10 Things NEVER to Say to a Black Coworker

[Guest TrueMetis]

different cultures, are a byproduct of different human stock and human communities... so cultural factors are side effect of sorts... To say that a person's biology is not SIGNIFICANT in determining weather a person will have certain attributes is absurd. Cultural and environmental factors only go so far... besides nurture... there's a little thing called nature, you cannot make a genius out of someone with Downs no matter how great your teaching technique is. Emphasis on reading, will not change the biology of a person and give him "cerebral potency" he did not have in his genes.

To say that human stocks with different hormonal levels, different IQ's and types of intelligence have "INSIGNIFICANT" effects on the type of societies humans create, is simply as outrageous and brazenly ridiculous as anything I've ever heard from liberal egalitarians.

There is no such thing as a "debate" on nature vs. nurture... it's 50/50. and one's nature is not insignificant... sorry, it just isn't.

Your right a person's biology is significant but that significance decreases dramatically when you start talking about groups of people, the larger the group the less it matters.

[lictor616]

Your right a person's biology is significant but that significance decreases dramatically when you start talking about groups of people, the larger the group the less it matters.

please I beg you, explain why through A and B...

[Guest TrueMetis]

please I beg you, explain why through A and B...

Person A is genetically inclined to be faster than person B, but group A has to much genetic variation to pin why it's people are faster than group B on genetics. Unless Group A was made up of people with the exact same genes as person A then the reason they are faster can't be pinned on genetics

[JB Globe]

What makes you say it's the exception? I'm of the opinion that violence against white people by non-white people is underreported and when it's reported the racial aspect is downplayed or ignored. Several examples have been offered, not just the Buffalo incident. If you wish to dispute the point, maybe you should offer a counter-example.

-k

Perhaps I missed other examples, but so far the two that Lictor has referenced have been the Buffalo hate crime, and the Montreal incident which Lictor claimed was a hate crime of black youths committing unprovoked assault on a white youth, but has turned out to be a case of two groups of students of different races hurling racial slurs at each other.

So by my count that's zero Canadian examples so far.

And as a rule of thumb, considering how radically different race is in the US, I think it's bogus to try and connect trends there with trends here. Thus I don't think Lictor can make the argument that trends in the US regarding a wave of violence by black folks against white folks (the exaggeration is his) is automatically reflective of a similar wave in Canada.

[lictor616]

Perhaps I missed other examples, but so far the two that Lictor has referenced have been the Buffalo hate crime, and the Montreal incident which Lictor claimed was a hate crime of black youths committing unprovoked assault on a white youth, but has turned out to be a case of two groups of students of different races hurling racial slurs at each other.

So by my count that's zero Canadian examples so far.

And as a rule of thumb, considering how radically different race is in the US, I think it's bogus to try and connect trends there with trends here. Thus I don't think Lictor can make the argument that trends in the US regarding a wave of violence by black folks against white folks (the exaggeration is his) is automatically reflective of a similar wave in Canada.

the attack was 100% black on white... I don't understand how people keep avoiding that... the video evidence is pretty obvious...

Its only when an attack is non-white on white that people start to look for excuses:

"oh it was a high school rivalry"

"oh it was just teenage hormones"

"oh there was a latina in the crowd stomping the white girl"

"Oh it was anglo vs french"

painfully obvious...

If i'd be giving similar excuses to the Courtenay incident, I'd get labeled a racist for ignoring the potential for racism... when the victim is white however, its the reverse situation, you get called a racist if you even think of saying the word "hatecrime"...

[lictor616]

Person A is genetically inclined to be faster than person B, but group A has to much genetic variation to pin why it's people are faster than group B on genetics. Unless Group A was made up of people with the exact same genes as person A then the reason they are faster can't be pinned on genetics

that's not what I meant through A and B... but anyways. That "explanation" doesn't hold any water as anyone will tell you that kenyans for instance do indeed share genetic aptitudes that DO reflect group differences.

too much genetic variation?

What you're implying is that it isn't measurable... but it is... a black couple will never have a blond haired asian looking child...

anyways, apparently holding all these damnable opinions (which you aren't able to refute or even attenuate, and in many aspects agree with) are what you think make me a neo-nazi... and some sort of mental defective that needs to be put in a concentration camp or something...

and you call me the extremist?! lol

Edited November 15, 2009 by lictor616

[Argus]

"They feel an instinctive fear for themselves and others". Yes. I fear for my community when racial supremacists target others for extermination. That sort of crime has a significant probability of perpetuating itself and harming the fabric of our society and our social relations.

And what's the difference between racism and misogyny? If you examine these cases. The hatred displayed towardes women is FAR more severe, the violence FAR more horrific than the hatred and violence perpetrated against Blacks because of their race. You don't think that harms our bloody social relations?

If we're talking about people not liking each other then there's no conversation here. Race crime deserves special attention, and you don't need to know more than 50 years of history to understand why.

I don't buy it. Canada hasn't had any kind of real, organized or wide-spread racial crime as long as I've been alive. And prior to that we had no real races other than the aborigines and a few Chinese who largely lived in their secluded areas. I think you're reacting to American civil strife from the sixties and seventies, only part of which was even directly related to racism - as opposed to poverty.

It seems to me that there are a few different questions being discussed here at once. One is why so-called "hate crimes" achieve wide news distribution, especially national distribution.

I would suggest the actual question is more like "Why do hate crimes only receive national attention when the perpetrators are White". Even if one accepts your contention that racial crime is more serious and thus deserving of more attention that fails to explain why racial attacks on Whites by non-Whites are glossed over or ignored.

Now perhaps racism was not the primary motivation. On the other hand, it doesn't look like those in positions of authority really put much effort into that determination. They all seem quite quick to dismiss such suggestions. Wheras we have reporters eagerly exploring the possibility and making suggestive comments in stories every time a non-white is attacked, as in the Asian bum set on fire.

I'll address the former question: Klan-type lynchings are a strange crime that attract special attention for a host of reasons. When they happen, there is a national interest in them.

And I disagree. There is no more national interest attached to such things than in the crimes Kimmy and Lictor posted, probably less. The "national interest" is in fact, "media interest" and it is ideologically based.

[Argus]

And as a rule of thumb, considering how radically different race is in the US, I think it's bogus to try and connect trends there with trends here. Thus I don't think Lictor can make the argument that trends in the US regarding a wave of violence by black folks against white folks (the exaggeration is his) is automatically reflective of a similar wave in Canada.

Of course, Canada keeps no statistics on such things so we will never have any proof one way or another. All we have are anecdotal evidence. Yet almost everyone I know has been involved in at least one violent incident with Black assailant(s).

[Michael Hardner]

different cultures, are a byproduct of different human stock and human communities... so cultural factors are side effect of sorts... To say that a person's biology is not SIGNIFICANT in determining weather a person will have certain attributes is absurd. Cultural and environmental factors only go so far... besides nurture... there's a little thing called nature, you cannot make a genius out of someone with Downs no matter how great your teaching technique is. Emphasis on reading, will not change the biology of a person and give him "cerebral potency" he did not have in his genes.

To say that human stocks with different hormonal levels, different IQ's and types of intelligence have "INSIGNIFICANT" effects on the type of societies humans create, is simply as outrageous and brazenly ridiculous as anything I've ever heard from liberal egalitarians.

There is no such thing as a "debate" on nature vs. nurture... it's 50/50. and one's nature is not insignificant... sorry, it just isn't.

You seem to be saying that a person's race is a dominant factor determining IQ. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The other thing I'm wondering is where you got the 50/50 impact of nature vs. nurture. A good many scientists would be interested in your findings I think.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course, Canada keeps no statistics on such things so we will never have any proof one way or another. All we have are anecdotal evidence. Yet almost everyone I know has been involved in at least one violent incident with Black assailant(s).

This is absurd at best, and pathological at worst. No wonder you reach for American anecdotes to reinforce your view of the whole world (in Canada).

[Michael Hardner]

And what's the difference between racism and misogyny? If you examine these cases. The hatred displayed towardes women is FAR more severe, the violence FAR more horrific than the hatred and violence perpetrated against Blacks because of their race. You don't think that harms our bloody social relations?

Of course it does. I suspect that misogynistic crimes receive more attention than women-on-men crimes as well. Is that your point ?

I don't buy it. Canada hasn't had any kind of real, organized or wide-spread racial crime as long as I've been alive. And prior to that we had no real races other than the aborigines and a few Chinese who largely lived in their secluded areas. I think you're reacting to American civil strife from the sixties and seventies, only part of which was even directly related to racism - as opposed to poverty.

"Real, organized, and wide-spread" are mitigating terms... which indicate that there have been incidents. Have they affected Canada and the common good ? I would say yes, but...

But anyway what don't you buy ? If you don't buy that race crime in Canada is a real and immediate threat, then I understand that, although it seems to run counter to your postings on immigration. But the question I think we're discussing here from the last few posts is my suggestion that people "are more concerned with a hateful, vicious murderer because he killed someone due to their race".

I think that they are more concerned, even though "hate crime" may not be as common or as immediate a threat as street violence, but then neither is nuclear war. They're still threats, and items that the population is concerned about, and are considered problems in the public consciousness.

There is a prioritizing that happens in each of us according to individual values, that plays out over the larger population. i.e. What are we concerned about ? News editors are aware of how issues "play" with people and shape the news accordingly.

Sometimes people are concerned too much with things that should not be a prioritized problem (shark attacks) to another degree people aren't concerned enough with things that should be a prioritized problem (delivery of health care services). The status of race relations is in between, but in my believe it deserves special attention.

I would suggest the actual question is more like "Why do hate crimes only receive national attention when the perpetrators are White". Even if one accepts your contention that racial crime is more serious and thus deserving of more attention that fails to explain why racial attacks on Whites by non-Whites are glossed over or ignored.

What's the difference between racial crime and hate crime ? I'm using hate crime to describe crimes that involve people being targeted due to groups acting on racist ideology.

Now perhaps racism was not the primary motivation. On the other hand, it doesn't look like those in positions of authority really put much effort into that determination. They all seem quite quick to dismiss such suggestions. Wheras we have reporters eagerly exploring the possibility and making suggestive comments in stories every time a non-white is attacked, as in the Asian bum set on fire.

And I disagree. There is no more national interest attached to such things than in the crimes Kimmy and Lictor posted, probably less. The "national interest" is in fact, "media interest" and it is ideologically based.

I disagree with you. A white person assaulting a black person does not make the national news unless there is racist ideology suspected as motivating the attacks. Do you have a counter example ?

[Michael Hardner]

Of course, Canada keeps no statistics on such things so we will never have any proof one way or another. All we have are anecdotal evidence. Yet almost everyone I know has been involved in at least one violent incident with Black assailant(s).

Argus/JBGlobe.... Even Lictor's statistics don't tell the complete picture. If the population is 84% white, then 84% of the victims will be white on average, all other things considered.

[Guest TrueMetis]

that's not what I meant through A and B... but anyways. That "explanation" doesn't hold any water as anyone will tell you that kenyans for instance do indeed share genetic aptitudes that DO reflect group differences.

too much genetic variation?

So all Kenyans are super runners? All Kenyans share the exact same genes? Didn't realize all Kenyans were clones.

What you're implying is that it isn't measurable... but it is... a black couple will never have a blond haired asian looking child...

Actually your wrong there depending on who the black couples parents and grandparents are that's entirely possible, unlikely but possible. Oh and even if the kids doesn't end up like that he's not going to like exactly like his parents, probably 45/45 with 10% his own unique genes. Variation.

anyways, apparently holding all these damnable opinions (which you aren't able to refute or even attenuate, and in many aspects agree with) are what you think make me a neo-nazi... and some sort of mental defective that needs to be put in a concentration camp or something...

and you call me the extremist?! lol

Never called you a neo-nazi, might have called you a mental defective, never said you need to be put into a concentration camp, and haven't called you an extremist.

[lictor616]

You seem to be saying that a person's race is a dominant factor determining IQ. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The other thing I'm wondering is where you got the 50/50 impact of nature vs. nurture. A good many scientists would be interested in your findings I think.

awww really? really? Hardner? REAlly?

did I employ the word dominant? You on the other hand said that it was INSIGNIFICANT... ie: not a factor at all.

Yes a person's race CAN be a clue, race does generalize to a certain degree of accuracy, now obviously racial taxonomy is not 100% error proof, but if we consider the record, it yields predictable results. In controlled tests all over the globe, in the record of scientific and problem solving abilities, you can clearly see that all races do not produce the same results. As is obvious from the very different historical records and civilization craft found among broadly defined races: sub saharan africans have been around longer then Asians... yet China has a very respectable 6000 year literate history, that cannot be said of sub saharan Africans, who to this day despite trillions in "aid" are still incapable of producing the rudiments of a stable, viable civilized society.

Landing 1 million congo pygmies or Dinka tribesmen in an area will produce a very different society then an area populated by one million northern asiatics say.

No "scientist" has ever come to say that a person's aptitudes was 100% derived from nature or completely derived from nurture... At least I have never heard of anyone make such an argument. The consensus is generally that both play nearly equal parts.

Both nurture and nature play very real and important roles.

[lictor616]

Argus/JBGlobe.... Even Lictor's statistics don't tell the complete picture. If the population is 84% white, then 84% of the victims will be white on average, all other things considered.

lol what a silly statement!

well again if you look at ALL violent crime:

the stats are that half the violent crimes in a country of 300+ million are caused by one group: blacks... a 12-13% minority.

whites are 6 times more numerous, yet cause half the violent crimes that blacks do... and you see this as "normal"?!

There's also asians stats which further complicate the issue: Asians commit crimes at 22% the white rate... that's right Asians are 4 times less likely to be criminals then whites!

asians don't commit a sliver of the black crime and are even MORE of a minority...

Edited November 15, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

I disagree with you. A white person assaulting a black person does not make the national news unless there is racist ideology suspected as motivating the attacks. Do you have a counter example ?

the Courtenay example is one which you still continue to ignore: the three whites were not ideologically racist... they weren't white nationalists, and no one would describe them as racists...

of course that didn't stop the police from saying it was hate motivated without even prodding in the matter... apparently saying the N word makes one a dangerous Ku Kluxer...

again compare that the parc carignan assault: where 3 blacks are insulting the white girl calling her:

"Sale pute blanche" ie: "dirty white whore"

"stupide singe de cave" ie: "cave monkey"

and in creole:

"bobotte senti de sale blanche" ie: "dirty white c***"

"nique ta race" ie: "f**k your race"

if black people use these words... strangely no one notices it, and the media certainly don't automatically use the word hatecrime because of these racial expletives...

keep ignoring reality though...

[Michael Hardner]

awww really? really? Hardner? REAlly?

did I employ the word dominant? You on the other hand said that it was INSIGNIFICANT... ie: not a factor at all.

No, but you brought up IQ so I'm thinking that you suppose that it is "A" determinant of IQ, or at least a major predictor of IQ. I'm looking for you to clarify how much you believe your race decides what your IQ will be.

Insignificant does not mean ZERO as I already pointed out, but as I already said cultural and other factors are more important IMO.

Yes a person's race CAN be a clue, race does generalize to a certain degree of accuracy, now obviously racial taxonomy is not 100% error proof, but if we consider the record, it yields predictable results. In controlled tests all over the globe, in the record of scientific and problem solving abilities, you can clearly see that all races do not produce the same results. As is obvious from the very different historical records and civilization craft found among broadly defined races: sub saharan africans have been around longer then Asians... yet China has a very respectable 6000 year literate history, that cannot be said of sub saharan Africans, who to this day despite trillions in "aid" are still incapable of producing the rudiments of a stable, viable civilized society.

Landing 1 million congo pygmies or Dinka tribesmen in an area will produce a very different society then an area populated by one million northern asiatics say.

No "scientist" has ever come to say that a person's aptitudes was 100% derived from nature or completely derived from nurture... At least I have never heard of anyone make such an argument. The consensus is generally that both play nearly equal parts.

Yeah, actually I think Rushton did try to say that hereditary factors determined aptitudes. Didn't he ? You seem to be aware of this research, so why not telling us ?

And... do you believe that craniometry (?) and biology makes the tribesmen intellectually inferior then ? Again, fill me in because I don't want to speak for you.

Both nurture and nature play very real and important roles.

[Michael Hardner]

lol what a silly statement!

well again if you look at ALL violent crime:

the stats are that half the violent crimes in a country of 300+ million are caused by one group: blacks... a 12-13% minority.

whites are 6 times more numerous, yet cause half the violent crimes that blacks do... and you see this as "normal"?!

There's also asians stats which further complicate the issue: Asians commit crimes at 22% the white rate... that's right Asians are 4 times less likely to be criminals then whites!

asians don't commit a sliver of the black crime and are even MORE of a minority...

You're switching your argument again, based on my rebuttal. Now you're saying that the point is that more blacks commit crime than whites in the US. Fine, but that's a different argument.

So, that's documented and I concur that it is documented. Now, do you care to explain why cultural factors (i.e. nurture) is 50% to blame for this as you explained ?

[Michael Hardner]

the Courtenay example is one which you still continue to ignore: the three whites were not ideologically racist... they weren't white nationalists, and no one would describe them as racists...

of course that didn't stop the police from saying it was hate motivated without even prodding in the matter... apparently saying the N word makes one a dangerous Ku Kluxer...

again compare that the parc carignan assault: where 3 blacks are insulting the white girl calling her:

"Sale pute blanche" ie: "dirty white whore"

"stupide singe de cave" ie: "cave monkey"

and in creole:

"bobotte senti de sale blanche" ie: "dirty white c***"

"nique ta race" ie: "f**k your race"

if black people use these words... strangely no one notices it, and the media certainly don't automatically use the word hatecrime because of these racial expletives...

keep ignoring reality though...

Very odd the degree to which this is parsed by you - including translating Creole no less. I suspect that you have to go pretty far to try and prove that there's a race-mixing conspiracy out there, or whatever it is you're getting at.

But anyway...

I didn't really know about the Courtenay attack. I just looked into it, and it seemed to initially get a lot of press because the RCMP thought it was a race attack. After that, there was a CTV story indicating that some denied it was a race-based attack. The story seems to have mostly died after that. If you look on the net you can find a lot of examples of people who were extremely disturbed that there was a race-based crime, initially, but the story seems to have since died off.

So this example seems to support my position and not yours: when the RCMP indicated that it may be a hate crime there was a lot of interest, which died off when it turned out to be merely a mixed-race mix up.

[Michael Hardner]

Very odd the degree to which this is parsed by you - including translating Creole no less. I suspect that you have to go pretty far to try and prove that there's a race-mixing conspiracy out there, or whatever it is you're getting at.

But anyway...

I didn't really know about the Courtenay attack. I just looked into it, and it seemed to initially get a lot of press because the RCMP thought it was a race attack. After that, there was a CTV story indicating that some denied it was a race-based attack. The story seems to have mostly died after that. If you look on the net you can find a lot of examples of people who were extremely disturbed that there was a race-based crime, initially, but the story seems to have since died off.

So this example seems to support my position and not yours: when the RCMP indicated that it may be a hate crime there was a lot of interest, which died off when it turned out to be merely a mixed-race mix up.

Lictor - to add. People throwing in racial epithets when they're fighting doesn't turn the crime into a hate crime either, so try to wrap your head around that.

Furthermore, if certain races are biologically prone to violence (as per your believe that biology and 'craniometry' determine one's actions) then shouldn't "being black" be a viable defense in your eyes ?

[lictor616]

No, but you brought up IQ so I'm thinking that you suppose that it is "A" determinant of IQ, or at least a major predictor of IQ. I'm looking for you to clarify how much you believe your race decides what your IQ will be.

Insignificant does not mean ZERO as I already pointed out, but as I already said cultural and other factors are more important IMO.

Race certainly has IQ implications, because race indicates certain types of gene clusters... that's what race is essentially, clusters of genetic material that expresses itself in very obvious and measurable ways.

Brain growth and IQ is genetically determined, Race differences in average IQ are genetic: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

we all know this. Likewise we know that different races have different genetic traits, contrary to the dogma and absurdity of liberal egalitarianism, race is not merely a skin tone... it affects all manner of developmental processes... there are many many studies who have established that the cranial sutures in black children "solidify" at earlier ages then whites... that's one way in which racial characteristics often express themselves. and black children also have very high rates of Familial idiopathic hypertrophic osteoarthropathy http://www.springerlink.com/content/nk2881q245n7l454/

Of course again racial taxonomy does not say that every black is doomed to have an IQ of 75, however reports such as the vehemently hated Bell Curve do measure the available data with very sound methodology to put forth suggestive estimates. And so far the conclusion reached by the bell curve still are largely correct... black children in the US for instance, are at the bottom rung academic achievement DESPITE preferential treatment and affirmative action and the no child left behind act...

have you looked at the READING ACHIEVEMENT GAP in black kids? Its nearly 3 grades lower!

and again, these stats are UNIVERSAL ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE BLACKS are, whether its haiti, South Africa,the Congo, south america, the US, the UK etc...

its the same today as it was thousands of years ago, you have to admit that there is no shortage of evidence.

Edited November 15, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Lictor - to add. People throwing in racial epithets when they're fighting doesn't turn the crime into a hate crime either,

lol! Yet in Courtnay it did! why? just because the race of the victim was BLACK!

again you fail to realize that RACIAL EPITHETS DID TURN THE COURTNAY SCRUM into a HATECRIME, that's what the media kept yammering about, "racists attacks" "biggotry fueled attack" and other clear statements...

the balck victim Phillips, in Courtenay is actually touring schools to give talks about racism! Do you suppose the little white girl was given any sort of similar invitation? of course not!

all of this you once again, simply ignore to suit your failed argument.

When a white person's says the N word, his very livelihood is at risk, that's another double standard that I don't want to get into, but clearly you're being dishonest by pretending not to notice these things...

Edited November 15, 2009 by lictor616

[kimmy]

Perhaps I missed other examples, but so far the two that Lictor has referenced have been the Buffalo hate crime, and the Montreal incident which Lictor claimed was a hate crime of black youths committing unprovoked assault on a white youth, but has turned out to be a case of two groups of students of different races hurling racial slurs at each other.

So by my count that's zero Canadian examples so far.

And as a rule of thumb, considering how radically different race is in the US, I think it's bogus to try and connect trends there with trends here. Thus I don't think Lictor can make the argument that trends in the US regarding a wave of violence by black folks against white folks (the exaggeration is his) is automatically reflective of a similar wave in Canada.

Well, certainly the most stunning examples I've provided have been from the United States.

The sensationalist national coverage given the James Byrd dragging murder in 1998, in contrast with the coverage of the dragging murder of Patricia Stansfield just 2 months later. Coverage of Stansfield's murder is so scant that it's difficult to find cites that prove it even happened.

And the contrast between the coverage given the Duke lacrosse "rape" incident compared to the double rape/murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom is equally astounding. The Duke case stands as a monumental example of media bandwagoning a story for reasons that have little to do with the merit of the story itself and much to do with preconceptions. The Christian/Newsom case is pretty much the mirror image. Called on the carpet by bloggers for the complete lack of coverage of the Christian/Newsom case, we get the rationalization that it wasn't that the victims were white, it's just thatthere wasn't a blatant racial motive for the crime.

Which just a circular argument. "it's not that the victims were white, it's just that there wasn't a blatant racial motive." And yet, "a blatant racial motive" apparently requires black victims. You don't need a racial motive to explain young men sexually assaulting a stripper, yet the media was trumpeting the Duke case as a hate crime, for as far as I can tell no reason other than the skin color of the victim. Conversely, the sadism visited upon Channon Christian seems difficult to explain without some element of hatred, but the media apparently didn't see it that way.

And fast forward ahead 2 years and we have white teenager Brian Milligan Jr beaten by a gang of black men who had told him "you don't belong in this neighborhood" and "stay away from our women", which is about as blatant a racial motive as could be. And this story is also virtually ignored. So it seems pretty clear that the racial motive or "hate crime" aspect isn't newsworthy unless the attackers are white.

But, as you say, these are American stories. Surely Canadian media are better and wiser and smarter, right?

I provided a Canadian case where a media report refused to identify suspects in a gang beating as native, even though some of the suspects were still at large. I pointed out the Toronto high-school rape case, where black parents alleging that the prosecution of their children was racist got the story into the national news, yet later reports on the convictions and guilty pleas did not mention the racial aspect of the case at all even though the earlier allegations of racism had been the most noteworthy aspect of the case.

As far as counter-examples, the value of the Courtenay "hate crime" incident is debatable... it could be argued that the main reason it received significant coverage is that there was a videotape.

But last month I watched a Vancouver news cast where the TV reporter, armed with nothing more than the information that the attacker was white and the victim was Asian, speculated that the attack was a hate crime. The coverage of this incident catches reporters red-handed, right here in Canada, attempting to pump up the news value of an incident by attaching a hate crime aspect to it, with nothing to support the allegation other than a white attacker and an Asian victim. So is Canadian media so much nobler and wiser than its American counterpart? I'm highly skeptical.

-k

{but providing any of this has been a monumental waste of my time, because it's been ignored as the thread deteriorates into yet another idiotic discussion of Lictor's theories about genetics.}

Edited November 15, 2009 by kimmy

[lictor616]

-k

{but providing any of this has been a monumental waste of my time, because it's been ignored as the thread deteriorates into yet another idiotic discussion of Lictor's theories about genetics.}

and I'm terribly sorry for taking the bate... I got distracted.. I should have known that it was merely an attempt at thread drift...

anyways its not as if this thread was going anywhere, how much do you wanna bet that Harnder and Dancer et al are going to ask us again for the proof of media bias, despite the devastating examples you just lifted..

call it willful obtuseness I suppose...

[Michael Hardner]

Race certainly has IQ implications, because race indicates certain types of gene clusters... that's what race is essentially, clusters of genetic material that expresses itself in very obvious and measurable ways.

Brain growth and IQ is genetically determined, Race differences in average IQ are genetic: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

we all know this. Likewise we know that different races have different genetic traits, contrary to the dogma and absurdity of liberal egalitarianism, race is not merely a skin tone... it affects all manner of developmental processes... there are many many studies who have established that the cranial sutures in black children "solidify" at earlier ages then whites... that's one way in which racial characteristics often express themselves. and black children also have very high rates of Familial idiopathic hypertrophic osteoarthropathy http://www.springerlink.com/content/nk2881q245n7l454/

Of course again racial taxonomy does not say that every black is doomed to have an IQ of 75, however reports such as the vehemently hated Bell Curve do measure the available data with very sound methodology to put forth suggestive estimates. And so far the conclusion reached by the bell curve still are largely correct... black children in the US for instance, are at the bottom rung academic achievement DESPITE preferential treatment and affirmative action and the no child left behind act...

have you looked at the READING ACHIEVEMENT GAP in black kids? Its nearly 3 grades lower!

and again, these stats are UNIVERSAL ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE BLACKS are, whether its haiti, South Africa,the Congo, south america, the US, the UK etc...

its the same today as it was thousands of years ago, you have to admit that there is no shortage of evidence.

Actually, these types of studies aren't widely acknowledged, as you seem to be saying they are. There are strong indications of problems with these studies. Trying to measure the intelligence of kids from South Africa apart from culture is nearly impossible, of course. A feature of proponents of these studies is they try to say things like "you have to admit there's no shortage of evidence" and "everybody knows that...".

It's not true. Isolating heritage as a determinant is very difficult, and fraught with problems. For some reason, you're not honest about how widely accepted such theories are.