
     
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Yes, identifying as Jewish is a subjective experience. It doesn't mean there's no 'Jewish', only that an individual person would have to determine for themselves if they are or are not Jewish.

    It doesn't matter if German Jews and German non-Jews understood this in 1938, it's still a fact.
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Most people believe in 'race' and self-identify as a 'race'; as in, they have a subjective experience. Thus, both a *X* American and a Police Officer will share the delusion of race.

    I'm sure if we through eye color was important then people would think that was a race. It wouldn't be.


    As for objective measurements. The studies have been done. In Chicago they placed recorders at the top of telephone poles that were set to record gun shots. Then they correlated the number of recorded gun shots with 911 calls and police entering those neighborhoods. We don't need to know if this is a so-called "Black" neighborhood or not. All we need to know is that the police entered neighborhoods in a direct strong correlation to 911 calls which was also strongly correlated with recorded gun shots.

    It really is that simple. No need for CT or lizard peoples.
     
  13. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    It seems reasonable. Recall that German Socialism requires that the State use violence against morally innocent people for 'the Good of Society'. Well, in the real world, you need real stuff. Where do you get real stuff? From wealthy people. Jewish Germans have higher than average IQ and they had acquired positions of power and wealth that goes along with that. So, of course they were targeted for wealth confiscation.

    Welcome to Socialism. In today's' world Bernie Sanders plays the role of The part-Jewish Demagogue and 'The Rich' (many of whom are Jewish) the targets. ALL to the cheers of the functionally illiterate public who want free-shit.

    It's a story as old as time.

    Oh well, the Cycle continues.....
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    ....[click]......
     
  15. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,999
    Yeah, me too....
     
    exchemist likes this.
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,449
    That's a familial, not population, genetic "component". That kind of genetic inheritance does not generally extrapolate to populations - that would depend on how the "populations" were defined. In your case here they are very poorly defined, and no such line of reasoning is likely to be sound.
    So we see that in order to get from the familial inheritance of IQ to what you really want to argue, you must deny all cultural and socioeconomic influence on IQ scores. You continue to ignore stress, disease, air pollution, and lead exposure in childhood, for example. You also deny the Flynn Effect, direct parallels with human height, stereotype threat, and so forth.
    By which reasoning you can estimate the degree to which black children of naturally high intelligence have been living in a free society, in America.
    There are no organisms living without some such dependency as "symbiosis", "commensalism", etc. At least, not in a forest. Minus those individuals, you have rock and sand and clay to the horizon.
    This was 1935. It was Fascism, not Socialism, in Germany.
    Most wealthy Germans were not targeted. The German Jews did not have the positions of power - if they had, they could not have been targeted as they were. And so forth.
    And that role is - as in 1930s Germany - the role of fascist myth embodiment, the Aryan dreamworld evildoer,

    as the actually powerful and the actually wealthy and the actually reliant on stolen free-shit in the real world (that's your political faction) pretend their reactionary bigotries are "science", their racism is "genetics", the behavior of the police they control is "response", the consequences of their politics is "freedom".

    Notice, for example, just one example, that: In fact, in reality, the functionally illiterate you speak of were not cheering for Bernie Sanders, Michael. None of them - any race, any ideology. Remember? It wasn't that long ago. Your fantasy demands that they were. They weren't. Hello?
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,449
    So in your world, someone in 1935 Germany would have determined for themselves if they were or were not Jewish, whether they wanted Jewish subjective experiences or some other kind. Got it. I can hear the train station announcement now: "Volunteers for Dachau, last call for boarding, gate seven; volunteers for Dachau, gate seven, please have your boarding pass ready".
    How about "black", in the US - at what age do you think Michelle Obama decided she wanted to subjectively experience being black, instead of some other race?

    Or try this out: if you think personality types - including, say, authoritarian and abusive tendencies to beat one's children and devalue intellectual accomplishment - are inherited:

    in which population would you anticipate finding the higher percentage of the bad people, handing down their bad genetics to future generations:
    1) those overpowered by brute force, captured by the thugs in their society and sold into slavery in foreign lands
    2) those attracted to the prospect of owning slaves and living off their labor on free land someplace far away from their current society and not subject to its laws or customs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Hence my .... and OTHER forms of denial.

    To make it easy, we'll define populations by Nation State Citizenship. If you were to pull a Japanese from the crowd. You'd have a the highest statistical likelihood of picking a person with an IQ greater than 100. Whereas, if you did the same in the USA, you'd have the highest odds of picking a person with an IQ of 100.

    As for the Flynn effect, maybe you missed the memo? The general IQ has been dropping in the USA for over a decade. The same is true in most Western Nations. Further, the recent so-called gains in IQ / the Flynn effect (which was actually first documented in the 1800s by the way - not by Prof. Flynn) may be due to children's continual exposure to standardized testing. Many of the questions in a proper IQ test can really only be assessed one time. Most Government School 'prep' their students on these questions. This has been going on for a long time. Hence, the artificially inflated IQ scores. That's now peaked as just about ALL children IQ tested were preped since age 6 (some even earlier). There's no more gains to be made by cheating. Worse still, the poor quality, bloated, overly expensive, assessment-focused Government School system isn't even lifting up that 50 - 15% that COULD actually be increased by exposure to decent education.

    That said, IQ is just a measure of something else. Not a perfect measure either. Simply a strong correlation with whatever that is. And whatever that is, may be between 50 - 85% genetic. Meaning, even with a good diet, good parenting, and good environment - you'll still have disparity with people who have a naturally higher IQ. IOWs, even if you could move a 90 up to 95, you'll also move the 95 up to 100, setting a new average 100, thus resetting the IQ back to 90.

    The only other way would be to somehow hold back people with naturally higher IQs. Which is asinine.


    I have a question: Given a person with an IQ of 85 has the mental age of (about) a 14-15 year old, and given we don't allow children to vote, would you support the scientific based idea that low IQ individuals are unfit (just as children are) to vote?

    I mean, given the science.

    All of these has been controlled for and the studies AGAIN show that up to 85% of IQ is inherited.

    We are the furthest thing from a 'free-society'.

    Argument from Gaia.

    LOL

    Again, the point being that words such as: forest, triangle or society refer to abstractions. You can physically cut off a chunk of cake, or drink half a cup of coffee. You can't take a piece of 'society' with you. It's something that people should be cognisent of when they listen to bullpoopers telling them they're going to give them free K-14 because it's 'Good for Society'. Not only is it, in reality, bad for society (because it undermines private individual social interactions), it's immoral and abstract nonsense.

    The two are not mutually exclusive. Germany had been socialistic from way before 1935.

    Well, this is a fair point. Many of those cheering for B.Sanders can somewhat read and write. Sure, they have little understanding of economics, read at grade level 7 (that's the norm for an incoming freshmen at University) and believe if you rename Authoritarianism 'Socialism' and preface it with "Progressive" it somehow becomes something other than what it actually is.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  19. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Yes, a person's "Jewishness" is their subjective experience. Take me for example, my great grandparents on my mother's mother's side, where German Jews. They converted to Catholicism. I have never in my life been to a Jewish anything. I've never been to a Catholic service in my life. I've been in more Buddhist and Shinto services.

    I'm atheist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    A Government Officer may say I'm Jewish, take me away and murder me (for the Good of Society because everyone took a vote and hey isn't "Democratic" Socialism vunderful) - I'm still not Jewish.

    It's not my fault people share in this asinine delusion. I'm just stating the fact. Just because most people believed the Earth to be flat, didn't make it flat. It was simply a shared erroneous belief. Which is why we need Science, because general induction is the best way to make sense of sense-data, particularly that which contains a time-variable. That the Left and Right are both to destroy Science, even claiming evidence is 'racist', further provides good evidence to me of the decline of the West.

    Unless you can provide to me objective evidence of "Blackness", then it remains a person's personal decision as to whether they are Black. AAMOF most of the time the individual has the personal choice to tick their 'preferred' race. In the case of one India guy, he chose to be "Black" - and then was immediately given one of a small number of limited placements into a medical program. He maintains, he's Black. Even though he grew up in India.

    Are you going to prove him wrong? The Medical School certainly didn't.
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2017
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    First of all false dichotomy. Most African Slaves were purchased from other Africans. Secondly, most Africans practiced Slavery. Which is how they came to sell them (mostly to Arabs) Thirdly, many Europeans were Slaves and many Europeans practiced. Finally, Europeans ENDED SLAVERY.

    Let's repeat that: EUROPEANS ENDED SLAVERY. Not Africans, not Asians (well, Japan did inside Japan), not Muslims. European Christians. Primarily the English abolitionists. Shit, Arabs were still legally buying and selling Slaves until a few decades ago. Some Africans still do.

    Fourthly, it's not 'bad' genetics. Chemicals aren't morally 'bad'. Jeesh...

    Fifthly, peacefully parenting isn't going to change one's genes, but it may change the next generation's protein expression (timing, concentration, etc...) through epigenetic alterations in gene expression. Thus, changing the next generations' physical brain composition (receptor expression for example, neurotransmitter levels, etc...). IMO this itself is something we should be very cautious about as well. Maybe peaceful parenting, in some populations, leads to an increased occurrence of pathological empathy in the subsequent generations? Maybe there is a reason why humans developed the 'culture' of beating their children into compliance? Other than, oh no's, you're going to run out of the cave and get eaten by a dinosaur if I don't beat you.... and my wives....

    The data's still coming in, see: Swedenstan.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,449
    IQ does not measure mental age. It doesn't measure fitness to vote, either.
    Not according to the police, in 1935 Germany. Or the Republican voter, in 2008 America.
    That's too damn stupid for "we". You do that kind of goofball shit on your own.
    After a century of rising. It doesn't matter which direction it goes - your argument is blown up either way.
    So what about the question? All this irrelevant side info is nice, but the question remains: which population would you expect to feature a higher proportion of genetically bad, violent, abusive, people?
     
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,449
    Not in the US. Black people in the US don't get to pick their race unless they can pass.
    Another one of your stories.

    OK: is he black, in the US?

    Some people who grew up in India are - in the US - black. That's their race when the police pull them over, when they go in for a bank loan, and so forth. It's because they have dark skin, wide noses, curly or thick-stranded black hair, etc. So no problem, then - the US racial classifications are, biologically, nonsense, we all know that, but anyone who comes to the US as a US black is going to have to deal with the consequences regardless of where they grew up.

    So the question would not be whether he can choose to be black, but whether he can choose to be white when it's an advantage to him - say, when the police pull him over in a white suburban neighborhood. Can he inform the police that he is white, and thereby gain the advantages of that status?
     
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The problem I see is in the attempt to honor the past, people from the present, are trying to gain advantages, at the expense of others in the present, by falsely accusing those who did not do anything in the past. Revisionist history is a liberal scam that manipulates the present via the past. If is designed so the resentment of being falsely accused in the present, for the past, leads to a defensive reaction, thereby justifying the scam in minds of those who participate in the shakedown.

    For examples, say I had a great great uncle who was a cruel man. This has nothing to do with me, since I have no control over the past. I can control the present and maybe the future, but not the past. However, liberal scam artists will try to pin this on me, by some nebulous connection, so they can shake me down using a guilt by association. Since this is irrational and unjustified, I may need to defend myself, only to have my defense twisted into an admission of guilt, for something I had no control over. To appease the guilt I need to participate in the shakedown. If one stands to benefit by the shakedown, they will justify this faux logic.

    If you can prove to me you were a slave or a someone in a concentration camp, I can feel compassion, but not responsibility. If you can't, I will not play the game of giving you the same compassion, for doing nothing, so you can scam the system. I understand if you don't play the game and allow the shakedown, that will make you a racist based on PC definitions. The head of the beast needs to be chopped off.
     

Share This Page