Why are most of the artists in the USA democrats?

[Lhancelot]

I just read about George RR Martin and he is a staunch democrat, even fully backed Hillary in 2016. he even criticizes Trump to this day.

This made me think on how nearly every writer, actor, actress, basically every artist I read about seems to be a democrat or socialist that leans to the left.

Why is this?

[Cecily]

You need a soul to be creative.

[Lhancelot]

You need a soul to be creative.

Damn. that's a harsh statement but there's some truth to it.

[skarlorn]

Most celeb artists also live in highly populated coastal cities which are all left leaning.

[Izmael]

You are mistaking "being" for "claiming to be".

[loramin]

Liberals want to change things for the better, conservatives want to make things go back to the way they were (ostensibly for the better). Most artists want to make the world a better place, ergo most are liberals. But there are always exceptions that prove the rule, like say Alan Moore.

If you picked a job that employs people who want to change things back to the way they used to be, like say a priest or coal miner, you'd find a lot more conservatives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/03/why-your-flight-attendant-is-probably-a-democrat/

[Pokesan]

they like pizza. they like it!

[Pokesan]

the actual answer is pandering to the audience who buys their stuff (:

[Lhancelot]

the actual answer is pandering to the audience who buys their stuff (:

See that's not true, you know that. :D

In fact I often wonder what it must be like for far right conservatives who love a particular artist or musician only to find that the artist is a complete liberal or even worse a socialist commie.

Music groups like Tool used to have a wide range of fans and it's a fact Maynard is quite liberal-minded. This must really be disappointing to those who loved Tool only to find out Maynard is a raging liberal that constantly makes fun of Trump.

There are tons of examples other than Tool of course. I wonder if people disown their passions and love of an artist or music group when they find their political ideology doesn't correlate?

Personally I don't care what political group a musician follows I listen to music strictly for how it sounds to me, but I could see how some bitter angry people could easily start hating an artist due to not sharing political ideologies with them.

[fash]

because both are strongly correlated to trait openness

[Nibblewitz]

Liberals tend to be idealists. They get tricked into voting for fake progressives (democrat candidates) who prefer the status quo but will say anything to get the vote.

Edit - artists were the original liberals in any society; my point seemed out of context.

[branamil]

Because conservatism in the US is an anti-science religious and racist cult. Not exactly the breeding grounds for creativity and the arts.

[loramin]

They get tricked into voting for fake progressives (democrat candidates) who prefer the status quo but will say anything to get the vote.

That's not a liberal thing, that's a politics thing. All politicians say whatever they can to get elected, and most voters (on either side) buy it hook line and sinker.

[JurisDictum]

Because pop media stars -- even RR Martin -- are trying to be a cool and popular artist. So they go with what is cool and popular politically. Sometimes, while they are doing this they actually get interested in politics and learn some shit and form an actual opinion. But this is rare.

Being a Socialist is cool. It makes you edgy and more interesting than other people. You get to be leftwing without being a pussy. As long as no one finds out your gay and you don't sound like a total flamer -- you can hang on to that white male macho shit.

[Patriam1066]

Because conservatism in the US is an anti-science religious and racist cult. Not exactly the breeding grounds for creativity and the arts.

Nah tons of conservatives believe in science. We'd just rather the planet burn than share it with the obese or useless

[Csihar]

because both are strongly correlated to trait openness

This. Natural temperant of people leading them both to liberal politics and 'the arts'. That eventually led to a left-leaning subculture surrounding the arts, which breeds further left-wingers.

Could add counter-culture to it as well. Going into 'the arts' as a way of rebelling against their conversative parents and their controlling ways and linear lifepath that's been set from day one.

JurisDictum's point is also valid.

A lot of artists are closeted right-wingers because there tends to be a backlash against right-wingers when they come out of the closet. Related to JurisDictum's point.

Kind of like when I found out last year that Ted Nugent voted Republican. Not The Nuge, man!

So a bunch of reasons.

[Lammy]

You obv never met Mr. Clint Eastwood

[Lhancelot]

You obv never met Mr. Clint Eastwood

I love Clint Eastwood.

I enjoy his acting, movie directing, and really respect the fact he also is a music composer amongst other things not mentioned.

Still he is an exception, as the fact of the matter is the majority of artists tend to lean left.

[Lhancelot]

Kind of like when I found out last year that Ted Nugent voted Republican. Not The Nuge, man!

Wow, you need to keep up on your pop culture! It's been a known fact Ted has been a raving conservative for years.

You don't recall his mad ravings about Obama all those years?

[Ket]

Because conservatism in the US is an anti-science religious and racist cult. Not exactly the breeding grounds for creativity and the arts.

Not disagreeing, but we're both guilty of the anti-science bullshit. The Anti-Vaxxers are predominantly left leaning.

[mickmoranis]

Not disagreeing, but we're both guilty of the anti-science bullshit. The Anti-Vaxxers are predominantly left leaning.

I mean look at the "third" party for the left, their leader jill stein is an anti-vaxxer...

Although she is because of libertarian ideology... are the libtarians anti-vaxx? I mean most of them are, but are thier leadership?

I know a lot of libertarians that are anti-vaxx. But not as many lefties.

However I Know more lefties that are staunchly anti, anti-vaxx than I do righties.... so its a bit muddy.

[mickmoranis]

I just read about George RR Martin and he is a staunch democrat, even fully backed Hillary in 2016. he even criticizes Trump to this day.

This made me think on how nearly every writer, actor, actress, basically every artist I read about seems to be a democrat or socialist that leans to the left.

Why is this?

Hitler and bush are both excelent painters.

The right just realizes that you can be both an artist AND a contributing member of society at the same time.

/thread

[maskedmelon]

because both are strongly correlated to trait openness

this, but also because creative expression is also associated with neuroticism and is often unproductive in any practical sense putting it at odds with conscientiousness, in which conservatives often rank higher, likely because views on individual responsibility.

Basically, you aren't going to create anything if you aren't curious, afforded ample free time or desperate for change ^^

[Csihar]

Wow, you need to keep up on your pop culture! It's been a known fact Ted has been a raving conservative for years.

You don't recall his mad ravings about Obama all those years?

Was a joke :)

[Lhancelot]

this, but also because creative expression is also associated with neuroticism and is often unproductive in any practical sense putting it at odds with conscientiousness, in which conservatives often rank higher, likely because views on individual responsibility.

Basically, you aren't going to create anything if you aren't curious, afforded ample free time or desperate for change ^^

That's probably the most sensible explanation so far.

[Lhancelot]

Was a joke :)

Dang, sometimes sarcasm is missed in the text. :D

[Rader]

I just read about George RR Martin and he is a staunch democrat, even fully backed Hillary in 2016. he even criticizes Trump to this day.

This made me think on how nearly every writer, actor, actress, basically every artist I read about seems to be a democrat or socialist that leans to the left.

Why is this?

Because they want to make money and get hired for new roles in the future. Conservative actors get blacklisted, so they learn to lie or STFU.

[JurisDictum]

Because they want to make money and get hired for new roles in the future. Conservative actors get blacklisted, so they learn to lie or STFU.

Only conservatives that mouth off a lot about gays usually. It's about the gay thing. Hollywood = gay or gay-friendly. The Republican party has only just softened a bit on the LGBT marriage issue...they are still pretty openly anti-trans.

So the chickens came home to roost on that. You got the trailer trash vote but you lost Hollywood. And Hollywood is a big gay powerful friend.

[Lhancelot]

So the chickens came home to roost on that. You got the trailer trash vote but you lost Hollywood. And Hollywood is a big gay powerful friend.

Exactly.

How are you going to openly hate gays/trans then expect to be welcomed into one of the most gay/trans friendly social groups on the planet?

It has nothing to do with being conservative, it has everything to do with being a close-minded bigot.

[mickmoranis]

Exactly.

How are you going to openly hate gays/trans then expect to be welcomed into one of the most gay/trans friendly social groups on the planet?

It has nothing to do with being conservative, it has everything to do with being a close-minded bigot.

Like, who's going to buy art...? A lefty libcuck who prances around like a fairy?

Or someone who tills the land and feeds the nation?

[Lhancelot]

Like, who's going to buy art...? A lefty libcuck who prances around like a fairy?

Or someone who tills the land and feeds the nation?

People can till lands and feed the nation all the while enjoying art and not being close-minded and bigoted.

[loramin]

It has nothing to do with being conservative, it has everything to do with being a close-minded bigot.

The two are connected though. Conservatism (or liberalism for that matter) does not run skin deep. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican is a political choice, but whether you are a conservative or liberal is based on who you are.

This matters, because of what defines conservatives: fear and disgust. Here's a quick sampling of quotes about recent research, but you can find a lot more if you look:

political conservatives have a “negativity bias,” meaning that they are physiologically more attuned to negative (threatening, disgusting) stimuli in their environments

In other words, the conservative ideology, and especially one of its major facets—centered on a strong military, tough law enforcement, resistance to immigration, widespread availability of guns—would seem well tailored for an underlying, threat-oriented biology.

conservatives were far more likely to believe that the false hazard warnings were true.

Science! In other words there are core elements of what it means to be conservative/liberal, and they are so woven in to who people are that:

When they figured out the pattern, the lead scientist told the media, "A single disgusting image was sufficient to predict each subject's political orientation."

Now to get back to the main point ... do you see why it might not be a coincidence that a group of people who's core defining political attributes are "fear and disgust" might have more close-minded bigots?


P.S. I am not trying to say liberals are better than conservatives, or that all conservatives are bigots. Liberals have their own "psych profile" and flaws too. All I'm saying is that when it comes to close-minded bigotry, that particular flaw has a strong connection to one's conservativeness ... which really shouldn't surprise anyone, because how many Democrat KKK members do you know of?

[Rader]

The two are connected though. Conservatism (or liberalism for that matter) does not run skin deep. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican is a political choice, but whether you are a conservative or liberal is based on who you are.

This matters, because of what defines conservatives: fear and disgust. Here's a quick sampling of quotes about recent research, but you can find a lot more if you look:







Science! In other words there are core elements of what it means to be conservative/liberal, and they are so woven in to who people are that:



Now to get back to the main point ... do you see why it might not be a coincidence that a group of people who's core defining political attributes are "fear and disgust" might have more close-minded bigots?


P.S. I am not trying to say liberals are better than conservatives, or that all conservatives are bigots. Liberals have their own "psych profile" and flaws too. All I'm saying is that when it comes to close-minded bigotry, that particular flaw has a strong connection to one's conservativeness ... which really shouldn't surprise anyone, because how many Democrat KKK members do you know of?

News flash, fuckface, KKK was created by Democrats.

[loramin]

News flash, fuckface, KKK was created by Democrats.

Back when they were the conservative party; clearly I meant now.

[Rader]

Back when they were the conservative party; clearly I meant now.

And who are the biggest modern day racists? Black Lies Matter & Antifa, both alt-left paragons of intolerance.

[Lulz~Sect]

Really hate walking into my neighborhood studios seeing talented artists and then they open their mouths

Worst offenders are the ones that made it and selling “lifestyle” art

[loramin]

And who are the biggest modern day racists? Black Lies Matter & Antifa, both alt-left paragons of intolerance.

Your irrational lashing out with anger and fear (of organizations who want nothing more than equality for all people ... if you can even count Antifa as an "organization") exemplifies everything I just said about fear, disgust, and conservatives.

[mickmoranis]

People can till lands and feed the nation all the while enjoying art and not being close-minded and bigoted.

This is classic liberalism.

"Why don't republicans just be cucks like us?"

[Rader]

Your irrational lashing out with anger and fear (of organizations who want nothing more than equality for all people ... if you can even count Antifa as an "organization") exemplifies everything I just said about fear, disgust, and conservatives.

Advocating murder is not cool, pal. Your calling BLM a force for equality exposes you as an idiot.

[Nibblewitz]

The original motives of BLM were great, but the movement was hijacked by the loudest and most ignorant voices.

[Lulz~Sect]

What the matter anon? Scared of a stronk independent woman?
https://i.imgur.com/5LlnrRi.jpg

[loramin]

Advocating murder is not cool, pal. Your calling BLM a force for equality exposes you as an idiot.

The original motives of BLM were great, but the movement was hijacked by the loudest and most ignorant voices.

Ok so either ...

A) Millions of people across the country came together to fight a documented problem (systematic abuse of minorities by police) and then ... magically all those millions of people got hoodwinked by a few loud and ignorant voices, and now they're all hateful violent people

or ...

B) Millions of people across the country came together to fight a documented problem (systematic abuse of minorities by police) and then ... a bunch of fearful conservatives, who by nature react against change (and particularly their loss of privilege), believed whatever nonsense Fox News used to scare them into thinking a peaceful rights movement was some hateful violent mob

I wonder which is more likely?

[Raavak]

Traditionally artists and the arts are supported by the rich and/or government, which puts them in the statist camp.

[Raavak]

A) Millions...I don't think this means what you think it means.

[hyejin]

Traditionally artists and the arts are supported by the rich and/or government, which puts them in the statist camp.

http://i.imgur.com/mDHHY1j.gif

[Lhancelot]

This is classic liberalism.

"Why don't republicans just be cucks like us?"

How Mick?

I said, 'People can till lands and feed the nation all the while enjoying art and not being close-minded and bigoted.'

How is this classic liberalism by saying people can be responsible citizens, work hard, enjoy art all the while not being close-minded or bigoted?

How is having these traits being a cuck? Losing me here tbh.

[Lhancelot]

Ok so either ...

A) Millions of people across the country came together to fight a documented problem (systematic abuse of minorities by police) and then ... magically all those millions of people got hoodwinked by a few loud and ignorant voices, and now they're all hateful violent people

or ...

B) Millions of people across the country came together to fight a documented problem (systematic abuse of minorities by police) and then ... a bunch of fearful conservatives, who by nature react against change (and particularly their loss of privilege), believed whatever nonsense Fox News used to scare them into thinking a peaceful rights movement was some hateful violent mob

I wonder which is more likely?

But you can't deny that some people use this platform as a platform for hate and violence. I think many BLM supporters are members for good reason. I also believe there are some that use that platform to carry out anarchy and create dissension in the country. Some within the group are probably even government operatives.

It's really no different than how some white supremacists use Trump's poorly worded and presented speeches to justify their own violence and hate. Just because someone voted for trump doesn't mean they are racists, or that they are white supremacists.

I find Trump moronic and childlike, but never viewed him as a white supremacist or someone that supported white supremacy and neither did the entire country till he became president. The entire time this muppet was on TV doing The Apprentice, no one EVER said he was a white supremacist either. Suddenly now though, the common narrative of the far left is Trump is a white supremacist. How did he operate for so long with TV shows, with business ventures and go unnoticed as this supposed raving supremacist?

I am just saying different groups can take a platform and champion it as their own and manipulate what it originally stood for.

The US Government also has a history of doing this within our own country by the way, infiltrating political parties/social progressive groups and sowing seeds of dissension with lies creating distrust within as well as altering the perception of that groups actual meaning to those outside the group. Hihi COINTELPRO?

I honestly believe both sides of extremists, liberal and conservatives are most easily swayed by operations like COINTELPRO because they refuse to listen to one another instead they want to prove they are right and the other side is wrong. It's easy to manipulate people when you simply tell them what they want to hear in the first place.

[Rader]

Ok so either ...

A) Millions of people across the country came together to fight a documented problem (systematic abuse of minorities by police) and then ... magically all those millions of people got hoodwinked by a few loud and ignorant voices, and now they're all hateful violent people

or ...

B) Millions of people across the country came together to fight a documented problem (systematic abuse of minorities by police) and then ... a bunch of fearful conservatives, who by nature react against change (and particularly their loss of privilege), believed whatever nonsense Fox News used to scare them into thinking a peaceful rights movement was some hateful violent mob

I wonder which is more likely?

Libturdology 101: When you start to lose an argument, mention Fox News.

[hyejin]

Is libturd a parallel development to libtard, or serial after it?

[Lhancelot]

Is libturd a parallel development to libtard, or serial after it?

I think it's considered even worse to be a "libturd" than a "libtard" but I could be wrong. We need a far right neocon extremist to clear this up.

[maskedmelon]

Is libturd a parallel development to libtard, or serial after it?

id wager it a bastard heir to libtard. it probably arose from someone hearing it incorrectly. not an authority and political slurs though ^^

to avoid future confusion though, i would suggest pronouncing libtard as leeb-tard to nudge it phonetically closer to retard, upping the chances that the correct spelling will be understood by positive association in the listener's mind.

[loramin]

Libturdology 101: When you start to lose an argument, mention Fox News.

Dude you're as bad as Mick. Fox news was only tangentially related: stop trying to change the subject.

[maskedmelon]

*quietly stuffs the discreetly issued headpat into a small basket fulla other retracted posts*

[loramin]

Traditionally artists and the arts are supported by the rich and/or government, which puts them in the statist camp.

No one was talking about artists and statism, they were talking about artists and liberalism (and the lack of conservative artists). Statism ("the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy") isn't about being liberal or conservative; in fact historically both have been on both sides.

[loramin]

*quietly stuffs the discreetly issued headpat into a small basket fulla other retracted posts*

Sorry, I wasn't sure if I was talking about the right melon (I can't tell your two accounts apart anymore) so I deleted my comment to avoid speaking about the wrong one.

[mickmoranis]

Dude you're as bad as Mick. Fox news was only tangentially related: stop trying to change the subject.

Fox news IS art for one thing and if you look at the current state of american media you could say the same about the tentpoll "non fake" news outlets.

Look at CNN, NYT, NYP, even TIME is all creating a narrative worthy of the fiction section at a library, for every topic you can imagine.

Its basically related to drug use as it pertains to being creative about whether you're doing it to expand your mind or whether youre doing it to heal your wounds. Conservatives tend to do drugs to relax after a hard day of work, (mainly alcohol because they are law abiding citizens) while libs will use drugs to expand their minds and open up their consciousness, then use what they saw under the psychedelics to either justify political ideology or create art, or most often combining the two.

[Raavak]

Statism ("the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy") isn't about being liberal or conservative; in fact historically both have been on both sides.You're right ! You get a gold star you teachers pet.

The reason Hollywood is so liberal is because they are a bunch of damn dirty jews. I should know, I'm a jew.

[loramin]

Conservatives tend to do drugs to relax after a hard day of work, (mainly alcohol because they are law abiding citizens) while libs will use drugs to expand their minds and open up their consciousness, then use what they saw under the psychedelics to either justify political ideology or create art, or most often combining the two.

Mick you live in a world of imaginary liberals, and evidently they terrorize you. Meet some real liberals in the real world and I promise they won't (in fact, can't) be as bad as you imagine.

And for what it's worth the vast majority of drug-using liberals I know smoke pot to relax after a hard day of work. Same as conservatives, only their drug of choice makes them peaceful not violent.

[mickmoranis]

You're right ! You get a gold star you teachers pet.

The reason Hollywood is so liberal is because they are a bunch of damn dirty jews. I should know, I'm a jew.

and the jews secretly run our country and the world

[mickmoranis]

Mick you live in a world of imaginary liberals, and evidently they terrorize you. Meet some real liberals in the real world, and I promise they won't (in fact, can't) be as bad as you imagine.

I nkow many libtards, they all belive in the same thing you believe in and are too afraid of admitting that they might not have it as figured out as they say they do.

Hence your inability to admit that modern feminism has gone full blown out of control.

edit: hard day of work where? The local java joint? pfft... silky smoth hands rolling joints.. work my arse.

[loramin]

Hence your inability to admit that modern feminism has gone full blown out of control.

I would be a lot more inclined to consider your point of view if you could show me any actual evidence, like say a major feminist group with a significant number of members doing something that is "full blown out of control" ... and not just some crazy Fox News article about the token insane liberal they found to make a story out of this week.

edit: hard day of work where? The local java joint? pfft... silky smoth hands rolling joints.. work my arse.

C'mon Mick, you're a bit paranoid and have imaginary versions of liberals in your head, but you're not stupid. If you figure that only 40% of the country is liberal and 40% is conservative, you can't possibly think that 40% of the country doesn't work.

I'm not trying to do a Lulz~Sect style brag, but I make six figures, and the vast majority of liberals I know do too (to be fair, I live in Silicon Valley, but still).

[mickmoranis]

uh blacklisting actors writers and film makers is full blown out of control.....

Or at least it was when it was over a social construct that you think is unfair such as a communist being black listed in the 60's.

also the google kid, life ruined, cus he tried to write a fair peice on actual cultural problems that lead to less women in teh work palce, that the libcuck feminists "interpret" as him saying women are less than men, biologically (which he never said once in his documentation)

[loramin]

God Mick you are are really bad at following conversations:

Hence your inability to admit that modern feminism has gone full blown out of control.

like say a major feminist group with a significant number of members doing something that is "full blown out of control"

uh blacklisting actors writers and film makers is full blown out of control.....

Or at least it was when it was over a social construct that you think is unfair such as a communist being black listed in the 60's.

To recap: you said modern feminism has gone crazy, I said give me an example, and you gave me ... communists in Hollywood in the 60s?

P.S. There was less than 10 minutes between your first post and the last. You forgot what you were talking about in less than 10 minutes.

P.P.S. I'm not trying to hate on you for not thinking clearly BTW, I'm just saying, it's frustrating to have a discussion with someone who can't follow it for even ten minutes.

[mickmoranis]

North Korea has launched a missle this time directly into the korean ocean, which is basically a decleration of war and I think its time we did something about it.

[mickmoranis]

but seriously, no, blacklisting filmakers and actors and writers is what the feminist movement is doing RIGHT NOW, they acted as a group and contacted google and literally forced their hand to fire the guy.

WHO WAS TRYING TO HELP

but because he spoke about science, and honestly, they said he was a nazi eugenisist.

and that he said women are less capable biologically than men, which he never did.

I compared the modern feminist movement to the hollywood blacklisting of the 1960s.. that libs fought tooth and nail to stop.

Yet here you are, the children of those liberals, doing exactly what they went to jail fighting against to the same industry writers/actors and film makers and now, technology. Its very sad.

[loramin]

what the feminist movement is doing RIGHT NOW, they acted as a group and contacted google and literally forced their hand to fire the guy ... I compared the modern feminist movement to the hollywood blacklisting of the 1960s.. that libs fought tooth and nail to stop.

Ok now it makes sense: you sort of skipped the important part. But who are we talking about now (that got blacklisted by feminists)?

[mickmoranis]

Ok now it makes sense: you sort of skipped the important part. But who are we talking about now (that got blacklisted by feminists)?

LCK
matt lower
john lassetter
kevin spacy
the google kid


Go ahead, post about how wrong feminism is on your facebook if you work in tech and see how long youll keep your job.

[loramin]

LCK
matt lower
john lassetter
kevin spacy
the google kid


Go ahead, post about how wrong feminism is on your facebook if you work in tech and see how long youll keep your job.

So the absolute best example you could possibly give that modern feminism has jumped the shark is that some people (all but one of whom broke the law) got fired? Kevin Spacey didn't even have anything to do with women, he groped men! And that autistic Google employee publicly said things guaranteed to alienate a good chunk of his co-workers: if I wrote on my blog that black people were inferior and my boss read it I'd probably get fired from my job too.

So yeah, I have a really hard time seeing feminists as this massive evil powerful organization. And a few terrible people losing their jobs doesn't exactly get me there either.

[Nibblewitz]

Ok so either ...

A) Millions of people across the country came together to fight a documented problem (systematic abuse of minorities by police) and then ... magically all those millions of people got hoodwinked by a few loud and ignorant voices, and now they're all hateful violent people

or ...

B) Millions of people across the country came together to fight a documented problem (systematic abuse of minorities by police) and then ... a bunch of fearful conservatives, who by nature react against change (and particularly their loss of privilege), believed whatever nonsense Fox News used to scare them into thinking a peaceful rights movement was some hateful violent mob

I wonder which is more likely?

That's not a liberal thing, that's a politics thing. All politicians say whatever they can to get elected, and most voters (on either side) buy it hook line and sinker.

[loramin]

I don't get it: are you suggesting that millions of people who came together to fight systemic police abuse magically all got hoodwinked into hateful violence by politicians saying what people wanted to hear? It seems to me that what those millions of people wanted to hear (well, really more "see") is an end to police abuse, not a call to violence. Sure violence advocates might convert (and in fact did convert) some BLM members to radical violence, but where's the Trump of the BLM? Where's the politician converting all those peaceful BLM rights advocates into violent radicals? Heck, where's even something close to the Black Panther movement from the 60s?

Not to mention, where is all this violence? Even if you say there were only a few hundred thousand real/active people in BLM (not the millions that joined demonstrations and such), there's been so few acts of BLM violence they can't even amount to 0.1% of the movement. Similarly there isn't even 1% of the BLM movement advocating for violence (or if I'm wrong, point me to the articles/blogs/whatever).

[mickmoranis]

So the absolute best example you could possibly give that modern feminism has jumped the shark is that some people (all but one of whom broke the law) got fired? Kevin Spacey didn't even have anything to do with women, he groped men! And that autistic Google employee publicly said things guaranteed to alienate a good chunk of his co-workers: if I wrote on my blog that black people were inferior and my boss read it I'd probably get fired from my job too.

So yeah, I have a really hard time seeing feminists as this massive evil powerful organization. And a few terrible people losing their jobs doesn't exactly get me there either.

yes if you do not fit the puritanical construct created by libtards (that they excuse democrat politicians for) then you are blacklisted from mainstream society.

Also millions of people are afraid to speak their opinion out of fear of being hit by a militerized libtard who thinks theyre punching nazi's.

[mickmoranis]

no one. should ever. lose their job. for any violating any shortsighted social construct.

LCK had every right to wip his dick out infront of those women, as does anyone else who invites someone into their private property

[Elrood]

Hitler and bush are both excelent painters.

The right just realizes that you can be both an artist AND a contributing member of society at the same time.

/thread

I'm pretty sure Hitler tried to get into art school and wasn't accepted because he was not nearly good enough. I've seen one of his paintings. It was not "excelent."

Bush is a portrait painter. He's not bad, but it's basically carnival-level stuff that you'd pay $25 to have done.

Also, didn't Bush only begin painting after his retirement? Did Hitler continue to paint while leading his nation? I'm not sure if these two are the best examples of being "both an artist AND a contributing member of society at the same time."

[mickmoranis]

both of them (par for the course for superior conservatives) saw that they needed to devote their life to social work instead of prancing around like a child of the state painting pictures.

[maskedmelon]

militerized libtard



militerized libtard




militerized libtard




militerized libtard










is it cultural appropriation if i add this to my lexicon?

[mickmoranis]

is it cultural appropriation if i add this to my lexicon?

yes, my favorite person.

i love love LOVE cultural appropriation the way that kid likes sci fi in the show freaks and geeks.

I also believe no culture owns anyone's appreciation for it and or desire to partake in it, so much so that I believe if you wanted to tan and identify as a black woman it is absolutely your right to celebrate a culture you love.

Anyone who is against cultural appropriation, of any type, is a hard and fast racist.

[skarlorn]

Mickmoranis: Posts gibberish

CHeck and MATE

[JurisDictum]

no one. should ever. lose their job. for any violating any shortsighted social construct.

LCK had every right to wip his dick out infront of those women, as does anyone else who invites someone into their private property

Yes, but people also have the right to make fun of him for it, call him a creep and cancel his movie deal.

He'll make it -- he's just on time out. He's probably going to do a whole damn stand up routine about this.

[mickmoranis]

Libtards: You can be 1 of a thousand genders, despite your genitalia, but you cannot be a black person if you are not a black skinned person (and all blacks are actually called Africans and Americans, despite where they are from)

[loramin]

no one. should ever. lose their job. for any violating any shortsighted social construct.

LCK had every right to wip his dick out infront of those women, as does anyone else who invites someone into their private property

Ummm ... if you tell your boss (or even just one of your co-workers) to go fuck himself, that's a "shortsighted social construct", but you still get fired. You have a right to free speech, but your boss also has a right to decide who he wants to employ based on that speech. That Google engineer basically wrote a giant fuck you to a good percentage of his company, and the result was as you'd expect.

Same thing for LCK. I will fight to the death to defend every American's God-given right to pull down their pants and masturbate ... but just as with free speech, that right has limits. Your right to expose your genitals ends with others' right not to have to see your genitals.

Even taking your ... generous view of LCK's actions, what he did was no different than a guy in a trenchcoat going up to people in park ... only LCK did it not to complete strangers, but to people you'd think he would have cared about.

[mickmoranis]

Yes, but people also have the right to make fun of him for it, call him a creep and cancel his movie deal.

He'll make it -- he's just on time out. He's probably going to do a whole damn stand up routine about this.

I will shoot him from the audience if he dares to stand on that stage.

If he gets back up there, and the hive mind accepts him, then that means all this bullshit I have to read about on every god damn website was just fake outrage.

Ill go all god damn ted bundy

[mickmoranis]

Also I love how netflix has the ability to shut down a comedian if he offends feminists but they wont shut down their service to awaken people to the changes in the FCC or something.

Nothing matters.

its all a fake distraction.

you are all going to die in a fire of the true god in ww3.

[Nibblewitz]

Houston, we have lift off.

Stay safe, Mick.

[mickmoranis]

I need to get a copy of that book the FBI finds in every mass goverment killers apartment, whats it called?

OH YEA I HAVE 10 COPIES OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES (https://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/dp/1888118040)

[Raavak]

No FCC, #NoFCCWay

[Pokesan]

I will shoot him from the audience if he dares to stand on that stage.

If he gets back up there, and the hive mind accepts him, then that means all this bullshit I have to read about on every god damn website was just fake outrage.

Ill go all god damn ted bundy

i wish u would step back from that edge my friend

[maskedmelon]

No FCC, #NoFCCWay

i like it ^^ if you do liek this though:

#No-wFCCay

it get you closer ^。~v

[Kaight]

i wish u would step back from that edge my friend

It was really cool when Third Eye Blind did this (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/third-eye-blind-republican-convention_us_578f8b87e4b07c722ebd1930) with that song.

[Kaight]

no one. should ever. lose their job. for any violating any shortsighted social construct.

LCK had every right to wip his dick out infront of those women, as does anyone else who invites someone into their private property

My god, you're dumb.

[AzzarTheGod]

I will shoot him from the audience if he dares to stand on that stage.

If he gets back up there, and the hive mind accepts him, then that means all this bullshit I have to read about on every god damn website was just fake outrage.

Ill go all god damn ted bundy


Mmmm OK he's ready


*hangs up heavy gilded gold phone*




*checks off agitprop mission box n signs release paperwork deleting social security number from record*
















*hands Mick new drivers license and passport*




















Got a real important mission for you kid... it doesn't pay much but it promises immortality in the annals of history...

[mickmoranis]

How far are we from this reality tho serious question. Anti fa assasinations are surely only a few years away.

Sorry attempted (let's be honest about their capabilities).

Oh wait that softball game. Are we almost at the station?

[Kaight]

My god, you're dumb.

[mickmoranis]

you got me hillbot

[Lhancelot]

you are all going to die in a fire of the true god in ww3.

https://i.imgur.com/DwnKuze.gif

[fash]

Some ableist slurs being thrown around here. Check your neurotypical privilege.

[Maner]

I don't get it: are you suggesting that millions of people who came together to fight systemic police abuse magically all got hoodwinked into hateful violence by politicians saying what people wanted to hear? It seems to me that what those millions of people wanted to hear (well, really more "see") is an end to police abuse, not a call to violence. Sure violence advocates might convert (and in fact did convert) some BLM members to radical violence, but where's the Trump of the BLM? Where's the politician converting all those peaceful BLM rights advocates into violent radicals? Heck, where's even something close to the Black Panther movement from the 60s?

Not to mention, where is all this violence? Even if you say there were only a few hundred thousand real/active people in BLM (not the millions that joined demonstrations and such), there's been so few acts of BLM violence they can't even amount to 0.1% of the movement. Similarly there isn't even 1% of the BLM movement advocating for violence (or if I'm wrong, point me to the articles/blogs/whatever).

First off you need to prove the millions claim. Secondly I believe you are forgetting that it started over Mike Brown, who was a drug dealing shop lifter, and gained attention due to the false whitness reports along with misinformation from liberal news stations like CNN. The "movement" still hasn't been able to prove that police violence towards minorities isn't directly related to those minorities crime rates.

Their first rallies all ended in riots where large portions of cities and towns were vandalized. Baltimore and Ferguson are just two examples. This movement topped out in the thousands and never reached millions of supporters.

[Telin]

This thread went off the rails. The are surely many reasons for this, but the simplest I can think of is...

A liberal, for better or worse, is more sensitive to their emotions. Successful artists can use these lingering feelings and express them in creative ways. Liberals are also more likely to push social boundaries in order to stand out from their competition. Thus the most successful artists tend to be liberal.

[fash]

Their first rallies all ended in riots where large portions of cities and towns were vandalized.

Imagine how they felt when they realized they vandalized and set fire to businesses in their own neighboorhoods.

Oh, wait. We have video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SxHOLWiUnA

"Take that shit to the suburbs! Burn their shit down! We need our shit! We need our weaves! I don't wear it, but we need it."

[Rader]

This thread went off the rails. The are surely many reasons for this, but the simplest I can think of is...

A liberal, for better or worse, is more sensitive to their emotions. Successful artists can use these lingering feelings and express them in creative ways. Liberals are also more likely to push social boundaries in order to stand out from their competition. Thus the most successful artists tend to be liberal.

Nah, a more accurate assessment is, libturds can't compete in a capitalist society and need to search for some oddball way of working around that, so they become actors or journalists or professors of gender studies or a community organizer or some other useless endeavor.

[hyejin]

A liberal, for better or worse, is more sensitive to their emotions.

https://i.imgur.com/Wo0CV8y.gif

[loramin]

First off you need to prove the millions claim. Secondly I believe you are forgetting that it started over Mike Brown, who was a drug dealing shop lifter, and gained attention due to the false whitness reports along with misinformation from liberal news stations like CNN. The "movement" still hasn't been able to prove that police violence towards minorities isn't directly related to those minorities crime rates.

Their first rallies all ended in riots where large portions of cities and towns were vandalized. Baltimore and Ferguson are just two examples. This movement topped out in the thousands and never reached millions of supporters.

Ok, let's start with the millions thing: measuring membership in social movements is hard. It's not like everyone who believes in and supports BLM goes to a webpage and registers. But all you need is basic math to see it has to be in the millions.

There are 326+ million people in America. For "millions" to be accurate, only 2 million, or 0.6% of the population would have to support BLM. Do you really think less than 0.6% of America supports BLM?

Second, you're 100% wrong about it starting with Mike Brown; hell it didn't even start with Rodney King. African-Americans in our society have been dealing with police brutality and harassment since the moment they were freed, and they've been fighting it for just as long. BLM is just a continuation of MLK's and Malcom X's fight, which in turn continued the fight that came before.

As for:

The "movement" still hasn't been able to prove that police violence towards minorities isn't directly related to those minorities crime rates.


You sort of have a point: African-Americans (as a logical function of their history) have higher crime rates. And certainly, if cops are arresting criminals, and African-Americans make up more of the criminals, they'll get arrested more.

But none of that has anything to do with the stuff BLM is fighting, stuff like police brutality and false arrests/convictions. No one, whatever their race, deserves to live in fear of the police, to be beaten by police, or to be falsely arrested and/or convicted.

[mickmoranis]

welcome back lor the threads were getting boring yesterday w/o u

[mickmoranis]

But none of that has anything to do with the stuff BLM is fighting, stuff like brutality and false arrests/convictions. No one, whatever their race, deserves to live in fear of the police, to be beaten by police, or to be falsely arrested and/or convicted.

I know you want BLM to be what you think it is but it's not:

Carlson began the interview by reading an excerpt from a statement disseminated by BLM regarding the controversy:

Being intentional about being around Black People is an act of resistance. This is an exclusively Black Space so if you do not identify as Black and want to come because you love Black People, please respect the space and do not come.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449244/black-lives-matters-ideological-problem-racial-exclusion

the irony that the only white person allowed to come to the BLM rallies is the one woman the liberals cannot stand.

https://i.imgur.com/HBEcqjz.png

[loramin]

I know you want BLM to be what you think it is but it's not:

I know you want BLM to be the big boogeyman in the night, but it's not.

C'mon, read your own article:
Earlier this month, Durden, a professor of media and effective speech at a New Jersey community college

One community college professor does not speak for an entire movement of millions of people.

But ...

welcome back lor the threads were getting boring yesterday w/o u

Thank you; unfortunately my life involves other things more pressing than elf sim forums ;)

[mickmoranis]

other things more pressing than elf sim forums ;)

gasp! nothing is more pressing than the elf sim forums!

but like hayjin said.

Liberal movements are these nebulous amoebas that, yeah start off innocently enough, but as they allow anyone of anytype to join the movements, they become very disjointed, mixed up, and bad.

BLM started off fine, but it went into full on anti cop anti white anti this anti that. Its just out of control

Idk if you remember the 1% rallies, they started off with good intentions too, but by week 9 were full of nudists holding up signs about oppresion camping out on wallstreet.

Liberal movements are open to the bottom of society, so they spin out of control REAL fast...

Resist was a movement that was meant to get people to fight against a government that was about to take control of our lives, but instead of fighting against actual policy like taxes and regulation, its about sex, hollywood, and russian boogymen.

Your cause, as an individual may be valid, but the one you fight side by side with strangers for, the big picture, is just different than what YOU are fighting for, and what you are fighting for gets forgoten about, since there is no room in a hive mind for logic and fair rulings.

Which is why all lower class uprisings fail, historically.

[loramin]

So there's two possibilities here. Honestly I think there's a little truth to both of them, but I think you're only even thinking about one.

Possibility #1: As social groups grow, they lose control of their original goals

Possibility #2: As people in society without power fight to gain equality (ie. more power), the people with the power feel threatened, and do everything they can to discredit, disparage, demean, and flat out lie about the people trying to take their power from them. This includes the white/straight/protestant/older/male Fox News crowd discrediting any social movement of people not like them (eg. BLM).

[mickmoranis]

number 1 is true, number 2 is the fallacy that people that dont want number 1 to be true tell themselves to rationalize being a libtard. ;)

[loramin]

So you're saying historically right-wing groups and media didn't attack and discredit the gay rights movement, Rodney King, women wanting the right to vote, African-Americans not having to take literacy tests, etc.?

There's FUD about African-Americans being sub-human going back to before America was even discovered. None of this is new.

[mickmoranis]

sec I gotta go for a bit, ill be back later tonight bb

[maskedmelon]

In an effort to remain engaged, I've attempted to construct comparatively demented arguments, Lor. Please let me know if i need to add more unrelated facts for it to make sense to you.

In all honesty though, I can't believe you are genuinely too dumb to understand the points that I make. mick's parodies are too well constructed for me to believe that, so I am left believing your posts are genuine and you are maliciously ignoring my point because there is zero humor in your posts.

In case I wandered too much or was too indirect above:

You are dishonest or you are an idiot. There is also the offchance that you are simply blinded by arrogance, but I don't think so.

I feel liek this role is intent on annoying me. if that was the goal, I congratulate you, but still don't understand why you would want to do something liek that. I have learned from the behavior though. anyway, see below.

Ok, let's start with the millions thing: measuring membership in social movements is hard. It's not like everyone who believes in and supports BLM goes to a webpage and registers. But all you need is basic math to see it has to be in the millions.

There are 326+ million people in America. For "millions" to be accurate, only 2 million, or 0.6% of the population would have to support BLM. Do you really think less than 0.6% of America supports BLM?

sorry, but about 1/4th of the US is children and while members of BLM may act as such, they are not. this means that your 2million number is inflated by around 1/3. However, if we are to assume that BLM is as diverse as the United States, that number would mean that 1 of every 25 blacks would be members of BLM (assuming no oppressors or similarly subjugated people's are members).

However, the ACTUAL number of BLM members is 42,481.

Second, you're 100% wrong about it starting with Mike Brown; hell it didn't even start with Rodney King. African-Americans in our society have been dealing with police brutality and harassment since the moment they were freed, and they've been fighting it for just as long. BLM is just a continuation of MLK's and Malcom X's fight, which in turn continued the fight that came before.

No, BLM has nothing to do with MLK.

As for:



You sort of have a point: African-Americans (as a logical function of their history) have higher crime rates. And certainly, if cops are arresting criminals, and African-Americans make up more of the criminals, they'll get arrested more.

This happens a lot unfortunately and is something we need to work on as a nation.

But none of that has anything to do with the stuff BLM is fighting, stuff like police brutality and false arrests/convictions. No one, whatever their race, deserves to live in fear of the police,

That's how people end up getting shot.

to be beaten by police, or to be falsely arrested and/or convicted.


BLM is about leveraging the strong arm of government in the theft and dissolution of private property.

[mickmoranis]

So you're saying historically right-wing groups and media didn't attack and discredit the gay rights movement, Rodney King, women wanting the right to vote, African-Americans not having to take literacy tests, etc.?

There's FUD about African-Americans being sub-human going back to before America was even discovered. None of this is new.

quick reply on the go...

Whatever you;'re talking about here isnt a part of regular society but small pockets of people who you chose t listen to.

They also failed at protecting their precious beliefs that you think are so harmful, because we've managed to make both women and minorities equal in modern society.

Most of the things you think are racist are the result of other factors, you just choose to look at the surface of the problems, meaning skin color and then assuming that is the culprit.

[loramin]

In all honesty though, I can't believe you are genuinely too dumb to understand the points that I make...You are dishonest or you are an idiot. There is also the offchance that you are simply blinded by arrogance, but I don't think so.

Wow, with an opener like that I'll totally read and respond constructively to your post ...






* crickets *

[loramin]

you just choose to look at the surface of the problems, meaning skin color and then assuming that is the culprit.

Nope, quite to the contrary I agree that a lot of the problems some minorities face are a direct result of their social class, not their skin color (although of course how people react to that skin color and how that minority came to be poor are both related to their historical disadvantage ...).

In fact, you may have noticed that in my "treatise" on how we solve race problems one of my central points was that we should target lower social classes for help, with the assumption being that since minorities are disproportionately poor, if you help the poor you wind up helping more minorities than white people. Forget about (for instance) affirmative action based on race: if you give poor kids in general an advantage over rich kids, you effectively give an advantage to minorities (or at least the poorer ones that really need it).

But at the same time, there are some legitimate color issues. Cops don't just pull over, frame, beat, etc. poor people, they target blacks and Latinos (and this has been proven empirically: eg. Boston police target blacks disproportionately (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/09/us/boston-police-stop-frisk/index.html)) . No matter how rich you are (and there have been examples of black senators, businessmen, etc. facing this) cops treat you different based on the color of your skin. This is the sort of thing we can only combat by using one of the other key points in my treatise, the one about changing how African-Americans are represented in TV and other pop culture so that cops (who are only human and watch the same TV as the rest of us) won't see/treat minorities differently.

[maskedmelon]

Wow, with an opener like that I'll totally read and respond constructively to your post ...






* crickets *

I wouldn't expect you to. You are a small malevolent entity, insecure
and driven to find groups whom you can subordinate to elevate your own sense of self worth while wallowing in hypocrisy, purporting to champion diversity, but rejecting it in full.

wake up

[skarlorn]

Holy heck I've never seen maskedmelon post with such righteous fury. May have to zoom in on the back log

[loramin]

Holy heck I've never seen maskedmelon post with such righteous fury. May have to zoom in on the back log

Yeah I know, me neither! Hell, even when Mick and I disagree (ie. all of the time) not even he comes at me with that level of personal bitterness (it's a more like a general crazed rage .... I <3 you Mick!).

I'm certain Melon won't believe it, but I do try to engage in these discussions honestly with everyone. I do it with the (probably futile) goal of changing people's minds, not to "win" (honestly what's there's to win here? Anyone arguing serious topics in a 15+ year old elf sim forum is a loser ;)). Furthermore that's actually been doubly true with Melon since I honestly respect and agree with the majority of his(?) posts outside this thread ... and yet my efforts only seem to further convince melon that I'm a dishonest troll, generating more rage and drawing more insults.

At this point ... well a person can only engage in civil discourse for so long when the other side isn't being civil, so I guess it's better we both go our separate ways.

[Lhancelot]

This is the sort of thing we can only combat by using one of the other key points in my treatise, the one about changing how African-Americans are represented in TV and other pop culture so that cops (who are only human and watch the same TV as the rest of us) won't see/treat minorities differently.

This is very naive if you think this will alter prejudiced white peoples views of blacks.

Prejudiced whites that watch black celebrities on TV or black athletes in sports don't recognize these celebrities as typical black people, these celebrities are "different."

The only way you change the hearts of prejudiced people to recognize other groups of people they hate as actual people is to have them spend time around them, to get to know them, so they can learn to understand them as actual human beings that share the same problems, loves, etc. in life.

The problem is, this is very hard to accomplish. Point is, no amount of watching LeBron James on TV is going to humanize black people to prejudiced whites.

[loramin]

The only way you change the hearts of prejudiced people to recognize other groups of people they hate as actual people is to have them spend time around them, to get to know them, so they can learn to understand them as actual human beings that share the same problems, loves, etc. in life.

The problem is, this is very hard to accomplish. Point is, no amount of watching LeBron James on TV is going to humanize black people to prejudiced whites.

So there's layers right? There's stuff "at the front", like a cop who calls someone a ******. I think we can agree watching American History X probably won't make that guy stop using that word (although who knows, it could). But what I'm talking about is more the institutional racism, which interestingly enough even affects the discriminated (yes, even black police officers treat blacks worse than whites). To solve institutional problems you have to change the institution, or at least the part that sets our thoughts and beliefs ... ie. the media.

Our brains have visual pattern recognition built-in at a deep level. This was handy when quickly deciding whether to run towards or away from some animal out on the savannah ("I've seen this lion pattern before, and I don't want to run towards it ..."), but it's less useful in judging the character of your co-worker based on their skin color. Seeing Le Bron James play basketball won't cure racism sure, but seeing black men (in-person or in the media) doing lots of things other than play sports and commit crimes will cure your brain of the pattern "black person = athlete or criminal".

[AzzarTheGod]

because the party system is divided by "social issues".

the artists have to act accordingly to appeal to the most human beings possible. you do that by not associating with the "exclusive party" the repubs. they will never be openly repub/conservative until religion (religion always means Catholics/Puritans) leaves the republican party.


music and art are secular pursuits. repubs are not a secular party.


720 and /thread

[Lhancelot]

So there's layers right? There's stuff "at the front", like a cop who calls someone a ******. I think we can agree watching American History X probably won't make that guy stop using that word (although who knows, it could). But what I'm talking about is more the institutional racism, which interestingly enough even affects the discriminated (yes, even black police officers treat blacks worse than whites). To solve institutional problems you have to change the institution, or at least the part that sets our thoughts and beliefs ... ie. the media.

Our brains have visual pattern recognition built-in at a deep level. This was handy when quickly deciding whether to run towards or away from some animal out on the savannah, but it's less useful in judging the character of your co-worker based on their skin color. Seeing Le Bron James play basketball won't cure racism sure, but seeing black men doing lots of things other than play sports and commit crimes will cure your brain of the pattern "black person = athlete or criminal".

I get your point man. I do. But it's wrong.

People watching TV do not apply what they see to their in-brain true thoughts/feelings when it comes to such deepseated feelings as hatred and prejudices of other races.

Their brains will always alter and filter what they see as these blacks being special, or different and not one bit will they accept them as a true representation of that entire race as a whole. As they shouldn't. Honestly these blacks on TV are different, they are celebrities ffs. Just as whites on TV are hardly like real whites IRL.

We bridge gaps between cultures and remove racism by actual experience within other cultures, not by watching them on TV or listening to their music!

This is why often times people DO become more accepting of other races when they work with people of other races. They probably would never go hang out with Bobby The Black Man but when work puts Bobby The Black Man with you to work with, you kind of have to get to know Bobby The Black Man. Workplaces are great to learn about other cultures and races because they often times put us together with people we otherwise would never be around.

[loramin]

If, hypothetically, the following was true:

A) there is in fact an incredibly pervasive and deep-rooted set of pattern matching algorithms in our brain, left over from a time long ago in our evolution

B) these "algorithms" are responsible for institutional racist thinking (to put it another way, seeing a person of ___ color on TV doing ____ does convince your brain that in general people of ____ color do ____, because those pattern matching bits aren't sophisticated enough to tell what's on TV apart ... because they evolved long before TV existed)

C) that a person's thinking can be changed by changing the pattern inputs

what kind of proof would convince you of it?

[maskedmelon]

If, hypothetically, the following was true:

A) there is in fact an incredibly pervasive and deep-rooted set of pattern matching algorithms in our brain, left over from a time long ago in our evolution

B) these "algorithms" are responsible for institutional racist thinking (to put it another way, seeing a person of ___ color on TV doing ____ does convince your brain that in general people of ____ color do ____, because those pattern matching bits aren't sophisticated enough to tell what's on TV apart ... because they evolved long before TV existed)

C) that a person's thinking can be changed by changing the pattern inputs

what kind of proof would convince you of it?

If this is the case, why do we see most racism in areas of greatest exposure?

Why do good behaviors of ordinary people not effect this change?

[Lhancelot]

If, hypothetically, the following was true:

A) there is in fact an incredibly pervasive and deep-rooted set of pattern matching algorithms in our brain, left over from a time long ago in our evolution

B) these "algorithms" are responsible for institutional racist thinking (to put it another way, seeing a person of ___ color on TV doing ____ does convince your brain that in general people of ____ color do ____, because those pattern matching bits aren't sophisticated enough to tell what's on TV apart ... because they evolved long before TV existed)

C) that a person's thinking can be changed by changing the pattern inputs

what kind of proof would convince you of it?

I have proof before my very eyes, Lora. I aint saying TV and media cannot help absolve racism, but not in the way you are describing it as. Simply playing TV shows that depict blacks in a positive light is not going to dissolve the distrust and utter fear/hatred prejudiced whites have for them.

Granted, I will say that depictions of blacks that are negative can serve to only fortify those whites prejudices because those depictions give them a readily available moment of "haha see there?! They all are thugs just like that!"

Fact of the matter is you have to go further than just pleasant visual recognition of other races on TV or in movies to beat down racism and that requires actually getting to know those of the race we distrust/hate.

This is no easy task, because people rarely willingly face those they fear or hate. That's why often times workplaces, schools, etc. help break down racism because these are neutral environments where often times people of many races are thrown together whether they want to be or not.

[Lhancelot]

If this is the case, why do we see most racism in areas of greatest exposure?

Why do good behaviors of ordinary people not effect this change?

Exactly. ^

If TV changed the minds and hearts of people, then why do some blacks distrust and hate whites? Look how many whites are shown on TV as wonderful human beings!

[AzzarTheGod]

Exactly. ^

If TV changed the minds and hearts of people, then why do some blacks distrust and hate whites? Look how many whites are shown on TV as wonderful human beings!

mmmm not quite

always in pos of power or well-off =/= wonderful human being


720

[loramin]

Y'all are misunderstanding the concept (which is clearly my fault for explaining it poorly). How can I put this, it's not about "changing hearts and minds"; that has nothing to do with it. It's ...

Let's imagine you have a co-worker who always wears red shirts and always gives you a (too strong) friendly punch in the arm when he sees you. Eventually, after seeing him enough times, your brain learns "red shirt = punch". If he hits you hard enough your blood pressure will probably start raising the moment you see him and his red shirt ... before he even punches you, before you even have a conscious thought about him. In fact, your blood pressure will go up when you see anyone in a red shirt, because your body/brain has learned "red shirt = punch incoming".

But none of this is about what you think of the guy: you could love him and think he's a great person and you would still react. It's all way way lower-level than "hearts and minds" and such. But there absolutely is a real biological mechanism in play there: every human being on the planet, if they have that happen to them enough, will start having a physiological reaction to the sight of red shirts. And yes, your blood pressure (and the many other things that can be affected) do affect your thinking.

What does any of this have to do with racism? I can't remember if it was this thread or another one (and now I can't find a link), but in a study they found that when any race/gender (including black men) sees a black man their blood pressure rises. This is not "well my grand pappy taught me to hate black people and now I'm acting on that" kind of stuff, this is low-level behaviorist B. F. Skinner stuff. Think Pavlovian dogs' mouths watering to the sound of a bell (for those of you familiar with that famous experiment).

At the end of the day, it's just patterns. If the only Asian-looking people you see your whole life are villains in a TV show, it's perfectly natural that your brain will learn "Asian-looking person = danger". On a conscious level you might have no racism whatsoever towards Asian people, but your body is still reacting when it sees them. The only way to change that low-level "thinking" is to change the pattern: you need to see Asian-looking people not looking like villains (or anything else threatening) before your blood pressure will stop rising the moment you see an Asian person.

[Lhancelot]

Y'all are misunderstanding the concept (which is clearly my fault for explaining it poorly). How can I put this, it's not about "changing hearts and minds"; that has nothing to do with it. It's ...

Let's imagine you have a co-worker who always wears red shirts and always gives you a (too strong) friendly punch in the arm when he sees you. Eventually, after seeing him enough times, your brain learns "red shirt = punch". If he hits you hard enough your blood pressure will probably start raising the moment you see him and his red shirt ... before he even punches you, before you even have a conscious thought about him. In fact, your blood pressure will go up when you see anyone in a red shirt, because your body/brain has learned "red shirt = punch incoming".

All of that is way way lower-level than "hearts and minds" and such. But there absolutely is a real biological mechanism in play there: every human being on the planet, if they have that happen to them enough, will start having a physiological reaction to the sight of red shirts. And yes, your blood pressure (and the many other things that can be affected) do affect your thinking.

What does any of this have to do with racism? I can't remember if it was this thread or another one (and now I can't find a link), but in a study they found that when any race/gender (including black men) sees a black man their blood pressure rises. This is not "well my grand pappy taught me to hate black people and now I'm acting on that" kind of stuff, this is low-level behaviorist B. F. Skinner stuff. Think Pavlovian dogs' mouths watering to the sound of a bell (for those of you familiar with that famous experiment).

At the end of the day, it's just patterns. If the only Asian-looking people you see your whole life are villains in a TV show, it's perfectly natural that your brain will learn "Asian-looking person = danger". The only way to change that low-level "thinking" is to change the pattern: you need to see Asian-looking people not looking like villains (or anything else threatening) before your blood pressure will stop rising the moment you see an Asian person.

I just think you overestimate how much influence TV actually has when it comes to absolving racism. People recognize what they see on TV is in fact not real.

The goody-two-shoes black character portrayed on TV doesn't convince a raging racist that black people are like him.

You absolve racism by intertwining people together in the flesh, not by having them watch TV shows that prove such people are actually human beings worthy of being treated with equal respect as ones own race.

Until a person is subjected to other races through actual contact they are going to believe in their hearts as they were indoctrinated to believe which is where parenting and family comes in.

Majority of racism is passed down via family lines, not via TV shows and as such racism will not be absolved by TV shows but by the family.

Individuals can learn differently from what they are taught but there is no denying the impact our families have on how we view and react to other races.

[loramin]

People recognize what they see on TV is in fact not real.

I'm sorry, but they don't, at least on some level (obviously there are levels that can tell TV is fake). There is a lot of research backing this up.

Again, you just have to remember that when our brains were developing there was no TV: everything we saw was real, and it would have been incredibly wasteful then to slow down our reactions so that we could tell real from fake (when there was no fake). In an evolutionary sense, no time has passed in the centuries since (let alone the meer decades since TV came out).

If you are happy with your opinion and don't want it changed I'll stop there. If you you are open to the possibility that I could be right, just tell me what part is the hardest for you to agree with and I'll do my best to find neutral scientific proof of it. Blue pill or red pill? ;)

[maskedmelon]

I'm sorry, but they don't, at least on some level (obviously there are levels that can tell TV is fake). Again, you just have to remember that when our brains were developing there was no TV: everything we saw was real. In an evolutionary sense, no time has passed since then (ie. we have the same brains now we had before TV existed), and there is a lot of research backing this up. If you want to hold your opinion and not have it changed if your wrong I'll stop there. If you think it's possible that you're wrong, and your open to that possibility, just tell me what part is the hardest for you to agree with and I'll do my best to find neutral scientific proof of it.

lol. I feel dumb now. Sorry (o^^o). you are a tremendous goof ^^


on topic though, if people around red shirts are more sensitive to red shirts, why would that be? shouldn't Pavlov be paving a road to acceptance for red shirts by reinforcing MANY good images of them? Why the heck would we see the opposite? (assuming your presuppositions hold). I don't get it?

[loramin]

lol. I feel dumb now. Sorry (o^^o). you are a tremendous goof ^^


on topic though, if people around red shirts are more sensitive to red shirts, why would that be? shouldn't Pavlov be paving a road to acceptance for red shirts by reinforcing MANY good images of them? Why the heck would we see the opposite? (assuming your presuppositions hold). I don't get it?

Huh? The assumption was that getting punched is a bad thing; there were no "good images" in my example. In the real world obviously things are a lot more complex, but my example was just to explain the basic principle.

[Lhancelot]

lol. I feel dumb now. Sorry (o^^o). you are a tremendous goof ^^


on topic though, if people around red shirts are more sensitive to red shirts, why would that be? shouldn't Pavlov be paving a road to acceptance for red shirts by reinforcing MANY good images of them? Why the heck would we see the opposite? (assuming your presuppositions hold). I don't get it?

Lora is well-intentioned.

If only racism could be destroyed by presenting television viewers with positive images of all the races... We'd not have racism. :p

I personally grew up as the only white boy on our street. I also went to public schools that had extreme racial violence some of which I witnessed and was part of so I feel very passionate on the topic. I also grew up with a mother that dated outside her racial lines so I not only lived in a black neighborhood but lived with a black man growing up.

I can tell you 100% that my actual experiences formed my thoughts on blacks, and that in no way shape or form would TV or any movies change that perception.

Racism is extremely complicated, I just lack the ability to put into words everything I want to say on the topic, sorry if my posts are jumbled or confusing, or perhaps a bit simplistic.

[skarlorn]

Uh the wire actually dissolved the last of my institutionalized racism so I agree with loramin

[maskedmelon]

Huh? The assumption was that getting punched is a bad thing; there were no "good images" in my example. In the real world obviously things are a lot more complex, but my example was just to explain the basic principle.

Ohhhh, sorry, I had it backwards and assumed you were drawing a correlation between red shirts and black people (your reference to blood pressure increase and all) and inadvertently broadened your example to include "good" red shirts.

If you saw red shirts all the time, wouldn't you be less likely to draw the connection of red shirt = punch? More interactions would mean more opportunities for your brain to establish a neutral or even positive image of red shirts, no?

Is that where you are going with the whole movie thing?

[loramin]

Lora is well-intentioned.

If only racism could be destroyed by presenting television viewers with positive images of all the races... We'd not have racism. :p

I personally grew up as the only white boy on our street. I also went to public schools that had extreme racial violence some of which I witnessed and was part of so I feel very passionate on the topic. I also grew up with a mother that dated outside her racial lines so I not only lived in a black neighborhood but lived with a black man growing up.

I can tell you 100% that my actual experiences formed my thoughts on blacks, and that in no way shape or form would TV or any movies change that perception.

Racism is extremely complicated, I just lack the ability to put into words everything I want to say on the topic, sorry if my posts are jumbled or confusing, or perhaps a bit simplistic.

I think your last sentence summed it up perfectly: racism is complicated. To be fair my earlier "treatise" on racism did cover more than just the institutional part, but to reiterate .... of course both having a black man in your life and going to a school with racial violence had a huge impact on your life and of course both those things have a ... I hesitate to say "bigger" since it's apples and oranges, but ... they have a more obvious effect.

All I'm saying is that our brains are just as extremely complicated, and we have all sorts of stuff going on below the level of conscious thought. I truly believe that "the war against racism" can't be won a single front: it has to be won on the conscious level AND on the subconscious level (ie. on both the explicit and institutional levels).

[loramin]

If you saw red shirts all the time, wouldn't you be less likely to draw the connection of red shirt = punch? More interactions would mean more opportunities for your brain to establish a neutral or even positive image of red shirts, no?

Is that where you are going with the whole movie thing?

Yes! I hesitate to say it, but I think we might actually be on the same page now :)

[Lhancelot]

I think your last sentence summed it up perfectly: racism is complicated. To be fair my earlier "treatise" on racism did cover more than just the institutional part, but to reiterate .... of course both having a black man in your life and going to a school with racial violence had a huge impact on your life and of course both those things have a ... I hesitate to say "bigger" since it's apples and oranges, but ... they have a more obvious effect.

All I'm saying is that our brains are just as extremely complicated, and we have all sorts of stuff going on below the level of conscious thought. I truly believe that "the war against racism" can't be won a single front: it has to be won on the conscious level AND on the subconscious level (ie. on both the explicit and institutional levels).

I just miss what would be presented on TV that could possibly move people from their racist thoughts/feelings?

Give me an example of how this media can be used to absolve racism. I feel like we already have tons of positive examples of good people to draw opinions of them from TV...

Even if your idea would work, wouldn't every depiction of every race have to be presented in a positive light on TV then? wouldn't that then be seen as highly unrealistic? Even a non-biased person would see that kind of depiction as silly and cartoonish.

How can media be used to sway the hearts and minds of racist people through TV and movies as you presented?

At best this is like trying to stick a bandaid on a shotgun blast to the head, and at worst a farce of an idea bro. Sorry that's how I see it anyway.

[Maner]

Ok, let's start with the millions thing: measuring membership in social movements is hard. It's not like everyone who believes in and supports BLM goes to a webpage and registers. But all you need is basic math to see it has to be in the millions.

There are 326+ million people in America. For "millions" to be accurate, only 2 million, or 0.6% of the population would have to support BLM. Do you really think less than 0.6% of America supports BLM?

Second, you're 100% wrong about it starting with Mike Brown; hell it didn't even start with Rodney King. African-Americans in our society have been dealing with police brutality and harassment since the moment they were freed, and they've been fighting it for just as long. BLM is just a continuation of MLK's and Malcom X's fight, which in turn continued the fight that came before.

As for:



You sort of have a point: African-Americans (as a logical function of their history) have higher crime rates. And certainly, if cops are arresting criminals, and African-Americans make up more of the criminals, they'll get arrested more.

But none of that has anything to do with the stuff BLM is fighting, stuff like police brutality and false arrests/convictions. No one, whatever their race, deserves to live in fear of the police, to be beaten by police, or to be falsely arrested and/or convicted.

So, fabricating numbers and making assumptions is now how you prove your claims? I am sorry but no, there were never 2 million plus people who supported BLM. It has been extremely localized to minority communities and extremists. They have not proven a single claim in regards to police brutality targeting race and ethnicity. They literally have to set up buses to bring in instigators because they dont have enough support in the communities they try to protest in. They have taken over other protests and celebration in order to push their own agendas, but you cant count those appropriated by this movement as its actual supporters.

It was in fact started by 3 black women who were heavily influenced by a convicted cop killer who is currently living in Cuba. It has nothing to do with MLK or Rodney King, which is a funny example that you should go back and read what really happened to. You are trying to correlate the BLM movement with the civil rights movement among others, which is just a false equivalency since they are in no way actually related.

[maskedmelon]

Yes! I hesitate to say it, but I think we might actually be on the same page now :)

omgosh! ^.^ I'm glad for that ^^

[Pokesan]

brings a tear to my eye to see loramin learning the dance. ah, to be young again...

*sniffle*

[AzzarTheGod]

brings a tear to my eye to see loramin learning the dance. ah, to be young again...

*sniffle*

lmao

[Ninjaskeelz]

I'd imagine sometimes, just sometimes.. people don't care or judge other people based upon their political stances. Republican and Democrat are two sides of the same coin after all. Truth is the answer to our problems lies in the middle, rather than on the left or the right.

[fash]

Truth is the answer to our problems lies in the middle, rather than on the left or the right.

Truth is breaking from the 1 dimensional view of politics.

[fash]

But none of that has anything to do with the stuff BLM is fighting, stuff like police brutality and false arrests/convictions. No one, whatever their race, deserves to live in fear of the police, to be beaten by police, or to be falsely arrested and/or convicted.

Your views are unrealistically ideal about these groups (BLM, feminism, etc). You disregard the actual behavior of people in these groups, essentially committing a no true scotsman fallacy.

A mob of people marching and chanting in the name of BLM demand dead cops and burn down their neighboring businesses because a criminal (in a specific ethnic group) committed a crime and suffered the consequences. Hmm.. maybe that was some anomaly or a rogue element? Oh, wait, nope. It keeps happening repeatedly over and over...

"But none of that has anything to do with the stuff BLM is fighting."

You have to judge people on their actions, not the abstract ideal they hide behind.

[fash]

Let's imagine you have a co-worker who always wears red shirts and always gives you a (too strong) friendly punch in the arm when he sees you. Eventually, after seeing him enough times, your brain learns "red shirt = punch". If he hits you hard enough your blood pressure will probably start raising the moment you see him and his red shirt ... before he even punches you, before you even have a conscious thought about him. In fact, your blood pressure will go up when you see anyone in a red shirt, because your body/brain has learned "red shirt = punch incoming".

Let's also imagine a certain demographic is 5x more likely to commit violent crimes. Eventually, after experiencing this firsthand and seeing evidence of this in your life, your body/brain has learned "this demographic = a violent crime is more likely to occur".

But none of this is about what you think of the guy: you could love him and think he's a great person and you would still react. It's all way way lower-level than "hearts and minds" and such. But there absolutely is a real biological mechanism in play there: every human being on the planet, if they have that happen to them enough, will start having a physiological reaction to the sight of red shirts. And yes, your blood pressure (and the many other things that can be affected) do affect your thinking.

What does any of this have to do with racism? I can't remember if it was this thread or another one (and now I can't find a link), but in a study they found that when any race/gender (including black men) sees a black man their blood pressure rises. This is not "well my grand pappy taught me to hate black people and now I'm acting on that" kind of stuff, this is low-level behaviorist B. F. Skinner stuff. Think Pavlovian dogs' mouths watering to the sound of a bell (for those of you familiar with that famous experiment).

When any race/gender (whether or not a member of the violent demographic) sees a member of that demographic, their blood pressure rises. This is true since the victims of the demographic's violence are members of the demographic as well as non-members.

At the end of the day, it's just patterns. If the only Asian-looking people you see your whole life are villains in a TV show, it's perfectly natural that your brain will learn "Asian-looking person = danger". On a conscious level you might have no racism whatsoever towards Asian people, but your body is still reacting when it sees them. The only way to change that low-level "thinking" is to change the pattern: you need to see Asian-looking people not looking like villains (or anything else threatening) before your blood pressure will stop rising the moment you see an Asian person.

The only way to change that low-level "thinking" is to change the pattern: you need to see members of that demographic not looking like villains (or anything else threatening) before your blood pressure will stop rising the moment you see one of those people.

Of course, now you've conditioned the pavlovian dog to behave in a manner that is more likely to get the dog harmed or killed when released into the real world.

[fash]

We bridge gaps between cultures and remove racism by actual experience within other cultures, not by watching them on TV or listening to their music!

This is why often times people DO become more accepting of other races when they work with people of other races. They probably would never go hang out with Bobby The Black Man but when work puts Bobby The Black Man with you to work with, you kind of have to get to know Bobby The Black Man. Workplaces are great to learn about other cultures and races because they often times put us together with people we otherwise would never be around.

Trust in society decreases and ethnic diversity increases within that society. "Culturally enriched" people are less likely to talk to their neighbors, engage in the community and charity, build relationships within the community, have more friends, etc. Diversity has profound negative effects.

[Lhancelot]

The only way to change that low-level "thinking" is to change the pattern: you need to see members of that demographic not looking like villains (or anything else threatening) before your blood pressure will stop rising the moment you see one of those people.

Of course, now you've conditioned the pavlovian dog to behave in a manner that is more likely to get the dog harmed or killed when released into the real world.

That's the problem, it's not so black and white.

Unrealistic to believe an entire demographic of people will behave a certain way, whether it be villainous or chivalrous. This is simply impossible.

That's the problem with people though, they see the narrative of other people as they want and can paint the reasons behind what they see as they want.

I agree though, for peoples minds and hearts to change regarding deepseated hatred or distrust of other races they have to see with their own eyes that these people are actually people too and there's no need to demonize or dehumanize them.

I am a realist and too cynical to think racism will ever go away it's simply too large of a part of humanity to ever leave us. Humans by nature are cruel and do sadistic things to other humans and this behavior will always continue the cycle of man on man violence.

Humans always find a reason to hate one another, and racism is just one of countless props to justify violence on other humans.

[loramin]

Let's also imagine a certain demographic is 5x more likely to commit violent crimes. Eventually, after experiencing this firsthand and seeing evidence of this in your life, your body/brain has learned "this demographic = a violent crime is more likely to occur".
...
Of course, now you've conditioned the pavlovian dog to behave in a manner that is more likely to get the dog harmed or killed when released into the real world.

Like I said before, you can say "this stuff is hard to fix I give up", or you can say "it's hard to fix but it's worth trying even so."

Also I think you're vastly over-imagining "more likely to get the dog harmed or killed". The violent crime rate is like 386 in 100,000 (ie. less than one in a thousand), and your own risk is likely far lower because those victims are disproportionately poor/minority, and include rape victims which are disproportionately female. Since I don't know your exact gender/race/social class I'll do rough math and quarter (and round) that to one in ten thousand.

Now, how often would having a racist expectation of people help you avoid being assaulted/murdered? Only some subset of the times the attacker is a stranger right? But ... "among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known ... 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims", So you're looking at only some of 1/4 in 10,000.

TLDR; Even if some minorities have been shown to have a greater rate of violence (a natural consequence of their disproportionate historical poor treatment), there still is no meaningful difference to your safety from not being a racist.

[JurisDictum]

Trust in society decreases and ethnic diversity increases within that society. "Culturally enriched" people are less likely to talk to their neighbors, engage in the community and charity, build relationships within the community, have more friends, etc. Diversity has profound negative effects.

Well that's just too god damn bad isn't it? We're pretty much married to diversity here in America. There is no unwinding that clock after hundreds of years of mixing and immigration.

So all we can do is try to explain calmly to racists why they are offending people. And then try to do some give and take to placate the social justice movements. That's the reality.

[Patriam1066]

Well that's just too god damn bad isn't it? We're pretty much married to diversity here in America. There is no unwinding that clock after hundreds of years of mixing and immigration.

So all we can do is try to explain calmly to racists why they are offending people. And then try to do some give and take to placate the social justice movements. That's the reality.

We could also reserve immigration slots for people with something to contribute as opposed to using a green card lottery system

Just a thought

[fash]

Like I said before, you can say "this stuff is hard to fix I give up", or you can say "it's hard to fix but it's worth trying even so."

Not sure why you'd characterize what I said as giving up. My point is don't make matters worse by doubling down on what we know causes more racial tension. We need to work towards improving the problems in our societies.

Also I think you're vastly over-imagining "more likely to get the dog harmed or killed". The violent crime rate is like 386 in 100,000 (ie. less than one in a thousand), and your own risk is likely far lower because those victims are disproportionately poor/minority, and include rape victims which are disproportionately female.

Well, yea.. But I care about the safety of the poor and women.

People who live in a swply city neighborhood in a gated community aren't affected nearly as much. We're very progressive and ostensibly love the swarthy minorities, yet they are nowhere to be seen outside of the street with taxpayer-subsidized low-income housing. Try to think about the middle and working class people living in diverse areas where they are more likely to fall victim to cultural enrichment. Would you really want to untrain their pattern recognition that keeps them out of harms way?

Btw, those numbers ("less than one in a thousand") are off by an order of magnitude.

"among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known ... 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims", So you're looking at only some of 1/4 in 10,000.

TLDR; Even if some minorities have been shown to have a greater rate of violence (a natural consequence of their disproportionate historical poor treatment), there still is no meaningful difference to your safety from not being a racist.

Let's assume, as you said, 70%+ of homicides were committed by offenders known to the victim. Members of a certain demographic, which is only 5% of the total US population, commits nearly 50% of the murders. Do you really want more people to get to know that 5%? Changing the majority population's aversion to that 5% is well... rather evil. Even if their ancestors did historically treat minorities poorly, there is no justice in punishing people who aren't responsible for the bad decisions.

[Nilstoniakrath]

Truth is the answer to our problems lies in the middle, rather than on the left or the right.

Problem is, there isn't really much of a true middle. "Independent" is usually just too stupid to know the difference, or too ball-less to make a stand either way.

[fash]

Well that's just too god damn bad isn't it? We're pretty much married to diversity here in America. There is no unwinding that clock after hundreds of years of mixing and immigration.

I'm not even saying unwinding, but we don't have to double down in a direction we know empirically to cause more racial tensions and lower trust in societies.

So all we can do is try to explain calmly to racists why they are offending people. And then try to do some give and take to placate the social justice movements. That's the reality.

I wouldn't say it's beyond reality that some policies could be put in place to slow down or even slowly reverse causes of racial tensions in the US.

[JurisDictum]

If I was a BLM kid I'd target the drug war. Make growing pot in the south (great outdoor conditions) practically a black-only profession as most the red necks poo poo it. That would help out blacks more than any single thing I can think of. De-powering drug-fueled gangs and main source police vampirism.

[Maner]

Like I said before, you can say "this stuff is hard to fix I give up", or you can say "it's hard to fix but it's worth trying even so."

Also I think you're vastly over-imagining "more likely to get the dog harmed or killed". The violent crime rate is like 386 in 100,000 (ie. less than one in a thousand), and your own risk is likely far lower because those victims are disproportionately poor/minority, and include rape victims which are disproportionately female. Since I don't know your exact gender/race/social class I'll do rough math and quarter (and round) that to one in ten thousand.

Now, how often would having a racist expectation of people help you avoid being assaulted/murdered? Only some subset of the times the attacker is a stranger right? But ... "among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known ... 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims", So you're looking at only some of 1/4 in 10,000.

TLDR; Even if some minorities have been shown to have a greater rate of violence (a natural consequence of their disproportionate historical poor treatment), there still is no meaningful difference to your safety from not being a racist.

You're same logic can be used to prove police involved killings and abuse are even rarer than the black violent crime rate yet this movement and people like you push that it's a widespread problem and an irrational fear of the police is a proper response. Black people killed by cops is in direct proportion to black violent crime rates which are 12x higher than white violent crime rates. You are bitching about cause and effect, you want the cops to stop focusing on black communities then fix the crime problems in those communities.

The FBI also shows that a white perso is 30x more likely to be killed by a black person than a black person is to be killed by a white. It's great that you accept some things from the FBI but completely ignore everything else

[Patriam1066]

(A natural consequence of their historical poor treatment)

LOL

[hyejin]

(A natural consequence of their historical poor treatment)

LOL

this post is 4 parentheses short

[Lulz~Sect]

Statistics are racist


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Pokesan]

Problem is, there isn't really much of a true middle. "Independent" is usually just too stupid to know the difference, or too ball-less to make a stand either way.

that's the thing tho. its independent voters that decide the presidency. and only in a few states, most are noncompetitive.

hope this helps!

[Lhancelot]

its independent voters that decide the presidency.

Total bullshit.

Everyone knows the puppetmasters decide the presidency long before any citizen votes.

[skarlorn]

that's the thing tho. its independent voters that decide the presidency. and only in a few states, most are noncompetitive.

hope this helps!

Yeah this fact kind of upsets me

[loramin]

You're same logic can be used to prove police involved killings and abuse are even rarer than the black violent crime rate yet this movement and people like you push that it's a widespread problem and an irrational fear of the police is a proper response. Black people killed by cops is in direct proportion to black violent crime rates which are 12x higher than white violent crime rates. You are bitching about cause and effect, you want the cops to stop focusing on black communities then fix the crime problems in those communities.

The FBI also shows that a white perso is 30x more likely to be killed by a black person than a black person is to be killed by a white. It's great that you accept some things from the FBI but completely ignore everything else

I wasn't ignoring anything, what I was saying was that practically speaking your risk of violent crime is already very low, and then the odds of you acting racist towards all black people all the time and having it someday save from violent crime are truly incredibly low.

Yes, the violent crime rate of African-Americans is high. No that is not an unfix-able problem, nor is the only solution to be racist.

[maskedmelon]

I wasn't ignoring anything, what I was saying was that practically speaking your risk of violent crime is already very low, and then the odds of you acting racist towards all black people all the time and having it someday save from violent crime are truly incredibly low.

Yes, the violent crime rate of African-Americans is high. No that is not an unfix-able problem, nor is the only solution to be racist.

no, im pretty sure the only practical solution is to be racist. in all honesty, if everyone just surrendered to racism, we could stop worrying about it and find other more useful applications of our irrational fears. there are plenty of other phantom oppressors that we can invent without continuing this senseless assault on racism.

Furthermore, if we surrender to racism, we can stop pretending that racism is something as trivial as discrimination in the absence of a belief that one's own race is superior to the race against which one discriminates or that discrimination itself is predicated on racism. it's not. it is possible and indeed most ordinary to discriminate in the absence of a belief of one's own racial superiority. The fact that racism may include discriminatory behavior based on a belief of racial superiority does not require that ALL discriminatory behavior is predicated on a belief in racial superiority. If it did, nobody could be sexist, homophobic, or able to tell a ham sandwich from a garbage can.

there are infinitely more racial disparities beyond skin color and asserting recognition of differences between populations of dissimilar skin tone to be racist is simple idiocy. There are behavioral differences which are products of culture which in turn are rooted in environment in addition to genetics.

For good or for ill, there are profound racial disparities in IQ, which is the psychological metric upon which all other psychometric principles are derived from. Mean white IQ is 100 with a standard deviation of 15, meaning that 67% of the white population has an IQ between 85 and 115, with only about 16% above 115 and 16% below. Average Ahekenazi Jew IQ is 115, meaning half of all Ashekenazi Jews are more intelligent than 84% of the white population! Mean Asian IQ is about 5 points or 1/3 SD higher than mean white IQ. Mean black IQ is 85 or one standard deviation below mean white IQ. That means half of all blacks are less intelligent than 84% of whites. The United States military will not enlist
anyone with an IQ less than 83 because they have found that such individuals are incapable of being trained for any position available in the military.

You want to know what is truly terrifying? Cast aside racial disparities and you still have almost 1.3 billion people with IQ below 85. That is terrifying.

So let's just surrender to racism, because single metrics are what constitute the worth of individuals. dumb people have no value, right? We should actively hate dumb people for
their genetic shortcomings and do the same for people who are too short, too tall, too fat, too thin, too lazy, too ambitious, too aggressive, too passive and so on. We can continue swinging the axe of hate until we are left with the great virtues of mediocrity and homogey.

Everyone just needs to stop pretending they're not racist so that we may advance our idiocy.

[mickmoranis]

Yes, the violent crime rate of African-Americans is high. No that is not an unfix-able problem, nor is the only solution to be racist.

https://youtu.be/884W4l3eoQg?t=33

Get out there and do something about it. Talk is cheep.

[JurisDictum]

no, im pretty sure the only practical solution is to be racist. in all honesty, if everyone just surrendered to racism, we could stop worrying about it and find other more useful applications of our irrational fears. there are plenty of other phantom oppressors that we can invent without continuing this senseless assault on racism.

Furthermore, if we surrender to racism, we can stop pretending that racism is something as trivial as discrimination in the absence of a belief that one's own race is superior to the race against which one discriminates or that discrimination itself is predicated on racism. it's not. it is possible and indeed most ordinary to discriminate in the absence of a belief of one's own racial superiority. The fact that racism may include discriminatory behavior based on a belief of racial superiority does not require that ALL discriminatory behavior is predicated on a belief in racial superiority. If it did, nobody could be sexist, homophobic, or able to tell a ham sandwich from a garbage can.

there are infinitely more racial disparities beyond skin color and asserting recognition of differences between populations of dissimilar skin tone to be racist is simple idiocy. There are behavioral differences which are products of culture which in turn are rooted in environment in addition to genetics.

For good or for ill, there are profound racial disparities in IQ, which is the psychological metric upon which all other psychometric principles are derived from. Mean white IQ is 100 with a standard deviation of 15, meaning that 67% of the white population has an IQ between 85 and 115, with only about 16% above 115 and 16% below. Average Ahekenazi Jew IQ is 115, meaning half of all Ashekenazi Jews are more intelligent than 84% of the white population! Mean Asian IQ is about 5 points or 1/3 SD higher than mean white IQ. Mean black IQ is 85 or one standard deviation below mean white IQ. That means half of all blacks are less intelligent than 84% of whites. The United States military will not enlist
anyone with an IQ less than 83 because they have found that such individuals are incapable of being trained for any position available in the military.

You want to know what is truly terrifying? Cast aside racial disparities and you still have almost 1.3 billion people with IQ below 85. That is terrifying.

So let's just surrender to racism, because single metrics are what constitute the worth of individuals. dumb people have no value, right? We should actively hate dumb people for
their genetic shortcomings and do the same for people who are too short, too tall, too fat, too thin, too lazy, too ambitious, too aggressive, too passive and so on. We can continue swinging the axe of hate until we are left with the great virtues of mediocrity and homogey.

Everyone just needs to stop pretending they're not racist so that we may advance our idiocy.

IQ is overrated. People with ultra-high IQ often prove worse at making decisions then people with just slightly high IQ. High IQ is mostly useful for IQ tests. That, and for stuff like picking the right investment, gambling, manipulation. These are the things IQ helps you with.

You can be dumb as a rock to be an honest and dutiful businessman.

[maskedmelon]

IQ is overrated. People with ultra-high IQ often prove worse at making decisions then people with just slightly high IQ. High IQ is mostly useful for IQ tests. That, and for stuff like picking the right investment, gambling, manipulation. These are the things IQ helps you with.

You can be dumb as a rock to be an honest and dutiful businessman.

are you suggesting that we can't rely on a single metric to value an individual's worth!? ^^

i actually tohhhhhtally agree. IQ has nothing to do with work ethic and perhaps much more interestingly research has shown that neither is it correlated with skepticism. That combined with a natural arrogance fostered by being smarter than everyone else is why smart people can be as easily mired in ideologically driven untruth as anyone else.

That does not discount the consequences of low IQ though and the ability to learn, which is exceptionally more problematic in advanced societies most especially with an automated revolution on the horizon. IQ is more closely correlated with success in western societies than hardwork by a factor of 2!

[loramin]

are you suggesting that we can't rely on a single metric to value an individual's worth!? ^^

i actually tohhhhhtally agree. IQ has nothing to do with work ethic and perhaps much more interestingly research has shown that neither is it correlated with skepticism. That combined with a natural arrogance fostered by being smarter than everyone else is why smart people can be as easily mired in ideologically driven untruth as anyone else.

That does not discount the consequences of low IQ though and the ability to learn, which is exceptionally more problematic in advanced societies most especially with an automated revolution on the horizon. IQ is more closely correlated with success in western societies than hardwork by a factor of 2!

Fun fact: IQ was never designed to measure the intelligence of normal people. I did my high school senior thesis as a nerdy kid with a high IQ believing in the concept of IQ. By the end of it I realized that the word "intelligence", as it's often used, depended heavily on the person using the term. Most people use it to refer to "g" or "general" (all around) intelligence ... which doesn't exist.

The whole point of IQ tests originally were just to determine which people were mentally handicapped . Even the guy who invented the IQ test (Lewis Terman who, incidentally, was the father of the guy who started Silicon Valley) said that we shouldn't use it for anything else. But people did, even though it would later be determined that we have at least 7 (or more, there's disagreement) types of intelligence. There's mathematical intelligence, spacial intelligence, verbal intelligence, musical intelligence, etc. and there is no strong correlation connecting them all together.

As a result the idea of a single "g" intelligence has more or less been debunked, which in turn debunks the idea that you can measure such a "g" intelligence. In other words, there are no "smart" people, just people who are smart about different things, and any given person might have any combination of "smarts" because the different kinds mostly don't correlate. Now that's not to say that intelligence tests don't measure something, because they clearly do, but whatever they measure it's a certain subset of the many different intelligences, and which ones are included and to what degree depend largely on the person writing test.

[maskedmelon]

Fun fact: IQ was never designed to measure the intelligence of normal people. I did my high school senior thesis as a nerdy kid with a high IQ believing in the concept of IQ. By the end of it I realized that the word "intelligence", as it's often used, depended heavily on the person using the term. Most people use it to refer to "g" or "general" (all around) intelligence ... which doesn't exist.

The whole point of IQ tests originally were just to determine which people were mentally handicapped . Even the guy who invented the IQ test (Lewis Terman who, incidentally, was the father of the guy who started Silicon Valley) said that we shouldn't use it for anything else. But people did, even though it would later be determined that we have at least 7 (or more, there's disagreement) types of intelligence. There's mathematical intelligence, spacial intelligence, verbal intelligence, musical intelligence, etc. and there is no strong correlation connecting them all together.

As a result the idea of a single "g" intelligence has more or less been debunked, which in turn debunks the idea that you can measure such a "g" intelligence. In other words, there are no "smart" people, just people who are smart about different things, and any given person might have any combination of "smarts" because the different kinds mostly don't correlate. Now that's not to say that intelligence tests don't measure something, because they clearly do, but whatever they measure it's a certain subset of the many different intelligences, and which ones are included and to what degree depend largely on the person writing test.

The "Theory" of Multiple Intellengences is pseudoscience rooted in egalitarian ethos. They were designed as participation trophies in the game of intellectual competency. The theory enjoys little support within the scientific community because it not only is without any empirical evidence, it is also at odds with neuroscience. Many of the intelligences are highly correlated with one another in addition to.... "g." Also, when you account for other cognitive processes and personality, there isn't anything else left to explain.


I liek the way you wrote this though ^^

[loramin]

The "Theory" of Multiple Intellengences is pseudoscience

Ok first off let me clarify that I'm not talking about multiple learning styles (which has been at least somewhat debunked).

But if you are referring to "Multiple Intellengences", then surely you have evidence to support that opinion? Like surely you have at least one paper that correlates multiple types of intelligence together to demonstrate they form a single "g" intelligence?

I can't wait to see it; just because Harvard's educational department (http://www.pz.harvard.edu/projects/multiple-intelligences) believes in multiple intelligences doesn't mean it's not pesudoscience!

[maskedmelon]

Wow, melon I didn't know you had a PhD. in Neural Biology! Or maybe you're just really into the whole study of intelligence? Either way you speak so knowledgeably I'm sure you have tons of evidence to support that opinion? Like surely you have at least one paper that correlates multiple types of intelligence together to demonstrate they form a single "g" intelligence?

P.S. Just in case there's any confusion, I'm not talking about multiple learning styles, which has been (at least somewhat) debunked.

P.P.S. Side Note: If anyone out there is a big fan of Emotional Intelligence, it turns out the exact same thing is true for it, ie. there is no "emotional intelligence", just a bunch of random things that don't correlate but have gotten lumped together by the EQ believers.

omgosh Lor! you such a flatterer (*^^*) no, i don't actually have a degree neuroscience ^^; I'm just heavily vested in defending IQ to preserve what little self worth I have. If that means offhandedly refuting ideas whose author has multiply acknowledged lack empirical evidence, then so be it. I'll do what must be done, even if Occam could have made quicker work of it (^。~)v

[maskedmelon]

Ok first off let me clarify that I'm not talking about multiple learning styles (which has been at least somewhat debunked).

But if you are referring to "Multiple Intellengences", then surely you have evidence to support that opinion? Like surely you have at least one paper that correlates multiple types of intelligence together to demonstrate they form a single "g" intelligence?

I can't wait to see it; just because Harvard's educational department (http://www.pz.harvard.edu/projects/multiple-intelligences) believes in multiple intelligences doesn't mean it's not pesudoscience!

you a goof ^o^ I feel liek you playing softball with me now ^^ but to your article, yeah, Harvard employs the mind from which the idea of multiple intelligences stumbled. that page don't endorse it though. it just introduces it.

[Nibblewitz]

Do we need intelligence in an automated world?

[Pokesan]

Do we need intelligence in an automated world?

yes, SOMEONE has to write unnecessarily long and florid posts that i dont read

[AzzarTheGod]

Total bullshit.

Everyone knows the puppetmasters decide the presidency long before any citizen votes.

I think we have had some legit elections (JFK was never supposed to win, he was a Trump media darling who went and took the televised debates by storm unexpectedly). A Catholic in the white house was also extremely taboo in a protestant nation.

We stopped having less legitimate elections (mostly within the DNC, not the GOP) not because of the puppet masters choice, but because of the candidates themselves who have heard the call and know what time it is. Intimidation. Again, this is more obvious in the DNC. You remember the fake DNC candidates propped up for Hillary's first debate? Chafee and some other weirdos faked a run for president. I'd like to think the GOP would never pressure any candidates to run as fake candidates.


Not to suggest a president should be rocking the boat..... But if you travel to other countries, you realize the median income of America is worse than Australia and countless other Eurozone countries offer a higher quality of living without all the political fighting, racism, and hatred that comes with American politics as they threaten to cut food and medical benefits every election. (of which maybe 1% of American taxes collected goes towards entitlements. albeit hard working people dislike the idea of ANY of their tax dollars going towards entitlements, and I can certainly appreciate that-- especially since having children as a white person is considered a serious undertaking that costs serious money. Whereas your taxes are going towards people who should not be having children. I get that.)

Unfortunately, SOME boat is going to have to rock to fix that and bring us up to other 1st world nations where the corporation isn't completely raping and pillaging and monopolizing its peasants.

Shout out to your phone, internet, and cable bills.

[AzzarTheGod]

oh and how's that annual 15% rent increase?

*daps monopolistic pig worshippers in the voter block*









720

[Lhancelot]

I think we have had some legit elections (JFK was never supposed to win)

I honestly think JFK was the last president that actually cared. I mean he actually tried to create socaial change and as a result he made a plethora of enemies, and got obliterated by assassins. Can't blame future politicians, I mean no one wants to have their head hollowed out by a sniper rifle or worse.

[AzzarTheGod]

I honestly think JFK was the last president that actually cared. I mean he actually tried to create socaial change and as a result he made a plethora of enemies, and got obliterated by assassins. Can't blame future politicians, I mean no one wants to have their head hollowed out by a sniper rifle or worse.

Pretty much if care = reformer. He was the last president who attempted sweeping reforms of all aspects of government.

His initiative on disbanding the CIA because secrecy was inherently evil (Boston, MA choir boy politic) didn't go over so well.

If he wasn't this Boston Catholic guy, he might have had a chance. But then again, he wouldn't have had appeal as a reformer without his Boston values.

[maskedmelon]

Do we need intelligence in an automated world?

only if our concern transcends present complacency. our abuse of a wet pebble is hardly noteworthy on a cosmic scale.

[maskedmelon]

oh and how's that annual 15% rent increase?

*daps monopolistic pig worshippers in the voter block*









720

*claps happily and cheers Azzar on*

[rahmani]

Creativity is all about picturing the way the world could be better, and not looking to maintain or go back to the way it was.

Scientists are very left-leaning as well, xNTP (Myers-Briggs) dominate in hard sciences for this reason too. As a geneticist, most of my colleagues always say things like "Can you believe this stupid way we have been doing things? Let's make it better."

[fash]

As a result the idea of a single "g" intelligence has more or less been debunked, which in turn debunks the idea that you can measure such a "g" intelligence. In other words, there are no "smart" people, just people who are smart about different things, and any given person might have any combination of "smarts" because the different kinds mostly don't correlate. Now that's not to say that intelligence tests don't measure something, because they clearly do, but whatever they measure it's a certain subset of the many different intelligences, and which ones are included and to what degree depend largely on the person writing test.

In fact, they do mostly correlate. That's where the g factor comes from. The g factor is the underlying variable you get when you do a factor analysis on a wide range of cognitive tasks (similar to those other IQ types as you mentioned). A person who has a strong working memory is more likely to process information quicker, learn quicker, etc. Yes, sometimes you have idiot savant types, but generally there is a strong correlation, hence how the g factor is synthesized statistically.

IQ is overrated. People with ultra-high IQ often prove worse at making decisions then people with just slightly high IQ. High IQ is mostly useful for IQ tests. That, and for stuff like picking the right investment, gambling, manipulation. These are the things IQ helps you with.

You can be dumb as a rock to be an honest and dutiful businessman.

IQ remains a strong predictor (the best predictor iirc?) of future success in life. Maybe your observation of ultra-high IQ making bad decisions is selection bias from your own life experiences?

[loramin]

In fact, they do mostly correlate. That's where the g factor comes from. The g factor is the underlying variable you get when you do a factor analysis on a wide range of cognitive tasks (similar to those other IQ types as you mentioned). A person who has a strong working memory is more likely to process information quicker, learn quicker, etc. Yes, sometimes you have idiot savant types, but generally there is a strong correlation, hence how the g factor is synthesized statistically

Like I said before, IQ tests do test something, and there is a correlation between some subject measurements and IQ tests. For instance, IQ correlates noticeably with both Math and English scores. So if you have a single test, and the results of that test correlate with several different subject competency measurements, surely that means the test measures a "g" intelligence that's shared between those subjects ... right?

As it turns out, not so much: let's imagine you make up an IQ test with half the questions about English and half about Math. The results of that test would also correlate highly with English and Math scores, but it wouldn't prove any link between English and Math, right?

As it turns out though there are some cross-subject connections that can't be explained that way, which leads to the "mutualism" theory:

Scores on cognitive tasks used in intelligence tests correlate positively with each other, that is, they display a positive manifold of correlations. The positive manifold is often explained by positing a dominant latent variable, the g factor, associated with a single quantitative cognitive or biological process or capacity. In this article, a new explanation of the positive manifold based on a dynamical model is proposed, in which reciprocal causation or mutualism plays a central role. It is shown that the positive manifold emerges purely by positive beneficial interactions between cognitive processes during development. A single underlying g factor plays no role in the model.

I'm no Psych major, and again this is oversimplified, but my understanding is basically that Math and English are not intrinsically linked, but if all American students study Math and English together their brains will develop in a way that links those concepts. The example they give in the paper is lake ecosystems: if you look at one set of lakes and measure water quality, fish diversity, etc. you might notice that certain factors result in "healthy lakes". But those "healthy lake" factors only apply to the set of lakes you were looking at; other ecosystems have different factors.

Now to be fair this is not "settled" science, just the latest research I'm aware of. But it explains several problems with the "g" intelligence theory (eg. why do infant IQ tests not correlate with adult success the way later tests do? Because they haven't yet developed in a way that links those concepts).

But if it makes you feel any better, I'm guessing all you IQ fans aren't big fans of the idea of EQ ("emotional intelligence")? Well it turns out EQ is just like the above, only it's been proven to be bullshit statistically. A really smart friend of mine (the kid did high school in two years and UC Berkeley undergrad in three) actually did a breakdown of EQ and was able to prove that there is no "EQ", just a bunch of unrelated things (empathy, willpower, etc.) arbitrarily linked together by some overexcited researcher.

[Lhancelot]

IQ remains a strong predictor (the best predictor iirc?) of future success in life.

Wait a minute. You mean dumb people tend to not be as successful in life compared to intelligent people? Unbelievable!

[AzzarTheGod]

*claps happily and cheers Azzar on*

The whale says coastal elites are elite, and we should embrace status quo. the whale proposes that you can get "ahead".

it turns out elites aren't really that elite and are only 1 big expense away from having the legs cut out of them.

most of you can't imagine it since you live in abject poverty anyway, so this issue is far removed. What is 80k, 100k, 120k shrinking salary have to do with your nonexistent 10k you make flipping cars you might ask. The fact is the tax code is simply unfair and until people are paying their fair share, shrinking 100k salaries aren't going to cut it either.

now drop dunks on it, now drop dunks on it

repeat refrain x2


https://www.npr.org/2017/12/03/567602293/what-living-on-100-000-a-year-looks-like

[JurisDictum]

Yea IQ totally exists. That's why its a completely arbitrary list of questions that is updated with the times *cough Flynn Effect cough.* Our ancestors all must have been retarded by our modern IQ standards.

Here's the reality: smart people tend (but not always) to score high on IQ tests. Smart people are better at making money in a capitalist system. That's what we know.

[hyejin]

The whale says coastal elites are elite, and we should embrace status quo. the whale proposes that you can get "ahead".

it turns out elites aren't really that elite and are only 1 big expense away from having the legs cut out of them.

most of you can't imagine it since you live in abject poverty anyway, so this issue is far removed. What is 80k, 100k, 120k shrinking salary have to do with your nonexistent 10k you make flipping cars you might ask. The fact is the tax code is simply unfair and until people are paying their fair share, shrinking 100k salaries aren't going to cut it either.

now drop dunks on it, now drop dunks on it

repeat refrain x2


https://www.npr.org/2017/12/03/567602293/what-living-on-100-000-a-year-looks-like

when u hear the piper calling man u take a hammer to the banana stand
x8

[Nibblewitz]

It really is a shame that we can't add value to our zero sum game without exploitation.

[hyejin]

It really is a shame that we can't add value to our zero sum game without exploitation.

are you sure that you can't? :(

[maskedmelon]

are you sure that you can't? :(

+1