No, you’re not allowed to notice those things!!!!
(media.patriots.win)
posted ago by tiredofwinning2020
+1999 / -3
Comments (82)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Ahh the double edged sword of collectivism.
Before they started bitching and moaning about race this, racism that, most people had no idea about these inconvenient statistics and scientific info.
Most people still don’t, and if you say anything, it gets ‘fact checked’ with shit people don’t read beyond the fact check, like “NO, it’s NOT TRUE that black people make up 13% of the population and commit 60% of the crime. Black people commit 59.85% of the crime. PANTS ON FIRE FALSE.”
There’s also a bunch of bullshit literature forming on how all the police and FBI stats on police violence against blacks are wrong, and as a defining criteria for that, they use social media posts as evidence that the occurrence rate has to be far higher. Dead serious. At the highest levels of ‘academics’ you’ll see this shit.
I heard another report like that regarding how Mercedes Benz is systemically racist because they deny black people car loans to buy their cars. Nobody gives a shit about your race when getting a car loan and it’s usually not mentioned anywhere, they care about whether you could realistically pay off the car. That’s why they’re not getting the loans. Nobody’s turning down Oprah for a car loan because she’s black.
Im gonna go ahead and bring up the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Blamed on greedy bankers - and I'm not disputing they exist - but fuelled in part by compulsory loans to 'minorities'. Said 'minorities' weren't getting awarded their 100% loan-to-value mortgages. This wasn't because the banks correctly predicted they wouldnt pay, but because, you guessed it: 'racism'.
The mortgage crisis is emblematic of what’s wrong with almost all leftist policies. They want black people to be able to afford homes in larger numbers. Great, in principle I don’t think anyone would be against that. Then the way they do it makes the problem worse by neglecting to remember it’s not going to occur in a vacuum and that other people are still going to act according to their own best interests.
It’s similar to a lot of western Big Pharma style medicine. You’ll get a blood test and maybe your blood sugar’s too high. Instead of advising or encouraging you to eat and live better to help with that, you’re given a pill or injection that causes other problems and never addressed the core issue of you living and eating in a way that’s not going well for your health. Now on top of that, we have people on the social justice end trying to argue that high blood sugar’s great and we should all get ‘da betus’ to be inclusive.
I love Thomas Sowell’s line regarding how there isn’t a conservative or republican party, just leftists and people that are sick of their childish pandering bullshit that always blows up in everyone’s face. All comes back to the core dichotomy of male and female thinking. Either one in the extreme is retarded. We need both working together. Leftism is all female thinking without any balance and shit blows up each time, then they attack male thinking to stop ‘the criticism’, which they view as the problem, not the problems themselves.
Going to have to disagree. I assure you people know.
Well we intuitively knew, but that was from our single perspective.
Content of Character > Color of Skin.
No matter what they say anything else is racist. Communists hate this because the "content of character" relies on the individual. Communists rely on collectivism.
Does that mean that the 13/52 statistic is "racist"? Despite describing reality?
Are there differences between judging an individual, and then seeing or observing differences between different groups?
It is according to the hate groups ACLU and SPLC and ADL, whose sole purpose is to incite unrest and suppress facts in favor of feelings.
My point is that communists want people divided into collectivist groups. Don't play the communists game. If a person wants fiscal conservative policies, individual liberties, a government that stays out of my house and wallet, and a government that will protect my right to say whatever I want and protect my family and property to the best of my ability, I want that person on my team. I don't care what "group" they come from.
Even refuting the points of the leftist by citing group statistics is submitting to playing their game. The Communists know their points aren't factually accurate. No person can look around the world and see how marginalized people are being treated and come to the conclusion that the USA is "the most racist nation". But if the communists can force you onto their battlefield, they have won.
It doesn't matter if you are arguing about:
The insidiousness of the Marxist is to get you to identify as part of the collective, and think in those terms.
I wish I could sticky this at the top of patriots.win in perpetuity.
So, your answer to the question "Does that mean that the 13/52 statistic is "racist"? Despite describing reality?" is... "yes" ??? Or is your answer "that's collectivist!" ??
Facts are racist and/or "collectivist" ???
And why would observing differences be the same as having fighting between groups?
Are you one of the kinds of persons that like to preach that other people should not be "collectivist", and then preach to those you consider your own that they should stick together?
My answer is facts are not racist, they are facts.
When someone calls you a racist, they don't really believe that is true because they expect you to then argue why you are not a racist. They set the battlefield. To engage the enemy when they have set the terrain is a losing position.
But why then would you write (at https://patriots.win/p/12hkTntQjm/x/c/4Dx6XGyXnpS ):
If you write that facts are not racist (which is something at least), does that mean that you consider some facts "collectivist" ?? Or is it somehow "collectivist" to refute someone's point by using relevant facts? Should truth be covered up, lest you "play into the hands of"/"playing the game of" "collectivists" ????
The Communists WANT us to have these arguments.
They want people spouting "black" facts against "white" facts. White individuals are X% more likely to have a degree. Blacks are responsible for X% of crime despite being X% of the population. Women make XX cents for every dollar a man makes. These might all be facts, but the implication is that these individuals make more money, or commit more crime, or have higher education BECAUSE of their race and/or sex. But the truth is there is a myriad factors that go into a person's education level, ability to generate income, or likelihood to commit crime that has nothing to do with race or sex.
The Communists WANT us to be spouting "facts" about different demographics back and forth because it makes people align into one of these groups that can then be pitted against one another.
He won't answer your question.
Cognitive dissonance.
Or what used to be called "intellectual dishonsesty"
He's at the very least not sincere and honest.
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
None of that relates to Collectivism.
What if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"? And you aren't the person I wrote to, so how can you be certain that you are using the same definition of "collectivism" (and why did you answer in place for him?)?
I respond because this is a forum and everybody can respond to comments and posts. That is normal. If you want the other person to respond, you'll have to settle with hoping he will.
Well, I'd say duh' of course you want a white person in a majority white country as a leader, especially the highest office. This should be barely controversial in Europe. As of general perception, a tiny minority of people would be outraged and hysterical, and a plurality would feel forced to condemn it ritually because of optics.
The main difference in Individualism and Collectivism is that one side argues to sacrifice the individual and its rights and liberties for the sake of the higher good (the group, the ideology, the deity), and the other trusts the individual to make best choices if they are left to it - or rather assumes that best choices are overall made if that happens.
Mere hierarchy and leadership are social structures that occur naturally, basically everywhere where humans interact. This is not rooted in ideological beliefs and start even in family units.
Given that you distract from it on purpose and do not address it, I repeat:
And you aren't the person I wrote to, so how can you be certain that you are using the same definition of "collectivism" (and why did you answer in place for him?)?
And as for your own definitions of "individualism" and "collectivism", is it for instance possible to have a system where people have great individual freedom and also great individual responsibility (both to themselves and overall), but at the same very much also have duties overall? Is it possible to have a system that is very "individualist" and also "collectivist"? Are your definitions even coherent and meaningful?
And given the rest of your comment, you aren't even describing or treating the original quotation accurately or meaningfully, or answering the questions meaningfully. So I repeat it here (from https://patriots.win/p/12hkTntQjm/x/c/4Dx6XGv8t3G ):
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
And what if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"?
Never claimed that. In fact I contest some definitions of these concepts and I think finding a proper definition is in itself a minor challenge.
Yes. Freedom is achieved by taking responsibility for your own life. And in order to be a functional member of society, you'll have to make valuable contributions to it. If you want to maintain said liberties, you'll also have to contribute to that cause in various ways.
This is where the definitions matter. There is a misconception that Individualism means fractured, isolated people wrangling with bears in the woods, or indulging in pure selfishness in their careers. But that's the Collectivists' biased view. Heavily individualist societies rely and benefit from social cohesion, cooperation and competition, it's just they don't use force to impose their way of life upon others. I think drug usage is degenerate and pathetic. But I understand that some artists draw great inspiration from that. Another important aspect is that of course Individualists seek to protect their society and their people. And it's preferable to have people do it voluntarily rather than forced by government.
The distinction between Individualism and Collectivism is NOT the size of the groups. It defines how people treat each other and if they want to use force against each other or not.
I did. That does not make him a Collectivist. It takes a little more than just a tiny quote to judge that. Being individualist and collectivist is a matter of magnitude anyway, and many - if not most people are right in the middle.
So you aren't sincere at all, and you confuse matters on purpose among other tactics and tricks.
Except you 100% didn't, and there is no doubt about that, and you ought to know that well (and you might well be fully aware of that).
And if a "functional member of society" fails that responsibility, and the society then punishes that member for it, does that mean that this society is "collectivist"? What if the society decides on some rules some way, some members disagrees with it, and yet are punished for it for failing to follow those rules? Is it then "collectivist"? Etc. etc. etc. You don't seem to even attempt to think through things at all, just stringing things together and hope something sticks. Unless of course you are directly lying and pretending among other aspects. Your definitions here are not coherent and meaningful, and I am not at all convinced that you believe yourself that they are coherent, consistent and meaningful. And I was asking the original commenter and according to his definitions...
And again, since it is still fully relevant as I asked the original commenter about and which you intentionally confused and distracted reg., I repeat it here (from https://patriots.win/p/12hkTntQjm/x/c/4Dx6XGv8t3G ):
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" (according to the definitions and arguments used by the original commenter which I asked) ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
And what if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same? Would that person then be "collectivist"?
Don't bother. You are not discussing this with honest people.
You are right that it turns out that they are not honest, but I still think that the debate has to be engaged in for multiple different reasons. I don't expect others to do this, but still.
They did this same thing in Israel when I toured it. They tried to claim that being Jewish was a religion when faced with stereotypical big nose jew drawings but then claim that killing them was wiping out an ethnic group.
Either you're an ethnic group who can be stereotyped or your not, but you can't have it both ways
Oh man, you are a bit too rational for this world, watch out you might get in trouble for thinking.
It depends. They technically are and aren't an Ethnic Group. Yiddish Speaking Jews (Predominantly German) were nearly completely wiped out. The Germans treated Jews as an Ethnic Group, but Countries like Poland just saw Jews as another Religion.
But I don't think Jews are comparable to African Americans.
Actually, Jewish ethnic groups all have genetic features that can be measured like all other ethnic groups. Those gene testing companies (like 23andMe) absolutely list Jewish as one of your ethnicities if you have it in you.
But it is most definitely a Religion, the Ethnic Group would be better referred to as Hebrew.
No, it's definitely both, Jews would even tell you the same. Hebrew is a subset of Semitic, and Jewish is a subset of Hebrew.
There was an article going around last month asking people to stop counting the number of Jews in Biden's cabinet.
Straight Facts = Kryptonite to a Commie
Imagine a famous white person saying their whiteness defines them and they are proud of their culture and innovation...
CANCELED
Maybe they should? That's the logical conclusion for all this stuff anyways.
You've all had entirely too much to think! Now follow these nice men to the van outside and stop asking questions. They'll fix what's wrong with you.
I mean I think it's great that people are proud of themselves and some cultural/background affiliations they might have (I have the same). But to identify yourself with everyone that shares the same skin color as you (and just that, not all of the other aspects) just seems absurd to me. And yeah it's fucking stupid, but sure go ahead if you want to be completely identified with everyone that shares some level of pigmentation in your skin go ahead. It's absolutely stupid. People from vastly different countries, religions and backgrounds happen do share the same gradation of pigment with you.... and you chose that to be the identifying factor?? Yeah sure, then go and fucking own it, and don't mind me bringing up the actual factual statistics, which I don't think apply necessarily to you, but apparently you do.
Great comic. Illustrates exactly how I think about all this woke race bullshit.
Evolution affects more than just melanin
What are your thoughts on Clarence Thomas and this quotation from him? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
Also, what about those that would group not under skin color, but under people with strong related genes, such as most Sub-Saharan Africans in one broader group, people of European descent in another, East Asians in yet another, etc.? Which is for instance used in criminal investigations, where investigators can determine such groups purely by looking at the skeleton of a victim (they can also determine gender by looking at such skeletons). Something which also indicates whether people will have complications reg. which variations of medicine. And then there is the IQ differences between different people, even after adjusting for socio-economic factors. Etc.
And do you consider stuff like 13/52 to be something arbitrary and irrelevant?
Hey your username is invalid now that you changed your password. Stop oppressing me by forcing me to show credentials!
I didn't change my password, some stupid clown did. But I'm still logged in on this browser via cookies, so I keep it going while it lasts...
This.
This is fantastic.
They are also the most dependent on government handouts
DESPITE
The idea that all humans have exactly the same mental capacity, physical capacity, proclivity for crime, etc., is so fucking dumb I can't believe anyone buys it.
The further idea that there is no noticeable race-correlated trend with respect to the above is even fucking dumber. Like, do you not know about horse breeds or dog breeds?
Lastly, the idea that any human being should have any fewer rights owing to his reduced capacity is abhorrent. It's also not being put forth anywhere on this site, of course.
Based.
"Political correctness is a war on noticing."
Just say "I'd rather not hold you personally responsible for the crimes, degeneracy, and evil perpetrated by some people who have some physical features similar to you.... but if you insist..."
I now want to ask when someone who responds "then you don't see me" when I say "I try not to see color" with "what exactly do you want me to assume about you based on your skin color? Do you want me to assume all the negative stereotypes associated with it and pity you???"
I love when I hear people talk about “all white people are racist” or “all white people do this” all while arguing that “white people” see black people as “all the same”. So what we are saying is all whites are the same yet blacks are all unique individuals and shouldn’t be thought of as a group unless it benefits that group. So if you point out that “blacks” commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes you are a racist. Mention that “blacks” hold fewer say cabinet positions then “whites” we get this is unfair we need more blacks!
Think about it.
To identify as a group (not with one, as one) like this means giving up individuality.
Yep exactly; and you can’t have the good without the bad of said group. I’ll more than happily grant you the respect as an individual if you so seek that, but not if you are the group.
Is the point that his hand is a penis?
Statistics are often a wonderful way of finding out the answers to questions you didn't actually want people to know the answers to. Kinda like that 13/50 statistic.
Now, the part where racism comes in is when you ask why. If the answer is that there is a cultural bias in favor of criminal activity and drug use which is perpetuated by entertainment and music specifically marketed toward the group, then I'd say you're in the clear where the racism accusations start flying. If you actually believe that there's something genetic in that predisposition, then I'd say you might be a racist.
I have no doubt it’s cultural. It’s also cultural to have a significantly lower number of involved fathers thus leading to boys looking to the streets to be their roll models.
If we're being real, 13/52 should be all the evidence we need to end this failed experiment.
You literally commit MOST OF THE MURDERS IN THE COUNTRY
Whoa that's raciss--SHUT THE FUCK UP. INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE DYING. WE ARE WELL PAST TRYING NOT TO OFFEND PEOPLE. YOU ARE SACRIFICING PEOPLE'S ACTUAL LIVES FOR SHORT TERM FEELINGS. YOU ARE DAMNING HUMANITY SO THAT YOU CAN CALL OTHER PEOPLE RACIST. Unreal.
This is reeeeeeeeeeeeessist
I forgot, horrible single parent household rates, most likely the predominant factor that leads to pretty much all of the other major issues plaguing black Americans. Certainly not racism because when double parent household rates were much better and when racism was also much worse, black Americans were doing much better in almost every measurable way.
That's actually a myth. I invite you to look at the crime rate in the late 1960s, it was as high as it is now. Pre-segregation the crime rate was "low" because cops didn't police those communities. After desegregation they started to police them (as crime against whites increased) and the crime rate "skyrocketed" a few hundred percent.
Interesting. Depressing but very/extremely important and significant if true.
Perhaps the crime rate is a myth but the school performance is not.
Black children adopted and raised by wealthy white people had an average adult IQ 17 points lower than adopted white children
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study#Results
People will perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to explain why genetics couldn't possibly be the cause of that, but none of those mental gymnastics seem to address why children with one white parent and one black parent have average scores right in the middle of the black averages and the white averages.
Based on my scanning of the media, they adopted also seem to kill the adoptive parents on a pretty regular basis.
By performance, do you mean graduating at a rate at half of what whites were? https://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec04.pdf
Also, although exact grades aren't reported, subject proficiency is toward the bottom of the PDF. You'll see there are significant differences. Sorry man, although not politically correct to say, intelligence and behavior is primarily genetic. Civic nationalism is a lie.
And the single parent household rate began increasing after who? did what?
Something something… welfare
We have a winner ladies and gentleman.
"The culprit is, in part, the welfare system itself, which discourages work and penalizes marriage. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of American children were born outside marriage. Today the number is 41 percent. The collapse of marriage is the main cause of child poverty today."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2014/03/19/the-war-on-poverty-wasnt-a-failure-it-was-a-catastrophe/?sh=416245786f49
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-war-poverty-50-years-failure
lol, now do one for another group, you know which one.