MovieChat Forums > filmflaneur > Replies
filmflaneur's Replies
If you really 'don't care' whether something is fake news or not, why, er, do you object when I supposedly offer some?
No, something objective and authoritative will do. But, then again, as you have explained elsewhere and just recently: "I don't really care if it's fake news or not" I'm not sure why you take issue with what I said. Have you thought this through?
No substantiation then? That's a shame. Is there a problem?
<blockquote>All others besides Whites</quote>
Naturally. But a little 'ethnic pride', and 'not celebrating' racial difference it seems, quickly goes a long way. Sometimes (eg for people like curiousMind101, just lately, on this site) it goes to "Until every non-White is purged from Europe and every race mixer is taken off the street" .
Feel free to substantiate something of your own by way of proving otherwise. I do love the smell of the conspiracy sphere in the morning.
<blockquote>First of all, how did you get to write such a long post here? When I try it, I can't type anymore.</blockquote>
You may wish to ask one of those many Asians who, apparently are brighter than whites - and do better on other social scores too.
I shan't be answering all your points, some which have more merit than others for reason of space. I chose one at random, that of brain sizes between whites and blacks. You claim that white brain are larger. A number of studies have indeed reported a moderate statistical correlation between differences in IQ and brain size between individuals in the same group. And some scholars have reported differences in average brain sizes between racial groups, although this is unlikely to be a good measure of IQ as brain size also differs between men and women, but without significant differences in IQ. At the same time newborn black children have the same average brain size as white children, suggesting that the difference in average size could be accounted for by differences in environment. I hope that helps.
<blockquote> Science hasn't identified all the genes for intelligence yet,<i> so you can't 100% prove genetics is the cause. </i> </blockquote>
My point really; and so QED. Thank you.
I think I have provided an obvious double standard among white supremacists, Nazis and racists even though you have tried to explain it away when it is an obvious thing to mention. I have no idea btw what the current exchange about the supposed intelligence of different peoples has to do with that although it seems to exercise you a lot. Even if a person or group is shown to be less intelligent is it really acceptable to find that a reason to decry them? So that will do for me.
<blockquote>his claim is just a desperate attempt on behalf of well intentioned people to prevent the political consequence of admitting the obvious truth. They HAVE TO lie about this</blockquote>
but then, from you elsewhere only just recently
<blockquote>Science hasn't identified all the genes for intelligence yet, so you can't 100% prove genetics is the cause.</blockquote>
A different (and more balanced view). Make yer mind up.
<blockquote> How is an undisputed fact of higher domestic abuse in interracial couples not a good argument to not celebrate interracial relationships?</blockquote>
Unfortunately I don't think your attitude to peoples who are not white is really not just 'not wishing to celebrate' them. This is just mealy-mouthed.
<blockquote>How do mixed race children express more abuse than Black children but less than Whites? </blockquote>
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48623311 A few seconds work. Google in your friend,
<blockquote>If he changed his views it's not a double standard. If he didn't, it may be hypocrisy from him, </blockquote>
No coy 'may' about it. Since I am suggesting a case when, either a racist changed his views to accommodate just this personal instance or, conversely, keeps them overall anyway -it would be both as a hypocrite. The example stands.
<blockquote>but not White nationalists in general.</blockquote>
But I wasn't being asked for proof for race supremacists in general, just to offer one example. Job done.
<blockquote>Gallup polling has often been accurate in predicting the outcome of presidential elections and the margin of victory for the winner. However, it missed some close elections: 1948, 1976 and 2004, the popular vote in 2000, and the likely-voter numbers in 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections </blockquote>
I also hardly call the percentages involved 'way off target'. And in a very tight race (common recently) the margin of error always has to be born in mind. At moment the consensus is that overall Harris has gained ground and edged ahead. Glad to help.
<blockquote> OK </blockquote>
QED
<blockquote>How is that relevant?</blockquote>
Just so you know. I'm really only looking for debate here.
Well, I suppose Defendant Donald can always try it on again.... you know, asking people to "find votes" and so forth... I wonder how his 60-odd legal challenges went from last time? Any idea?
The same polls that have been right other times...
Sarcasm is not an argument.
<blockquote>[the] downsides of race mixing, from lower IQ </blockquote>
The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence that mixed race people have lower IQs than white people or other racial groups. Difference in academic test scores, if any, have different reasons than 'race':
[url]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/multi-racial-adolescents-show-no-test-score-gap-with-whites/[/url]
"The black-white test score gap does not appear to be an inevitable fact of nature. It is true that the gap shrinks only a little when black and white children attend the same schools... But despite endless speculation, no one has found genetic evidence indicating that blacks have less innate intellectual ability than whites."
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html?_r=1
In the UK, some African groups for instance have higher average educational attainment and standardized test scores than the overall population.
The difficulty could be because modern science has concluded that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality, and there exist various conflicting definitions of intelligence. Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. Pseudoscientific claims of inherent differences in intelligence between races have played a central role in the history of scientific racism. But, keep going...
<blockquote>to higher chance of domestic abuse and divorce</blockquote>,
This at least is true. police reports in the US show that the prevalence of mutual assault is 31,2% in interracial couples, which is at least twice larger than the prevalence rate in monoracial couples. However few would agree that this is a reason to argue in favour of white supremacism since it would seem a matter of education and culture while seeking a genetic proclivity for wife-beating would be a hard ask
<blockquote>"The left doesn't think twice when a Black person explicitly says he/she would prefer to marry within his/her race. But when a White person explicitly says so, he/she has to apologize. " it's a valid argument unless you can show this isn't the case. </blockquote>
As it is you making the claim, unfortunately the onus of proof is also with you.
<blockquote>to identity crisis of mixed race children </blockquote>
I suppose it has never occurred to you that black children, say, may be exposed to stereotypes and discrimination due to their genetic and phenotypic makeup, which can challenge their search for a positive sense of identity?
<blockquote>.if they say demanded independence and purity for White countries, but pushed for multiracialism for brown countries </blockquote>
But if they have been demanding purity for the white population in general and then marry a black person in particular that still doesn't count? I see. It really is an obvious example such as you ask for, your special pleading notwithstanding. Love of a different person is 'not the practical consequences' of marrying outside your race, but, logically vice versa.
There is also the inherent double standards of those supremacists who discover their DNA tells a different story:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/white-supremacists-respond-genetics-say-theyre-not-white
There's hypocrisy when they try still arguing for racial supremacy. As some one who, it turns out, is not white after all according to science, the double standard is then arguing for white supremacy (naturally trying to explain or ignoring inconvenient test results away) while still expecting equality themselves but nevertheless part ethnic. Another example there then.
<blockquote>ethnic groups who explicitly push their ethnic interests. </blockquote>
Don't be shy. Who are the ethnic groups you single out?
<blockquote>Those are not double standards. There are practical consequences of marrying outside your race. </blockquote>
I'm sorry but this just special pleading. If one believes in the 'superiority' of one's race one does not accept a representative of another as an equal, let alone promise to 'love honour and obey'. The infamous Miscegenation Laws of the past show how racists then viewed such things as unacceptable.
<blockquote>The left doesn't think twice when a Black person explicitly says he/she would prefer to marry within his/her race. But when a White person explicitly says so, he/she has to apologize.</blockquote>
This is irrelevant and just your opinion; but thank you anyway.
And I note you didn't offer examples of white supremacist hypocrisy you would accept. I wonder why?
<blockquote>There is nothing unwarranted in a White person being on the side of his ethnic group if they are under attack. Yet a White is called "racist" for being on the side of his group </blockquote>
And who do you think you are 'under attack' from?
You will have to be more specific then in what you will and won't accept. I would argue that a clear example of 'double standards' from a White identitarians (people who are called "White supremacists") with regards to race would be accepting a partner of a different race as an equal. More examples:
https://nypost.com/2017/08/29/i-was-a-neo-nazi-until-i-fell-in-love-with-a-black-woman/
Keith was a neo-Nazi. Catherine is black and needed a bodyguard. Now they lovingly hold hands and kiss everywhere they go.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=368049040454619
Perhaps, you can supply an example of that which you will accept? I hope people won't think you are just moving goalposts.
Yes, with them falling behind in the polls and with an elderly candidate, they must be... oh, wait...
It works well enough to exercise you lol
UK