Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    44443
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    247

Posts posted by Brisketexan

  1. Oh hell yes dude, hit me with that good "slavery was actually good for the blacks, so YOU'RE WELCOME!" shit.
    Hell yeah let's say blacks are better off in America than they are in Africa because colonialism isn't a thing and apartheid didn't exist and white supremacy didn't completely fuck over that entire continent for centuries. Come on, Ben Shaprio and Daily Stormer, pump that white supremacy right into my veins.
    Are you applying for Chief Goal Post mover?  Colonialism happened...white supremacy exists in the USA,, and apartheid happened in South Africa, where there was no Atlantic slave trade so don't pull that crap.  The world is what it is... 
    So answer the question, it's really simple...if you were black, would you rather be born in the US or sub-Saharan Africa?
    Yes, really, answer the question. If the Industrial Revolution was bound to free the slaves, why was it not done in the American South? Why did the American South find slavery so vital to their lives that they literally seceded and started a war to protect it? What movement towards freeing the slaves was already underway in the American South before the Civil War started? Please educate me.
    In America, the Industrial Revolution began in the Northern states...specifically in 1793 at a cotton mill in Pawtucket, RI.  By 1821, all Northern states were slave free.  With the abolition of slavery in the North came the abolitionists.  Weird how that happened.
    But progress doesn't always move at the pace you'd like it to, so the South lagged behind due to simple economics.  Slavery was profitable for the Southerners.  However, it would have happened in time...likely before 1888 when Brazil, the last of the Atlantic Slave Trade countries, formally abolished slavery.  So, while it may have taken about 20 years more to happen, it would have happened because it would have become unsustainable.  Not only would customers been demanding a change, but the costs associated with slave ownership would have eventually made slavery more costly than the alternative.  Econ 101.
    And so not unlike what the US did to cause the collapse of the USSR, had the Northerners (and anti-slave countries such as the UK, Spain, France, etc.) used economic pressure instead of bullying and brute force, we probably could have avoided the Civil War, just as every other country that abolished slavery had done.
    That in turn would have probably lessened the rift between North and South that still exists today.
    Yes, that's obvious. So why did you say that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them"? You're contradicting yourself.
    I'm not contradicting myself.  I still believe that giving any group special status does more harm than good, because it not only perpetuates stereotypes, but also increases any existing animosity...it becomes us against them.
    I'm a finance person.  I don't give a shit about color or creed...I see everything in economic terms...purely dollars and cents.  It may seem insensitive, but I don't let emotions get in the way of data.  I have plenty of empathy, but not a lot of sympathy.
    Anyway, I'm sure everyone else is as tired of this discussion as we are, so if you feel like following up, let's do it via direct message.

    Man. Been watching this shitshow....and wow.

    I’m curious how banning slavery of ANY person gives black folks “special status.” And how banning discrimination based on race - any race - gives black folks “special status.”

    It’s really easy to say such stupidity when you are remote from be reality that existed - remote either by race, or by time. It’s embarrassing, but easy.
  2. 3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

    hate to be the rainshower, but that video is fake - the screaming kids are actually reacting to a terrifying easter bunny

    Seriously, folks.  Don't be Trumpkins about this shit.  

  3. 2 minutes ago, woohorn said:

    Witness reports are crazy-dumb fucks can't even get gender.
     

    Quoted for emphasis.  Remember that EVERY SINGLE TIME you hear or rely on witness reports.

    I've told this story before, about my personal experience with "unreliable witness accounts" - I was 10, mom and I were driving home from a movie (Politergeist -- you only moved the headstones!).  High speed police chase ends right next to us -- vehicle goes airborne, upside down, smashes into telephone pole.  Guy crawls out bleeding, but alive.  A few minutes later, we get home, and tell my dad what just happened.  I told him about the silver TransAm that crashed.  My mother says WTF are you talking about, it was a red pickup truck.

    Witnesses are unreliable as shit.

    And my mom was wrong.  I'm sure of it.  Or not.

  4. 16 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:
    52 minutes ago, Blotto said:
    I fully expect Putin will require Trump to suck his dick on live TV. I 90% expect Trump will do it

    In a way, Putin already has Trump fucking a pig on national television regularly a la Black Mirror.

    You need to lighten up on Huckabeef, man.

    • Like 3
    • Haha 1
  5. 8 minutes ago, Grandioso said:

    Let's assume that there is a statistically significant difference between white people and black people in terms of cognitive ability. Some scientist comes along and proves that this difference is purely genetic and upbringing, nutrition, or any external factors are irrelevant. It's undeniable.

    Racists would immediately seize it to argue that white supremacy, racism in public institutions, poverty, and such aren't keeping black folks down; it's a result of blacks not having those magic extra 10 IQ points that white people have on average. That's a lot less nefarious than using it to justify slavery or genocide, but the intent is still malicious. 

    Continuing with the assumption though, wouldn't the ethical response be the total opposite? Wouldn't decent Christian folks at least subscribe to some kind of well-intended-but-still-racist "white man's burden" type of view? 

    As long as you concede that blacks are fellow humans, wouldn't there be a moral obligation to empower blacks and give them extra advantages and special accommodations? I mean, we want disabled people to be able to have the fullest lives possible and achieve self-actualization. We have laws in place to protect these genetically shortchanged people. We try to remove barriers but also give direct assistance and aid to them. 

    I find it telling that 0.00% of people cite these studies to advance even an attempt at an ethical (albeit patronizing and misguided) position like the one above. When in the context of politics and policy, they are used to either absolve past crimes by the "superior" race or justify future ones. Whether the science is reliable or not, cheapening life and dehumanizing  "other" is, historically, the prelude to every genocide that has ever occurred. 

     

    2 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

    Bullshit. If you were pro-science you wouldn't keep starting these stupid threads with anti-scientific premises. You've been told over and over again, in many different ways and in great detail, that the concept of race is scientifically invalid, and yet you cling to it like an infant sucking its mother's tit. Look at the title of this one: when the source materials you are purporting to discuss are talking about genetically distinct populations, you reduce this to the simplistic, outmoded concept of race. This is antiscientific superstition. Take a look at the actual research with an open mind if you really want to be pro-science (yeah, I know you don't, but for the sake of argument let's pretend you're doing something other than trolling).

    The whole premise is garbage, from "the evil left is against subpopulation studies" to "let's see how it correlates to race."

    There are stacks of studies -- seriously, I suspect that one could go on a mission to read them all this year, and not make a dent -- that examine genetic features and variations of distinct subpopulations.  Yep, including Africans.  Who, by the way, are genetically diverse as hell -- again, rendering the concept of "race" complete garbage.  Which African subpopulation is the "African/black race?"  Shit, which European subpopulation is the "white race?"  Because there's an ass-ton of genetic diversity INTERNALLY in each of those "races."

    Here's just one study I found in literally seconds of google searching:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4067985/

    Quote

    Because modern humans originated in Africa and have adapted to diverse environments, African populations have high levels of genetic and phenotypic diversity. Thus, genomic studies of diverse African ethnic groups are essential for understanding human evolutionary history and how this leads to differential disease risk in all humans. Comparative studies of genetic diversity within and between African ethnic groups creates an opportunity to reconstruct some of the earliest events in human population history and are useful for identifying patterns of genetic variation that have been influenced by recent natural selection. Here we describe what is currently known about genetic variation and evolutionary history of diverse African ethnic groups. We also describe examples of recent natural selection in African genomes and how these data are informative for understanding the frequency of many genetic traits, including those that cause disease susceptibility in African populations and populations of recent African descent.

    There are hundreds of genetically distinct subpopulations in Africa alone.  The SECOND that someone uses the word "race" in discussing genetic subpopulation research, they discredit themselves beyond possible rehabilitation.

    Just like Tahoe did.  When he foolishly picked this "fight," on the back of a non-existent problem (weren't we told that the evil left wouldn't allow genetic research into subpopulations?), and used the word "race" (a scientifically irrelevant and meaningless word) in his three word thread title.

    The only thing we're gaining from this is a data point that may be relevant to a determination that the genetically distinct subpopulation of angry white guys in Alabama is a bunch of morons.  We should do more research into why that is.

    • Like 1
  6. 1 minute ago, Texas73 said:

    You think Trump was qualified to be president?

    Shit, he's not even qualified to manage a Burger King franchise.

    I think it's ironic that, in response to a Dem president whose chief failing was his lack of experience and perspective for an executive position answerable to millions of people, the GOP gave us....Trump.  Even LESS qualified, who has NEVER answered to ANYONE.  Head-shaking stupidity indeed.

    I'm enough of a grown-up to have seen inside plenty of organizations -- private for-profit, non-profit, and governmental.  And in every one of them, the leadership is answerable to someone, and damned well better have some experience and perspective that qualifies him or her for the job.  On the occasions where I've seen folks (voters, a board of directors) try to go with the "let's pick a total outsider" approach....it has ended poorly.  Because if you're hiring a ship's captain, you're ALWAYS going to be better off if you hire someone who is an experienced sailor vs. someone who's never even stepped off of land.

    • Like 1
  7. Nope, not even close.
    Moreover, all exit strategy scenarios are unpleasant.
    I give Trump at least another year.

    Yep. Through it all, this is the truth. We built a system that resists efforts to remove an executive, even a godawful one. That’s good...but here’s the weakness of that system.
    You rang?
    Yes, I know it's only one day, but your post reminded me of this article.
    Stocks post worst start to April since the Great Depression
     


    It’s gonna take a lot more of that to register with the moron class.
    giphy.gif

    Pure truth.
     


    And that’s also pure truth. We have a toddler attacking one of the largest businesses in the country, costing the American people billions. Because he’s a petulant infant.
  8. It's the Copernicus position in Copernicus v. Catholic Church.  (pro science, anti- political correctness)

    Bullshit. It’s the lazy Samuel Morton position. You aren’t worthy to sniff Copernicus’ skidmarked shorts.

  9. Also, I think it needs to be said in the interest of being a good internet friend; you aren’t getting good wood on the ball and hitting the sweet spot like you think you are when you post these “accusations-cum-wisdom”, if that is what you are thinking is going on. It just seems like you feel a bit too good about your positions and your arguments/persuasion when some real work is needed. Especially when your posts towards the end of the shag were the epitome of fear-based.
     
     It does pain me to see a poster of merit and respect like twiceHorn take up your water here.

    I’m human. I’m often guilty of the same emotional reactions as the rest of you.

    But I’m trying to do better.

    As for my read on what a shitshow our president and his followers are....I’m predicting the likely outcome. It’s not “fear” to see the titanic approaching an iceberg and saying “that bodes ill.” Irrational fear is saying “there’s a crisis of icebergs everywhere” when the data shows they aren’t.
  10. I am not citing stats Brisket, I am citing life.  Suppose I don't believe the stats?  There is one other thing you may find of interest.  If you think the police are out of control now, you should have lived then.  Maybe that's why I believe crime was controlled(or at least isolated), and people could let their kids run the entire neighborhood without fear.

    You’re free to “not believe stats”....but that doesn’t make them any less true.

    As for cops, I damn well know they were even worse in the past. We just have better video coverage now.
×
×
  • Create New...