Astonishing Lie by Hillary regarding Trump "Choke"
On Sat Jan 14 2017 19:09:16 -1900 "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com> wrote:
Racist feelings are not love. They are pure hate and intolerance.
Racism is the classification of people by race. You, Cecilia, are a racist. Just like good ol' James.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 08:09:25PM -0000, Big 'Uns wrote:
On Sat Jan 14 2017 19:09:16 -1900 "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com> wrote:
Racist feelings are not love. They are pure hate and intolerance.
Racism is the classification of people by race.
You, Cecilia, are a racist.
Just like good ol' James.
Racist here, and proud of it! Discriminator, and proud of it! Deny our differences (race traits), and deny even our inner faculties (discrimination), and we end up with the shitty world we now have.
On 01/15/2017 01:09 PM, Big 'Uns wrote:
On Sat Jan 14 2017 19:09:16 -1900 "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com> wrote:
Racist feelings are not love. They are pure hate and intolerance.
Racism is the classification of people by race.
It's more than that. It's not even clear that there are distinct races. While there are still a few isolated populations, most are intermixed. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are races. Testing reveals all sorts of differences among populations, and some of those persist after aggregation by race. However, it's nontrivial to distinguish mental differences from cultural differences. And even if you manage that, differences are generally minor, small shifts in mean values, and small differences in distribution widths and/or asymmetry. But arguably, none of that is racist. What's racist is judging someone, based on race. It's unreliable. First, because reliably determining someone's race is nontrivial. And second, because differences between races are small, and distributions are broad.
You, Cecilia, are a racist.
Well, she's judging people based on their stated opinions. Not on their race. Many of the racist assholes under discussion are white. But we could just as easily be discussing other sorts of racist assholes.
Just like good ol' James.
Well, he's plainly a racist. Or posing as one, to upset some of us.
On 1/16/2017 11:44 AM, Mirimir wrote:
It's not even clear that there are distinct races.
Races are by definition not distinct. If they were truly distinct, they would by definition be species, not races. Races are, as Darwin explained, the origin of species. Because fertility between kinds gradually diminishes as they become more and more different, and even radically different kinds often have some limited interfertility, there is no sharp line between a species difference and a race difference. But if interfertility is definitely zero (which is less common than you would think - you can get some mighty surprising hybrids) then it is definitely a species difference. As Darwin explained, the origin of species is that different races are exposed to different selective pressures, and over time tend to become more different, resulting in gradual diminution of interbreeding and interfertility. Darwin's account of speciation - that speciation is usually and primarily sympatric - has been confirmed by studies of speciation in fish, in particular sticklebacks, and studies of speciation in foraminifera. The counter theory is Gould's punctuated equilibrium, which is the scientific justification for your pseudo scientific babble. Gould invented punctuated equilibrium in order to have a pseudo scientific theory proving that all men are created equal, since Darwin's account of speciation implies that the processes that create races create inequality. So people looked into Gould's theory, and it was disconfirmed, and Darwin's horribly racist account of speciation (that sympatric speciation is normal, gradual, common, and happening everywhere all the time) confirmed - at least for numerous non mammalian kinds.
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:20:39 +1000 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 1/16/2017 11:44 AM, Mirimir wrote:
It's not even clear that there are distinct races.
Races are by definition not distinct. If they were truly distinct, they would by definition be species, not races.
No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low. That is you can't you know tune in but it's all right, that is I think it's not too bad. Always, no sometimes, think it's me, but you know I know when it's a dream. I think I know I mean a 'Yes' but it's all wrong, that is I think I disagree.
On 1/16/2017 11:44 AM, Mirimir wrote:
What's racist is judging someone, based on race. It's unreliable. First, because reliably determining someone's race is nontrivial.
It is a lot easier, and a lot more reliable, to determine someone's race, than to determine their character. And their race often gives a good enough prediction of certain important aspects of their character. In particular, in the events leading to the mortgage meltdown, race was a better predictor of propensity to default on one's mortgage than any of the permissible credit characteristics. You are walking down a dark street. Two other people are also walking down that street. One is a black male, one is a white male. The black male is quite unlikely to murder you. But if you are worried about being murdered, and you probably should be, he is one hell of a lot more likely to murder you than the white male. About thirteen times more likely in fact. Similarly, if you are a banker who is worried that someone is going to blow off his mortgage ... well doubtless there are a lot of blacks, probably most of those blacks with good credit ratings, who will not blow off their mortgage. But if someone is black with a good credit rating, he is one hell of a lot more likely to blow off his mortgage than someone who is white with a good credit rating. The more you know about a debtor, the less is race adds to accuracy of predicting the likelihood of default. But even if you have complete credit data, race is still substantially predictive. The chance of a white man and a black man with equal credit ratings defaulting on a mortgage is far from equal. Similarly, if a white man and a black man both have long and horrible criminal records, they are about equally likely to murder you. But if a white man and a black man both have minor criminal records, the chance that the black man will go on to commit murder is far from equal.
On 01/15/2017 10:39 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
On 1/16/2017 11:44 AM, Mirimir wrote:
What's racist is judging someone, based on race. It's unreliable. First, because reliably determining someone's race is nontrivial.
It is a lot easier, and a lot more reliable, to determine someone's race, than to determine their character. And their race often gives a good enough prediction of certain important aspects of their character.
In particular, in the events leading to the mortgage meltdown, race was a better predictor of propensity to default on one's mortgage than any of the permissible credit characteristics.
You are walking down a dark street. Two other people are also walking down that street. One is a black male, one is a white male. The black male is quite unlikely to murder you. But if you are worried about being murdered, and you probably should be, he is one hell of a lot more likely to murder you than the white male. About thirteen times more likely in fact.
Similarly, if you are a banker who is worried that someone is going to blow off his mortgage ... well doubtless there are a lot of blacks, probably most of those blacks with good credit ratings, who will not blow off their mortgage. But if someone is black with a good credit rating, he is one hell of a lot more likely to blow off his mortgage than someone who is white with a good credit rating.
The more you know about a debtor, the less is race adds to accuracy of predicting the likelihood of default. But even if you have complete credit data, race is still substantially predictive. The chance of a white man and a black man with equal credit ratings defaulting on a mortgage is far from equal.
Similarly, if a white man and a black man both have long and horrible criminal records, they are about equally likely to murder you. But if a white man and a black man both have minor criminal records, the chance that the black man will go on to commit murder is far from equal.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 06:44:04PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
On 01/15/2017 01:09 PM, Big 'Uns wrote:
On Sat Jan 14 2017 19:09:16 -1900 "Cecilia Tanaka" <cecilia.tanaka at gmail.com> wrote:
Racist feelings are not love. They are pure hate and intolerance.
Racism is the classification of people by race.
It's more than that. It's not even clear that there are distinct races. While there are still a few isolated populations, most are intermixed. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that there are races.
Testing reveals all sorts of differences among populations, and some of those persist after aggregation by race. However, it's nontrivial to distinguish mental differences from cultural differences. And even if you manage that, differences are generally minor, small shifts in mean values, and small differences in distribution widths and/or asymmetry.
But arguably, none of that is racist. What's racist is judging someone, based on race. It's unreliable. First, because reliably determining someone's race is nontrivial. And second, because differences between races are small, and distributions are broad.
You, Cecilia, are a racist.
Well, she's judging people based on their stated opinions. Not on their race. Many of the racist assholes under discussion are white. But we could just as easily be discussing other sorts of racist assholes.
Just like good ol' James.
Well, he's plainly a racist. Or posing as one, to upset some of us.
Well ... see attached. Some of us would beg to differ with you "Mirimir".
participants (6)
-
Big 'Uns -
James A. Donald -
juan -
Marina Brown -
Mirimir -
Zenaan Harkness