The Maelstrom of Violence

[pbrower2a]

(09-08-2017, 09:41 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 08:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: If one is black and one wants to 'act white', then that is a right. Just don't expect bigoted white people to recognize your effort.

Of course there are white people to imitate and white people to avoid imitating at all costs. But you should know that. White people do not form a monolith, which may explain why I hate being called "The Man"!

I don't think you understand what "acting white" means.  "Acting white" means things like studying and speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades.  I think it's seen as caving in to the culture that values those things, which is considered to be "white"; "acting white" is perhaps seen as making blacks who don't bother with those things look bad.

Wrong. I know plenty of white people who show contempt for learning, who use atrocious grammar, and do not apply themselves to their schoolwork. Those white people would fare far better if they acted like Jamaican-Americans, who typically have less white ancestry than the typical American black descended from antebellum slaves. (By the way -- I got that data from Charles Murray in his infamous -- to liberals, at least --The Bell Curve).

I have been in a largely-black classroom in which one student complained that I was asking black kids to 'act white'. I told them what losers some white people are. For example, white people use more drugs, use worse drugs, and mess themselves up even worse than do black people. Black people just can't get away with drugs as white people can. Add to that, illegal drugs are expensive. I live in a community awash in meth. White users, as a strict rule. I told that kid that I didn't want him to act white. I told him that I wanted him to act like a Chinese-American. I have also subbed in a largely-white district with lots of Hispanic kids whose parents do cr@ppy jobs... the Hispanic kids are toward the top of the class.

Achievement does not depend upon skin color. We have Neil deGrasse Tyson. We have Colin Powell. We have Barack Obama. We had Ralph Bunche and Martin Luther King. We had Maya Angelou. Need I go further? 

Quote:So, if you value correct grammar enough to use it in your writing, you are validly referred to as "The Man", because you're part of the "white" culture that "imposes" those values as societal values.

Every language has its own standard of grammar, and one adheres closely to that standard or one is looked upon as a loser. It has nothing to do with race. Cajun French (which is not a standardized language) does not get respect in France, Quebec, Haiti, or Francophone parts of Africa. Amish dialects are substandard in Germany, so that has nothing to do with race.  Anyone who uses bad grammar might as well affix a paper sign that reads "KICK ME!" because such is practically the treatment that one will get.  For a black person, using proper grammar associated with any mainstream dialect is one of the cheapest ways to get respect. "Ebonics" does not get respect, and it won't get respect until we start seeing literary masterpieces in it. Was W.E.B. DuBois "The Man" for using standard English grammar? I think not.

Since almost all Americans have practically the same syllabus in school to K-8, we might as well have the same standards. "My great-great grandmother was a slave and my great-great grandfather was a white man who raped her" is not an excuse for bad grammar.

[Kinser79]

(09-08-2017, 12:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Wrong. I know plenty of white people who show contempt for learning, who use atrocious grammar, and do not apply themselves to their schoolwork. Those white people would fare far better if they acted like Jamaican-Americans, who typically have less white ancestry than the typical American black descended from antebellum slaves. (By the way -- I got that data from Charles Murray in his infamous -- to liberals, at least --The Bell Curve).

PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it? What matters is not so much the reality but the perception. There is a meme among blacks that using good diction and caring about intellectual pursuits is a thing for white people. The reality is that these things should be a thing for anyone who wishes to advance in society regardless their color, but perception and reality are only incidentally related.

Quote:I have been in a largely-black classroom in which one student complained that I was asking black kids to 'act white'.

Congratulations, you have met a nigger. About 1/3rd of all black persons are niggers just like about 1/3rd of all white persons are white trash. As with whites there is a civil war amongst black persons, it is a war between black people and niggers and niggers have got to go.

I suggest seeing the Stand Up Philosopher Chris Rock's dissertation on the subject.

Quote:I told them what losers some white people are.

Wrong strategy to use. Niggers believe that because some white people are fucked up that they can be fucked up too. Again Chris Rock explains this in his dissertation.

Quote:Black people just can't get away with drugs as white people can.

Not quite correct. Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different. I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites. It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police. Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

Quote:Achievement does not depend upon skin color. We have Neil deGrasse Tyson. We have Colin Powell. We have Barack Obama. We had Ralph Bunche and Martin Luther King. We had Maya Angelou. Need I go further? 

All of that is true, but I highly doubt you reached him. See he has a problem no white man could possibly address--he is a nigger and as much as he hates black people who "act white" he hates white people far more. Quite honestly I wouldn't be surprised if what you said to him went in one ear and out the other. Honestly I would love to find fault with you for that, but I can't.

Quote:Every language has its own standard of grammar, and one adheres closely to that standard or one is looked upon as a loser. It has nothing to do with race. Cajun French (which is not a standardized language) does not get respect in France, Quebec, Haiti, or Francophone parts of Africa.

Actually Arcadian French is more or less the same as Quebecois, though it isn't really recognized in metropolitan France as both Quebecois and Arcadian French are very closely related both being derived from 17th century provincial dialect. Haitian Creole should be considered its own language entirely.

Quote:For a black person, using proper grammar associated with any mainstream dialect is one of the cheapest ways to get respect.

True, but not why most black people who use proper grammar use it. To be perfectly honest I Southern Dialect, and use it with proper grammar and diction because it makes for more effective communication. As far as I'm concerned anyone who would disrespect me on the basis of dialect is not worth concerning myself with.

Quote:"Ebonics" does not get respect, and it won't get respect until we start seeing literary masterpieces in it.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Anyone capable of writing such a thing would likely use standard English anyway, except of course for dialog where there is greater toleration for use of non-standard dialect.

Quote: Was W.E.B. DuBois "The Man" for using standard English grammar? I think not.

Neither was Malcolm X, but as I said reality is less important than the perception in this case.

Quote:Since almost all Americans have practically the same syllabus in school to K-8, we might as well have the same standards. "My great-great grandmother was a slave and my great-great grandfather was a white man who raped her" is not an excuse for bad grammar.

No it is not, but it is the white liberals who insist on pushing the victim narrative. If anything this narrative is most destructive amongst blacks. But then again I don't think you'll ever grasp a functional understanding of how pernicious the soft-bigotry of low expectations is.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

I can appreciate most of that while saying you can look deeper.  There are some blacks --often dancers, singers, sometimes athletes -- who can add a bit of swagger and class to what they do while the white folk stand around either resenting, admiring and sometimes imitating.  The black shtick isn't entirely negative.  

Yet, i can try to appreciate what Kinser is saying.  If you think you can get ahead by not training yourself, by standing out, by expecting special treatment, by not standing out in a constructive way, good luck, think again.  If it is a positive in some professions, if you can live up to it, it isn't a positive everywhere.  The analogy is of the nail sticking itself up a little bit drawing the hammer.

If as a software engineer I developed a stereotype of what blacks in the field are like, I figure they mostly had to try a little harder and be a little better than those around them.  Somewhere along the line they had it tough.  That is not a great thing, but it made them better people.  By the time they had graduated from college I was generally happy to have them on the team.  I'd say that most of them didn't push the traditional black shtick of being different, being hip, being better.  Yet they fit in.  Yes they gave up something in the process.  It seemed worth it for them.

Should there be a way of mixing the two approaches, drawing positives from the different options?  Probably.  There are no doubt people who have tried and succeeded to some degree.  Am I the right person to give detailed advice?  Likely not.

Kinser?  I'm still figuring that out.  There are times he seems less interested in dodging the hammer than yelling to draw attention as it as it is coming down.

[pbrower2a]

(09-08-2017, 12:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 12:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Wrong. I know plenty of white people who show contempt for learning, who use atrocious grammar, and do not apply themselves to their schoolwork. Those white people would fare far better if they acted like Jamaican-Americans, who typically have less white ancestry than the typical American black descended from antebellum slaves. (By the way -- I got that data from Charles Murray in his infamous -- to liberals, at least --The Bell Curve).

PBR are you naturally clueless or do you have to work at it?  What matters is not so much the reality but the perception.  There is a meme among blacks that using good diction and caring about intellectual pursuits is a thing for white people.  The reality is that these things should be a thing for anyone who wishes to advance in society regardless their color, but perception and reality are only incidentally related.

Hate feeling oppressed? Then don't blame "Whitey". Just beat "Whitey" at his own game.

Lots of white people will appreciate your achievement.

Quote:

Quote:(I said) I have been in a largely-black classroom in which one student complained that I was asking black kids to 'act white'.

Congratulations, you have met a nigger.  About 1/3rd of all black persons are niggers just like about 1/3rd of all white persons are white trash.  As with whites there is a civil war amongst black persons, it is a war between black people and niggers and niggers have got to go.

I suggest seeing the Stand Up Philosopher Chris Rock's dissertation on the subject.

But as a white man I dare not use that horrible word. 

Quote:

Quote:I told them what losers some white people are.

Wrong strategy to use.  Niggers believe that because some white people are fucked up that they can be fucked up too.  Again Chris Rock explains this in his dissertation.

That white people do something stupid is no excuse for black people doing the same thing.

Quote:

Quote:Black people just can't get away with drugs as white people can.

Not quite correct.  Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different.  I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites.  It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police.  Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

Of course. The difference is privacy, a difference between the poor and people in the classes beginning with 'semi-skilled workers'.  That could as easily be a matter of class as of ethnicity.

Quote:

Quote:Achievement does not depend upon skin color. We have Neil deGrasse Tyson. We have Colin Powell. We have Barack Obama. We had Ralph Bunche and Martin Luther King. We had Maya Angelou. Need I go further? 

All of that is true, but I highly doubt you reached him.  See he has a problem no white man could possibly address--he is a nigger and as much as he hates black people who "act white" he hates white people far more.  Quite honestly I wouldn't be surprised if what you said to him went in one ear and out the other.  Honestly I would love to find fault with you for that, but I can't.

I obviously didn't have the time. That is a parental responsibility, and really not mine. To this fellow I was a complete alien.

Quote:

Quote:Every language has its own standard of grammar, and one adheres closely to that standard or one is looked upon as a loser. It has nothing to do with race. Cajun French (which is not a standardized language) does not get respect in France, Quebec, Haiti, or Francophone parts of Africa.

Actually Arcadian French is more or less the same as Quebecois, though it isn't really recognized in metropolitan France as both Quebecois and Arcadian French are very closely related both being derived from 17th century provincial dialect.  Haitian Creole should be considered its own language entirely.

It has changed significantly in over 200 years of isolation from its source. Yes, Haitian Creole is a language in its own right.

Quote:

Quote:For a black person, using proper grammar associated with any mainstream dialect is one of the cheapest ways to get respect.

True, but not why most black people who use proper grammar use it.  To be perfectly honest I Southern Dialect, and use it with proper grammar and diction because it makes for more effective communication.  As far as I'm concerned anyone who would disrespect me on the basis of dialect is not worth concerning myself with.

I do not have any difficulty  understanding what you say. Believing what you say, especially in politics in your two ideological incarnations?
That is a different story.

Quote:

Quote:"Ebonics" does not get respect, and it won't get respect until we start seeing literary masterpieces in it.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.  Anyone capable of writing such a thing would likely use standard English anyway, except of course for dialog where there is greater toleration for use of non-standard dialect.

Undeniably true. Dialect is tricky, and anyone who tries it without fully understanding the nuance of the dialect can easily fall into mockery of the dialect. If you want to insert the dialogue of Italian-American mobsters, then you had better have some strong connection to the local "Little Italy" beyond visiting a trattoria every couple of weeks for the chef's specialty.

Quote:

Quote:Was W.E.B. DuBois "The Man" for using standard English grammar? I think not.

Neither was Malcolm X, but as I said reality is less important than the perception in this case.

Bingo. If you want your radical critique to have resonance with people other than 'your own', then you might as well communicate on their intellectual level, using their lingo. This said, I can probably talk better with members of the black middle class than I can with the white meth fiends that I encounter on occasion.

Quote:

Quote:Since almost all Americans have practically the same syllabus in school to K-8, we might as well have the same standards. "My great-great grandmother was a slave and my great-great grandfather was a white man who raped her" is not an excuse for bad grammar.

No it is not, but it is the white liberals who insist on pushing the victim narrative.  If anything this narrative is most destructive amongst blacks.  But then again I don't think you'll ever grasp a functional understanding of how pernicious the soft-bigotry of low expectations is.

I may be a liberal, but I am also a pragmatist. Low expectations are nobody's friend, and a bad family history is something to transcend -- if at all possible. One must fight certain ugly realities if one is to have a good life.

[Warren Dew]

(09-08-2017, 12:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite correct.  Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different.  I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites.  It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police.  Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

So why the difference?  Do the blacks not know that they'd be safer smoking inside their houses?  Or do they refuse to do it because they don't want to give in to the system or something?

Is this related to why blacks seem more willing to double park and do other minor parking violations that interfere with traffic but are rarely ticketed, or is that a different issue?

[pbrower2a]

(09-08-2017, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 12:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite correct.  Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different.  I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites.  It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police.  Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

So why the difference?  Do the blacks not know that they'd be safer smoking inside their houses?  Or do they refuse to do it because they don't want to give in to the system or something?

Is this related to why blacks seem more willing to double park and do other minor parking violations that interfere with traffic but are rarely ticketed, or is that a different issue?

1. A kid in an overcrowded tenement is likely to be told 'don't smoke that horrible thing here'. With a middle-class family, the kid might smoke it while he is the only one home or in his private room... behind a closed door and a closed curtain.

2. Double-parking is largely an urban phenomenon related to population density. Population density is highest in those parts of urban areas  with lots of poor people. I never see it in a rural area.

[Kinser79]

(09-08-2017, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 12:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite correct.  Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different.  I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites.  It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police.  Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

So why the difference?  Do the blacks not know that they'd be safer smoking inside their houses?  Or do they refuse to do it because they don't want to give in to the system or something?

Is this related to why blacks seem more willing to double park and do other minor parking violations that interfere with traffic but are rarely ticketed, or is that a different issue?

I don't have any really good answers for why these patterns of behavior exist.  In part there could be some degree of extenuating environmental factors--for example Mama don't want that stinky thing in the house.  But the far more likely answer is just plain stupidity.

[Kinser79]

(09-08-2017, 10:36 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Well, here in California, [...]

Commiefornia is a world unto itself and not one that I have any desire to return to, ever. Since you don't really add anything to the topic I'm going back to ignoring hurricane reports and watching a white man in leather pants eat old freeze dried food. (and that's still better than anything on the tee-vee)

[David Horn]

(09-06-2017, 03:24 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote: If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Why are so many American states able to have broad freedoms and liberal guns laws? I assume that the American people are better, more capable and more trust worthy than the people in Canada? I'd like to know why you feel so comfortable and safe in your cozy blue home while surrounded by an armed/pro gun population.

For someone who lives so close to Canada, you seem to have limited understanding of our northern neighbors.  And fwiw, I live in a very gun friendly place.  I don't feel safe during hunting season, and more than a few dust-ups have involved firearms.

[David Horn]

(09-06-2017, 03:47 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 01:59 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 12:00 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: People of the red persuasion, and other gun rights proponents, keep saying that. But this implies that society must necessarily be a barbaric, uncivilized, gun totin' wild west with no-one empowered to protect law and order and our rights. It implies that the red side has achieved its aim and shrunk the government to fit into a bathtub and thus rendered ineffectual. It's a rural mindset that doesn't apply to the majority of the population that is urban and suburban.

To add a little fuel: Australia is as 'Wild West' as we were when we were fewer on our continent, yet they seem to do just fine with much more prohibitive gum laws -- laws they put in place after a major incident in 1996.  So to answer C-X's question: all the rest of them.

How hard would it be for Australia to be turned into a fascist state? How many battles would the fascists have to fight and win? How many fascists would be needed? 

Since there is no evidence of this happening, or even evidence that it could, your comment come across as more than a little paranoid ... in keeping with your need to go about armed to the teeth.

Classic-X Wrote:I know one thing, there isn't enough fascists, socialists and communists in America to defeat the 60 plus million Americans who voted for Trump.

Boo!

[David Horn]

(09-06-2017, 06:34 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 02:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-06-2017, 12:09 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: ... Without the power to resist government by being armed, those individuals will have no way to protect "rights" and they will be trampled on by the government.

If so, then why are so many other nations able to have broad freedoms and restrictive gun laws.  I mentioned Australia in my last post, but it's only one example of many.  How about Canada?

Australia has had restrictive gun laws for only a fraction of a generational cycle.  Recheck them after the crisis war, and things will have changed.

OK, then tell me about the UK.  I'm sure they have less freedom, since that seems to be you premise for needing guns in this modern age.

Warren Dew Wrote:Canada does not have free speech, despite positive influence from the US.

Based on what great observation, or are you just parroting the same lines from the same sources?

FWIW, slander laws are stricter in Canada, but political speech is just as free as the US ... perhaps moreso in some ways.

[Warren Dew]

The UK has even less free speech than Canada.

[David Horn]

(09-07-2017, 07:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What does Canada forbid which one wants to see?  What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?

How about calling men in dresses he and women wearing trousers and attempting to pretend to be guys she.  In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns".  Of course their government also buys into the notion that there is more than three different genders:  Male, Female, freak of nature.

True, up tp  a point.  This is only an issue if actions are taken.  I tend to think this is more motivational than actionable, but its still new.  We'll have to see.

[Eric the Green]

We have lots of genders now. Male, female, gay male, lesbian female, bisexual male, bisexual female, transgender male turned female, transgender female turned male, and questioning. Post-sixties is a different world; get used to it.

https://www.working-minds.com/WMessay55.htm
(one correction to the article; I think the lesbian in a male body is meant for the 11 O'clock position)

https://www.amazon.com/Circle-Sex-Gavin-...B0006BOHDO
"The Circle of Sex" by Gavin Arthur
ByJuan Duniteon October 3, 2012
Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase
This is an excellent book about human sexuality, which presents the varying degrees of sexual preference, not on a line as Kinsey did, but as 12 segments within a circle.

The concept is unique but similar to an astrological chart (Gavin Arthur was indeed by profession an astrologer). Gavin, the grandson of President Arthur, mingled with many well-known people in his lifetime, including Alan Watts, who wrote the introduction to the book. And he includes many of his life experiences, as well as antectodes about other famous people, to verbally illustrate the 12 various sexual types.

The book is an interesting read, and the reader can't help but identify where they, their lovers,friends, and family belong on the circle. It is important to keep in mind that one is not bound to one type in particular; there is a cusp between types where one can and often does belong.

I'm a little biased, because I'm writing Gavin's biography, but I could honestly say to Gavin that I, a 12:30 Darby/Pioneer hybrid, salute you, a 3 o'clock Dorian type and scholar!

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-09-2017, 03:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 07:23 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-07-2017, 07:09 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: What does Canada forbid which one wants to see?  What does that say of the 'free speech' advocate?

How about calling men in dresses he and women wearing trousers and attempting to pretend to be guys she.  In Canada one can be jailed for failure to use "proper pronouns".  Of course their government also buys into the notion that there is more than three different genders:  Male, Female, freak of nature.

True, up tp  a point.  This is only an issue if actions are taken.  I tend to think this is more motivational than actionable, but its still new.  We'll have to see.

As I'm seeing it, there are some countries that make it harder to insult and demean.  The conservatives seem to get themselves all worked up emotionally if they can't insult and demean.

[David Horn]

(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

This is no different than the experience of being among the white trash or living in the barrio, and climbing out to some success, great or small.  Nothing unique here.  It still ignores the obvious question: is society better served by assisting this process or just letting it happen on its own.  We have data that shows how much greater the success rate is when society assists. You seem to indicate that this should be an individual effort.  If so, why?

[pbrower2a]

(09-10-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

This is no different than the experience of being among the white trash or living in the barrio, and climbing out to some success, great or small.  Nothing unique here.  It still ignores the obvious question: is society better served by assisting this process or just letting it happen on its own.  We have data that shows how much greater the success rate is when society assists. You seem to indicate that this should be an individual effort.  If so, why?

And that, David, is the point. Before World War II, Polish-American and Italian-American kids were almost invariably poor. But they paid attention to the schoolteacher (often a non-nonsense nun complete with a ruler). They learned the basics so that when it was time to use a slide rule, they were well prepared. When it came time to write a coherent report they were prepared. Then came World War II, which put everything to the test. The bright kids who knew their trigonometry knew how to point artillery weapons for maximal effect. Flight crews could figure at what point to release the bomb. Smart kids got the responsibility to wage a smart war, and the Army and Navy didn'pt care about ethnicity -- just that the Zero got sent to Davy Jones' locker or that the oil field at Ploiesti that was supplying the Wehrmacht was in flames. After the war, those who did the smart jobs in the military got the smart, well-paying jobs in private industry. Never mind that their parents did 'dumb' jobs like filling gas tanks or cleaning. 

As Abraham Lincoln said, it is better to keep silent and let people think one stupid than to open one;s mouth and leave no doubt. Most of us have some means of sizing up the intelligence of others quickly. Job title? No. This class society wastes millions of people, although that may be impractical as we have a real crisis. Melanin? Sure -- if one is a racist. Surname? Many people with the surname "Lee" don't look anything like the general. No. Let someone talk.  People who speak unexceptionable English, with good grammar, solid sentence structure, and fit use of words are more likely than not on the intelligent side. Then listen for the content of the talk. Informed talk with some subtlety suggests intelligence. But even with a non-native speaker of English, listen for the topics of discussion.

[beechnut79]

(09-08-2017, 06:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 12:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite correct.  Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different.  I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites.  It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police.  Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

So why the difference?  Do the blacks not know that they'd be safer smoking inside their houses?  Or do they refuse to do it because they don't want to give in to the system or something?

Is this related to why blacks seem more willing to double park and do other minor parking violations that interfere with traffic but are rarely ticketed, or is that a different issue?

1. A kid in an overcrowded tenement is likely to be told 'don't smoke that horrible thing here'. With a middle-class family, the kid might smoke it while he is the only one home or in his private room... behind a closed door and a closed curtain.

2. Double-parking is largely an urban phenomenon related to population density. Population density is highest in those parts of urban areas  with lots of poor people. I never see it in a rural area.

Not even when someone is, say, delivering a pizza?

[beechnut79]

(09-10-2017, 03:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-10-2017, 10:20 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 11:43 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: PBR is a white liberal so of course he doesn't get it.  After all he knows more about being black than I do, never mind the fact that I am black.

In general I would say that the problem is that studying, speaking with correct grammar and getting good grades results in success, success that often means leaving the ghetto and the low life's behind.  Some of this could be "caving to the man", some of it could be "them doing that makes me look bad" but to be perfectly honest I think I know the true source.

That source is that the success of those blacks who study, speak with proper grammar and get good grades in school prove that the left's victim narrative is really self-imposed.  That more than anything else aggravates those who are the first to start shouting about other blacks "acting white".

This is no different than the experience of being among the white trash or living in the barrio, and climbing out to some success, great or small.  Nothing unique here.  It still ignores the obvious question: is society better served by assisting this process or just letting it happen on its own.  We have data that shows how much greater the success rate is when society assists. You seem to indicate that this should be an individual effort.  If so, why?

And that, David, is the point. Before World War II, Polish-American and Italian-American kids were almost invariably poor. But they paid attention to the schoolteacher (often a non-nonsense nun complete with a ruler). They learned the basics so that when it was time to use a slide rule, they were well prepared. When it came time to write a coherent report they were prepared. Then came World War II, which put everything to the test. The bright kids who knew their trigonometry knew how to point artillery weapons for maximal effect. Flight crews could figure at what point to release the bomb. Smart kids got the responsibility to wage a smart war, and the Army and Navy didn'pt care about ethnicity -- just that the Zero got sent to Davy Jones' locker or that the oil field at Ploiesti that was supplying the Wehrmacht was in flames. After the war, those who did the smart jobs in the military got the smart, well-paying jobs in private industry. Never mind that their parents did 'dumb' jobs like filling gas tanks or cleaning. 

As Abraham Lincoln said, it is better to keep silent and let people think one stupid than to open one;s mouth and leave no doubt. Most of us have some means of sizing up the intelligence of others quickly. Job title? No. This class society wastes millions of people, although that may be impractical as we have a real crisis. Melanin? Sure -- if one is a racist. Surname? Many people with the surname "Lee" don't look anything like the general. No. Let someone talk.  People who speak unexceptionable English, with good grammar, solid sentence structure, and fit use of words are more likely than not on the intelligent side. Then listen for the content of the talk. Informed talk with some subtlety suggests intelligence. But even with a non-native speaker of English, listen for the topics of discussion.

filling gas tanks.

There's a job that is pretty much a thing of the past these days. Except in the states of New Jersey and Oregon, where self-serve is illegal.

[pbrower2a]

(09-11-2017, 11:09 AM)beechnut79 Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 06:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-08-2017, 12:54 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Not quite correct.  Drug use patterns among whites and blacks are quite different.  I'm not proud of saying this but I've used drugs (principly marijuana but some other things too) with both blacks and whites.  It is far more likely for blacks to smoke their blunts on the street corner stinking the place up with marijuana smoke smell and attracting the attention of the police, meanwhile whites will do the same exact thing at their house and not attract the attention of the police.  Often where something is done is more important than what is done.

So why the difference?  Do the blacks not know that they'd be safer smoking inside their houses?  Or do they refuse to do it because they don't want to give in to the system or something?

Is this related to why blacks seem more willing to double park and do other minor parking violations that interfere with traffic but are rarely ticketed, or is that a different issue?

1. A kid in an overcrowded tenement is likely to be told 'don't smoke that horrible thing here'. With a middle-class family, the kid might smoke it while he is the only one home or in his private room... behind a closed door and a closed curtain.

2. Double-parking is largely an urban phenomenon related to population density. Population density is highest in those parts of urban areas  with lots of poor people. I never see it in a rural area.

Not even when someone is, say, delivering a pizza?

Not likely to be caught. Stop, deliver, and leave. It takes less than a minute.

But in really-rural areas, delivery of a pizza is unlikely. Someone drives to town and back for a pizza, or you have made one in the oven.