Since, as we all know, Race Does Not Exist, that, at least in theory, ought to create problems for the government in allocating benefits and protections according to race. Yet, the system seems to roll onward without too much trouble at a good-enough-for government-work level.
A question often asked is: What prevents Thurston Howell III from self-identifying as black and thus acquiring all the legal entitlements accruing thereto?
A reader has kindly sent me a number of bureaucratic forms that explain the "visual survey and/or other available information" enforcement clause. For example, from the state of Oregon, here are some key excerpts:
If you choose not to self-identify your race/ethnicity at this time, the federal government requires the state to determine this information by visual survey and/or other available information.Then, down in the small print at the bottom:
For agency HR use only:
_ AV (Asian or Pac. Islander –Visual assessment)
_ BV (African American – Visual assessment)
_ HV (Hispanic – Visual assessment)
_ IV (Native Amer. or Alaskan Native – Visual assessment)
_ WV (Caucasian – Visual assessment)
As I picture this working, if you self-identify in some self-serving but flagrantly dubious manner, you run the risk of being passed non-committaly along the bureaucratic chain by people who don't want to deal with this tricky problem, until you eventually run into the Person in Charge of Visual Surveillance, who, inevitably, will be a large, self-assured black woman who glares at you briefly, listens to a few of your feeble attempts to sound black, and then replies, "Oh, no, you isn't" and checks the "WV" box and stamps your paperwork "Rejected, with Extreme Prejudice."
I think this would make a pretty good sketch comedy running joke -- L'qisjha Jones, Affirmative Action Arbiter -- as various people try to bluff their way past L'qisjha, each rejected with the same punchline. You could have celebrity guests, like Vanilla Ice trying to be accepted as black, Bjork trying to be Alaskan Native, or Cliff Curtis trying to be upgraded from Pacific Islander to Hispanic. In the final episode, Dirk Nowitzki would narrate for L'qisjha in his Teutonibonics accent his highlight reel from the 2011 NBA Finals of him schooling LeBron James. He'd then put forward the metaphysical argument that since white men can't jump, and since he can jump, he must be black, which L'qisjha decides is inarguable, and stamps "Accepted" on his papers.
I think this would make a pretty good sketch comedy running joke -- L'qisjha Jones, Affirmative Action Arbiter -- as various people try to bluff their way past L'qisjha, each rejected with the same punchline. You could have celebrity guests, like Vanilla Ice trying to be accepted as black, Bjork trying to be Alaskan Native, or Cliff Curtis trying to be upgraded from Pacific Islander to Hispanic. In the final episode, Dirk Nowitzki would narrate for L'qisjha in his Teutonibonics accent his highlight reel from the 2011 NBA Finals of him schooling LeBron James. He'd then put forward the metaphysical argument that since white men can't jump, and since he can jump, he must be black, which L'qisjha decides is inarguable, and stamps "Accepted" on his papers.
Posts
88 comments:
Mr. Sailer !
Your 2nd article in VDARE,
touching "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray, and covering a lot of other important topics, is really good !
Fascinated, your Florida resident.
In Britain we can also play the Irish card and the Gypsy card. Bit tricky to do those by visual assessment.
Steve -- I'm posting this just to draw your attention to the stories about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in Florida. Zimmerman, a wannbe cop, killed Martin, an unarmed teenager. Martin is obviously and undisputedly black. But the media is having some trouble with Zimmerman. If you look at his mug shot, he's obviously mestizo Hispanic. He's father also described him as Hispanic. But ABC News and USA Today describe him as "white." At least one other paper I saw today (the NYT perhaps) simply said he's "not black."
Thought you'd be interested.
Serious question: Does anyone know how easy it is to just lie on a college application and check "Black" if you haven't a drop of African blood? I have heard (purely rumor) of white South Africans who get in by identifying as "African American." I also know a white person from Alaska who checked "Alaska Native" (it would be clearer if they just labelled it "Eskimo") and got in while her twin sister who checked "White" did not.
I could have gotten in pretty much anywhere if I were only compared with African American applicants. Is such a strategy doomed to backfire?
So ... get someone who's 1/128th black and has the genes to prove it, and doesn't look black to do this, bring a lawsuit, and LO! You've got the gov't trapped in /having to prove it/ each time, with either a genetic test (no!) or a frikkin' panel of visual identification experts; all sorts of rattletrap mechanism, making the whole exercise risible. Like Ghandi, and math - force the system to show how ridiculous it is.
Yes, but they're just referring to race as a social cultural phenomenon - there are no biological races :P
Posts like this are why I come to this blog. Well done.
Of course there can't be biological races because then people might look at biological reasons for racial inequality.
... people who are 'passers' or descended from them could try it (re my earlier comment about someone who's got a bit of genetic blackness but doesn't look that way, getting up the system's nose). Too bad there aren't more iSteve readers; it'd take someone with a lot of money and time to waste to do it. No organizations to back /this/ charge at the system.
If it shows up on SNL, you know that they read you.
They ripped of Treacher in '08.
"I'd buy that for a dollar."
Back in the late Sixties, my college roommate, a dark-skinned American of Portuguese ethnicity, got her jobs by letting everyone think she was Mexican-American as her last name was Hispanic-sounding. When she married a Filipino-American, she got another last name that has, I do believe, helped her climb the ladder of success of administrative positions with the State.
"you eventually run into the Person in Chargeof Visual Survey, who, inevitably, will be a large, self-assured black woman who glares at you briefly, listens to a few of your feeble attempts to sound black, and then replies, "Oh, no, you isn't"
And you wonder, seriously ad truly, why many black people don't like white people?
back in the VA a white woman married a guy with a Hispanic name and was promoted to a top position. Win Win all around: Woman plus Hispanic. By the way this woman had light/blond hair! WTF Where is this country going?
Aww, Troof made a hurt-feelings comment instead of a snarky comment.
Smells like traction.
A L'qisjha would have rejected a young Valerie Jarrett, not because Ms. Jarrett is fully white (she's probably 10%-20% black), but simply out of spite. Same for Alicia Keys, Vanessa Williams, etc.
Truth,
Its okay to make fun of stereotypes.
the left wants the system/constitution to become unworkable. Then they can impose a 'solution. Much like the immigration/diversity loop : immigration and diversity cause problems between races: solution more diversity and diversity training..
@ truth "Oh, no, you isn't"
Yeah you're right darling, not like we've never heard anyone black speak like that. I guess it's racist to point out they drop on the 's' on "cents" too.
I am an employee at one level of the Canadian government. About 10 years ago, I had to attend an anti-harassment political indoctrination session.
When the subject of affirmative action and discrimination came up, I asked, "so how do you know if somebody is black or not?"
My purpose of asking that question was to put them on the horns of a dilemma: is it completely subjective, or is there some Dr. Mengele phrenological test that the government administers? Obviously the latter was out of the question, so all I realistically expected was a reluctant admission that the standard is hopelessly subjective, or to find out that there is no answer at all.
The answer I received was that you have to self-identify if you are a visible minority. There are forms available for that purpose.
My response was, "so if I identify myself as black, then does that mean that I am - by definition - black?"
Her response to that was, "we expect our employees to be honest."
My response was, "So I really am black."
She had no answer to that.
After the meeting, I downloaded the form.
P.S. I am from northern Europe.
Note to State of Oregon:
"Native American" is defined by federal law as "a member of a recognized tribe" and, therefore, is not subject to visual determination.
How could anyone visually distinguish mestizo from Native American?
Conversely, many tribal members, especially in Oklahoma, appear White.
There is a tribe on the North Dakota-Manitoba border all of whose members have French surnames. On our side they are "Indians" but on the Canadian side they are "Mitis," a classification not known in the U.S. So how does that visual identification work in Oregon?
Just to complete the foolishness, many Indians living in the South were classified as "Negroes" because they lacked tribal organizations. Over time they accepted this social status and blended into black society. I married into such a family.
Your post has inspired me to post prematurely the first scene of a little project I've been working on but which was shelved. It's a crude and hopefully humorous scene of a guy interviewing for a government job. As you will see, I disagree with the idea that there is typically a L'qisjha at the end of any line. Most people would rather have a competent white guy passing than an incompetent group that fills in the box with a deeper shade of number 2 pencil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk9uHf3QrMo&feature=youtu.be
Forgot to mention that the part you are more interested starts around 1:05
"And you wonder, seriously ad truly, why many black people don't like white people?"
They don't appear to need much reason at all, as you have aptly demonstrated.
There are some situations in life that just call for a L'qisjha.
What if you use make-up to look black (like in Soul Man)? You have a right to make yourself look any way you like. When you show up your first day at work/school without wearing blackface, do they get to sue you?
I think you're reading the form wrong - the visual assessment is only for those who do not check off any racial box at all.
Truth said...
"you eventually run into the Person in Chargeof Visual Survey, who, inevitably, will be a large, self-assured black woman who glares at you briefly, listens to a few of your feeble attempts to sound black, and then replies, "Oh, no, you isn't"
And you wonder, seriously ad truly, why many black people don't like white people?
Truth.... hurts.
"What if you use make-up to look black (like in Soul Man)? You have a right to make yourself look any way you like. When you show up your first day at work/school without wearing blackface, do they get to sue you?"
You know, I'm wondering if they would even care. They get to check you off on their diversity stats as "black," and you don't bring down their SAT scores as much as a real AA admit would.
It would take brass balls to pull this off, but I'm wondering if I should encourage my kids to do it. It's one of those gray areas where lying might not be wrong if you lie in response to an immoral question, i.e. "No, there are no Jews in this house, we are all loyal Germans."
I would like to see more posts like this but tailored to how people can game this corrupt affirmative action system effectively.
It seems to me that most Whites could get away with at least claiming to be Hispanic, or maybe Native Americans since people from Europe came to N. America before Indians who came from the Siberian area.
Blacks can't identify race by visual assessment worth a lick, judging from my previous work experience. I've seen them identify Filipinos as White even after sitting down with them for face to face interviews. Asians were thought to be Russians, and various Whites were thought to be Hispanic even though they were not in the least bit similar in looks and even had non-Spanish ethnic last names, which might have served as a clue. Conversely, Hispanics were often categorized as White until the error was pointed out to them and were given a primer on it: look for the Spanish name. Of course, figuring out what a Spanish name actually was, apart from the three or four most common ones that could be memorized, was another hurdle. Quite an eye-opener, all that.
MC: You know, I'm wondering if they would even care. They get to check you off on their diversity stats as "black," and you don't bring down their SAT scores as much as a real AA admit would.
That actually seems pretty plausible. For example, a remarkable fraction of the biggest Hispanic stars on Spanish-Language TV tend to be blond and blue-eyed, and more or less the same is true for a pretty significant slice of the most prominent Hispanic elected officials (though admittedly some are brunettes). In fact, wasn't Jorge Ramos ranked as one of the most influential Hispanic leaders on that Pew Hispanic survey of American Latinos back a year or two ago. It's basically a two-fer---the Hispanics are happy and the White Nationalists are also happy.
So maybe the same thing might work with blacks. If most of the racial AA slots get allocated to blacks who happen to be blond and blue-eyed, maybe that's one solution to the endless AA controversy...
Troof made a hurt-feelings comment instead of a snarky comment.
Easy. Truth is a good guy. He just can't let it go. Happens to everyone about something. With Truth, it's his blackness. Nobody's perfect!
how people can game this corrupt affirmative action system effectively
I could never bring myself to it but the easiest and most reliable would be to legally change your name. No justification is needed. Then you check that Hispanic box and your name is Robert Rodriguez or Carlos Torres. You might have even been born in CA, NM, AZ or TX. Woohoo! No one, ever, is going to question you. Disgusting, eh?
Love the L'qisha sketch idea, but I do think you've got this backward. As another commenter said, the visual check is only there to tally those who don't want to disclose. That way, they can still see that the asians are overrepresented. The truth is, outside of academics, no one is policing the system. When was the last time you heard about someone getting in trouble for claiming to be something he wasnt or getting in a lawsuit because they didnt believe him? The only person I can think of was that crazy "Native American" professor in Colorado. The realities of HBD make the fairytale world destined to be gamed. No one who is trying to up there numbers is going to report you up the ladder. Yes, conscientious, ethical and morally driven people will; but we are running out of them.
you guys make fun of "truth", but his posts are mostly above average, compared to the rest of the comments on this here blog. and he's only one against many.
re: the last one. why make so much fun of blacks? what is this fixation with "blacks are this" and "blacks are that" and "oh, they're so stupid" and "wow, look at their IQ"...what good can come of this incessant talk? yes, the anthropological-themed discussions are interesting, yes the topics related to government waste and incompetence have value, but beating up on The Blacks is kinda tiresome.
Come on, Mr. Sailer, you're a smart guy - if you pretend not to understand the "Race is a myth but racism is real" argument, you're just playing dumb. (I don't accuse your commenters of that.) That argument, which we don't hear much since the 1990s, is actually quite valid, regardless of the truth-value of the premises.
I'm surprised that nobody noticed the racism in that government form, though. "BV" for African-American? Insensitive, borderline racist. "IV" for Native American? Racist! It's almost as bad as using the colors white, black, and yellow in graphs and charts about race.
Steve, just went to Breitbart.com.
**********************************
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/19/Your-Child-Is-a-Racist-or-a-Victim-Critical-Race-Theory-in-Obamas-Schools
***********************************
From the article on PEG in the public schools:
" A promotional video for PEG explains that the organization targets 'white culture' as the source of the problems that minority students face:
Narrator: Education experts agree that educators must be given the tools that help them examine and address the role that race plays in the success or failure to educate and engage black, brown, and Native American Indian students.
California teacher Matthew Kertesz: When our black and brown students underperform, it’s not based on any lack of ability, but it’s because equal resources isn’t the same thing [sic] as equally served. So our schools often falsely assume that kids of color can and will simply change and thrive in an environment based on white culture. Now, when our schools and society truly value our black and brown youth -– and that’s shown through school culture, and practice, and policy –- then we’ll start to see equal performance.
Singleton claims that PEG has worked with “hundreds” of schools."
I'll have to ask my teacher friends if they've yet been indoctrinated. I know they had to take instruction each and very Wed. about how to teach black kids to learn, since the "gap" is so large that the only reason it could_ possibly_ be_ so is that the teachers must not know how to teach blacks. One of the "instructors" told one group of teachers that they shouldn't send black kids out of class for bad behavior, "Or else how will they learn?"
Seriously, Steve? This doesn't even read like you.
The black female visual assessment officer would give Dirk Nowitzki a pass since his girlfriend Jennifer is black:
http://www2.2space.net/images/upl_news/110714/1310602208.jpg
Oh my god Steve that was hilarious! I think you should actually get it produced, or at least get in screenplay format so somebody else can.
That argument, which we don't hear much since the 1990s, is actually quite valid, regardless of the truth-value of the premises.
Say what? Is "truth-value" somehow different from "validity"?
Anyway, if an argument is based on premises that are lacking in "truth value", how can that argument not be fallacious?
You know, reading this entry and the comments puts me in mind of growing up on the South Side of Chicago many years ago.
Occasionally, you could see what "visual assessment" would indicate were white women who lived with black families, exhibiting all the linguistic features and gesticulations that one normally experienced only in blacks. This would cause something in the way of "cognitive dissonance".
On the other hand, I once got on a CTA bus and sat in the bench seats at the front that face each other. Sitting opposite was a pretty woman about twenty years old. Her facial features were entirely "European"--thin nose, high cheek bones etc. If you saw her in a black and white photo, you'd say she was white. But in person, her skin tone was something like coffee that had had huge amounts of cream put into it by somebody who hated the taste of coffee and was trying to drown it out. Presumably, her ancestors were mostly white European, but there was a small amount of African thrown in. Anyway, I got off the bus in Hyde Park, leaving her to continue on her way, seemingly into the slums to the south. One can only image that she self-identified as black. She may have had more than the proverbial 1%, but it wasn't likely to be more than 20%, I guess. More cognitive dissonance, since while the overall impression was "white", there was no doubt that in practice she was "black".
Similarly, I remember a black guy in school with moderately dark skin tone, but startlingly bright blue eyes. Clearly, a bar of soap had gotten lost in the coal shuttle on both sides of the family!
Anyhoo, while the black/white dichotomy is clear enough in most cases, what they used to call "miscegenation" can result in weird results in practice…
It used to be people were proud of being in the Daughters of the American Revolution(DAR); now coming from that old line Wasp group is only good for saying you are part black.
A really smart guy with big cojones wrote an essay 12 years ago which touched on a this subject.
http://www.isteve.com/Census.htm
"As part of her Senate campaign, Hillary Clinton recently announced she was 1/128th black."
A few years ago Andrew Bolt, an Australian journalist, wrote a couple of funny articles about some very white-looking people claiming to be Aboriginals in order to get perks reserved for the Abos. Unfortunately for Bolt, the white Aboriginals he ridiculed took him to court and he was convicted of "racial discrimination." Check out the photos at the end of the judgement.
Truth - the fictional example sounds plausible because I find it very hard to believe that a white person would be the arbiter of last resort in such matters.
Though of course as we know White Privilege means that no one who could 'pass' for white would ever consider having themselves officially defined as anything else.
In the media in New Mexico, it was always humorous to see the blond hair/blue eye reporter with the name of Sally Lujan or Mary Trujillo. But those very white reporters were usually paired with dark haired/dark eyed reporter with the name of Maria Gonzales-Jones.
Since being Hispanic is based upon last name, professional Hispanic women in places like New Mexico, California, and Texas know to not give up their last name when they marry a white guy.
I remember how liberals used to scoff and guffaw at Apartheid South Africa's various attempts to 'classify' persons of mixed heritage, ie the 'pencil test' to determine 'afro' hair (a pencilwas not supposed to roll out of the hair) and the fact that each year several dozen people switched from 'white' to 'black' or vice versa.
Yeah, Nowitzki likes the high-yella girls.
His old mulatto girl went to jail (8 aliases, one for a license as a sex worker). The new girl is part Swedish and is striking.
>And you wonder, seriously ad truly, why many black people don't like white people?<
Haven't you got that in reverse with this (eminently realistic) example?
We're all Cablinasian now.
>Say what? Is "truth-value" somehow different from "validity"?<
It's more junk philosophy! See, academe's neobarbarians regard truth as merely one among many competing values. So a falsehood can have social value, a heist can have psychological value, etc.
Truth is no defense in that world. It's maybe one point in favor, that's all.
"Serious question: Does anyone know how easy it is to just lie on a college application and check "Black" if you haven't a drop of African blood?"
How do you know you haven't a drop of black blood? What about your great grandma Mary Ruth? How dare you forget about all those stories of wisdom and pie recipes she passed down to your grandpa who passed them down to you?
Seriously, though, are they gonna check if this guy ever had a great grandma name Mary Ruth the wise black woman? Also, what if he gets caught, but claims that he truly believed the story he was telling and is himself shocked that they turned out to be false? Could they punish him? Lots of people are mistaken about their real heritage.
Wow - I tell you what - every once in a while, the censorship which Komment Kontrol exercises can be very instructive.
Interesting.
Very, very interesting.
Apparently I struck a raw nerve there.
@T. Aquinas: "Is 'truth-value' somehow different from 'validity'?"
Yes. It is. An argument is "valid" if its conclusion follows from its premises.
For example, the following is a valid argument:
1)Queen Elizabeth rules the world.
2)Queen Elizabeth is a lizard from outer space.
C)Therefore, a lizard from outer space rules the world.
Say what? Is "truth-value" [of the premises] somehow different from "validity" [of the argument]?
Yes. An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises. Whether the premises are true is irrelevant.
Anyway, if an argument is based on premises that are lacking in "truth value", how can that argument not be fallacious?
The word you are looking for is "unsound".
A "sound" argument is a valid argument based on true premises; an "unsound" argument is a valid argument based on at least one false premise.
"yes the topics related to government waste and incompetence have value, but beating up on The Blacks is kinda tiresome."
It is called reaction.
Everyone is always beating up on whites for the failure of _______(fill in the blank) group. In truth, whites are responsible for themselves. And blacks for themselves, etc.
Also, it takes some time for selection to work. The harsher the conditions, the faster it works, because a smaller and more adapted group make it.
Not bad, Steve, not bad.
I imagine how you'd go about faking it, and whom you'd pretend to be, would differ based on what you're trying to do.
Applying for a minority loan or set-aside? The government may indeed do a visual inspection. Hasidic Jews qualify for those, and they're pretty damn white. So grow a beard, wear a hat, read "Hasidic Judaism for Dummies," and if anyone raises doubts (because your name happens to be "Seamus O'Donohue O'Malley" or some such) just call yourself a convert. Be sure to know the exact address of the nearest Chabad, however.
If it's for a job at a corporation then, as many have already pointed out, there's a good chance they won't even care - they just want to up their numbers to the federal government. If you misrepresent your race on your resume or application then it's your lie, not theirs. Get a good tan before your interview, get some dark brown contacts, maybe die your hair black, and claim to be Native. I can't imagine them asking for proof of tribal membership. You could also claim to be Hispanic on your mother's side.
This method, it seems, would also work well with college applications, since most colleges never do face-to-face interviews. Your child would have to be sure to check the (in)correct box on the ACT or SAT.
But no matter what you do, never mark yourself as anything but white on the Census form, because that's where the expectations come from.
@ MC: I posed that very question to a friend who works in the administration of a wannabe elite school, and he admitted that there is no real way for a college to challenge any self-assertion of favored ancestry.
L'qisjha is no match for the one drop rule. If you say your grandmother was half-black or hispanic, that's pretty much the end of it. There is no way to do an extensive geneaological or DNA verification of college applicants, especially if large numbers of applicants started doing it.
An even easier way would be to claim you are a homosexual and see if you could beat L'qisjha's gaydar.
The sooner the absurdity and inequities of this byzantine caste system are exposed, the sooner it crashes. There is a limit to how ridiculous this can get, isn't there?
In Britain we can also play the Irish card and the Gypsy card. Bit tricky to do those by visual assessment.
Especially tricky given that Britain does not have any affirmative action for Irish or Gyspies.
Got a 7/8 anglo stepson with an hispanic surname...I'm sure he used the hell out of it to get through the Cal state and medical school, now works for the govt. He played it safe and became a shrink, rather than a real doctor.
The black female visual assessment officer would give Dirk Nowitzki a pass since his girlfriend Jennifer is black
That would be much more likely to drive her into a rage. I've dated black women, and the most negative reactions we encountered were from other black women, especially older black women.
Blacks can't identify race by visual assessment worth a lick, judging from my previous work experience. I've seen them identify Filipinos as White even after sitting down with them for face to face interviews. Asians were thought to be Russians, and various Whites were thought to be Hispanic even though they were not in the least bit similar in looks and even had non-Spanish ethnic last names, which might have served as a clue. Conversely, Hispanics were often categorized as White until the error was pointed out to them and were given a primer on it: look for the Spanish name. Of course, figuring out what a Spanish name actually was, apart from the three or four most common ones that could be memorized, was another hurdle. Quite an eye-opener, all that.
Blacks are farther away from us genetically, so I wouldn't be surprised if "whitey" and "crackaz" are hurled routinely at Hispanics and Asians too.
"Say what? Is "truth-value" somehow different from "validity"?"
Dude, you call yourself T. Aquinas and you ask a question like that?
"On the other hand, I once got on a CTA bus and sat in the bench seats at the front that face each other. Sitting opposite was a pretty woman about twenty years old. Her facial features were entirely "European"--thin nose, high cheek bones etc. If you saw her in a black and white photo, you'd say she was white..."
Awww, that's quite loving and lyrical, Sport; you should have made a move, a man often only gets one chance at true love.
There are (for all practical purposes) no black people in Oregon. This is a lazy effort, and also not based in reality. A SWPL totally would be the looker of last resort. It's freakin' Oregon.
Sailer could've at least used the old standby of Chicago.
Although once again one wonders where on earth these black people exist who speak the way portrayed. It is not remotely like any black speech one can grab off youtube or netflix. Frex, it would be 'no you ain't', or 'you ARE NOT'. 'you isn't' is simply not a valid construction.
Don't any of you people know how the linguistics of dialects work? Probably not.
According to Oregon's form, is an Afghan a Caucasian or Asian?
And you wonder, seriously ad truly, why many black people don't like white people?
Here's that woman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H03HMab-UI4
I've asked Truth before, doesn't Larry David know about "stereotypes"?
Blacks are farther away from us genetically, so I wouldn't be surprised if "whitey" and "crackaz" are hurled routinely at Hispanics and Asians too.
Actually, no, not among blacks in Oakland/Berkeley anyway. On the other hand, any white guy, even Earl Warren's great-grandson, can get called "cracka" if he competes too hard on the court.
... beating up on The Blacks is kinda tiresome.
This clause is a rare achievement, in that it makes two errors simultaneously. First, you have it backwards, blacks beat up on whites, not vice versa. Admit that you've never seen a white guy hit a black one, let alone two or more gang up on one. Second, inasmuch as you use "beat up" as synonmous with "criticize," you're wrong again. It's can't be "tiresome" when it's so rare. Everywhere else, anything black is revered - it's presumptively cool. I'm actually not with the "blacks are dumb" crowd. But blacks are sworn enemies of the English language, so they'd be disliked here even if their IQ's were certified higher.
There are (for all practical purposes) no black people in Oregon. This is a lazy effort, and also not based in reality.
Apparently there are enough to cause trouble for the Portland public transportation system.
Check out this video on why the police are not charging blacks with hate crimes on whites in Portland.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Columbian-Vancouver-acid-attack-a-hoax-103087864.html
http://www.pressherald.com/news/back-cove-assault-a-hoax_2010-07-21.html
Yeah, so many black people causing so much trouble.
"...Dude, you call yourself T. Aquinas...
No, no, no! You got it all wrong! The dude calls himself The Dude. How else can it be?
For "explainer21"
I have used "beat up" figuratively (more like, yes, criticize). And it gets tiresome HERE, on this here blog (to plagiarize myself, if it's possible).
As for blacks being enemies of the English language, I dunno...Sport! (to plagiarize Truth, if it's permitted).
"I've asked Truth before, doesn't Larry David know about "stereotypes"?"
Where did that woman butcher the English language?
" (to plagiarize Truth, if it's permitted)."
Permitted, and encouraged, my good man.
Steve you have got to find the post and put it here of the woman of Portugese origins who objected to being classified as Hispanic as she was of Portugese origins.
the dude,
you guys make fun of "truth", but his posts are mostly above average, compared to the rest of the comments on this here blog. and he's only one against many.
His posts are mostly rubbish. I think you're only talking him up cos he's black. Gee, I've never heard of that before.
yes, the anthropological-themed discussions are interesting, yes the topics related to government waste and incompetence have value, but beating up on The Blacks is kinda tiresome.
Yeah, I agree. It's just plain racist for whites to defend themselves against charges that they're responsible for blacks' shortcomings, and how dare they complain about the negative effects blacks have on their lives. Not on! (Blacks, of course, can complain from the time they're five until they're eighty-five, but that's okay cos they're "oppressed.")
Aaron in Israel,
Come on, Mr. Sailer, you're a smart guy - if you pretend not to understand the "Race is a myth but racism is real" argument, you're just playing dumb. (I don't accuse your commenters of that.) That argument, which we don't hear much since the 1990s, is actually quite valid, regardless of the truth-value of the premises.
Guy's in Israel and still he can't help but try to police what white people think about race.
Anonymous at 5:41am: the Government of South Africa classified visitors, too. When the Jacksons toured, they were all classified as black, except Michael, who was classified as "colored" (mixed).
Steve - I remember reading about 20 or 30 years ago that the Supreme Court struck down Alabama and Mississippi laws which defined "black" as having 1/32 black ancestry. Since those laws are unconstitutional, there is no law defining what is black, so you ought to legally be able to claim you are.
The sooner the absurdity and inequities of this byzantine caste system are exposed, the sooner it crashes. There is a limit to how ridiculous this can get, isn't there?
The system still has a lot of legitimacy for the useful idiots. It's like the guy who still insists on opening doors and picking up the check for the misandrist harridan.
When that legitimacy has eroded far enough, game over.
@ben tillman...not to be pedantic, or anything, but, strictly speaking, an unsound argument isn't necessarily "a valid argument based on at least one false premise."
It can also be an *invalid* argument, regardless of the truth of the premises.
"I'm actually not with the "blacks are dumb" crowd. "
Why not?????
Almost 100 years of IQ tests have shown that on average, and all along the overlaping with significantly separated bell curves for IQ by race, that that's the case. La Griffe du Lion has called it the fundamental constant of sociology. The evidence is overwhelming no matter how much the mainstream media dissembles and demonizes around this subject.
"His posts are mostly rubbish. I think you're only talking him up cos he's black. Gee, I've never heard of that before."
So a man's not allowed to have his own opinion anymore, Vladimir?
It seems to me that the "comments" sections on the vast majority of blogs have vastly more comments on other commenters' comments than on the original article by the blogger. I may be guilty to contributing to this too.
My main point (maybe insufficiently emphasized) was to ask Mr. Steve Sailer: what good can come out of frequently looking at blacks through this narrow lens of "IQ"? And a question to a greater point: why do so many people value the IQ so much for the benefit of so few?
My main point (maybe insufficiently emphasized) was to ask Mr. Steve Sailer: what good can come out of frequently looking at blacks through this narrow lens of "IQ"?
Silver already pointed you in the right direction, but I'll spell it out for you.
Leftoids blame White racism for the fact that Blacks don't live up to leftoid expectations. Whites point out that, given what we know of Black ability, leftoid expectations are stupid.
I.e., the IQ gap goes a long way toward defending Whites against leftoid accusations. If leftoids are offended by the defendant's strategy, maybe they shouldn't have brought a frivolous suit based on faulty assumptions.
And a question to a greater point: why do so many people value the IQ so much for the benefit of so few?
I don't know what that means.
I wounder if Blake Griffin would pass a visual test for being African American.
"what good can come out of frequently looking at blacks through this narrow lens of 'IQ'?"
Because the Leftist explanation for racial disparity is that blacks are and have been oppressed (legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, etc.), and that said disparities must be addressed by affirmative action, quotas, set-asides, and lawsuits.
Conservatives have the right to rebut the accusation by showing that some factor other than racism is the cause.
Of course you don't really even need to use IQ, but simply make two points:
1) Jews and Asians are both minorities yet do dramatically better than non-Jewish whites.
2) Mestizos do poorly, and blacks do horribly, in any country they live, including the ones where there is no history of slavery or Jim Crow, and ones where they are the overwhelming majority.
The Left's answer is that we can't talk about it at all, and that to mention either of the above two points is itself racism.
I once politely mentioned #2 on a fairly respectable left-wing blog and was permanently blocked from posting.
Post a Comment