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.
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.
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:
Proletariat vs. Bourgeoisie
White vs Black
Workers vs Bosses
Tenants vs Land Lords
Oppressed vs Oppressor
The insidiousness of the Marxist is to get you to identify as part of the collective, and think in those terms.
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!" ??
Even refuting the points of the leftist by citing group statistics is submitting to playing their game.
Facts are racist and/or "collectivist" ???
And why would observing differences be the same as having fighting between groups?
The insidiousness of the Marxist is to get you to identify as part of the collective, and think in those terms.
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?
Does that mean that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas is a "collectivist" ? (from https://archive.li/pS4ck ):
"These guys are sitting there watching the destruction of our race while arguing about Ronald Reagan," Thomas said. "Ronald Reagan isn't the problem. Former president Jimmy Carter was not the problem. The lack of black leadership is the problem."
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.
What if a "white" person (or person of European descent) said the same?
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.
Would that person then be "collectivist"?
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.
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?
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.