Recent comments in /f/AskRamble

z3d wrote (edited )

The issue should be fixed now, regardless of whether your browser sends a preference for the light or dark theme. Previously, if your browser requested the light theme, some of the font colors were off. Apologies for the inconvenience.

2

Wahaha wrote

Reply to comment by spektor in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Just talk to the people who spend years going to Africa to build infrastructure and schools to teach them and see what they have to say about this. They are mostly incapable of being schooled and they tend to destroy the stuff you build for them.

If a country is a shithole, it's because of the people living in that country. Africa is pretty much the jackpot as far as continents go. No harsh winters and there's plenty of everything. When white Europeans used to live there it was ancient Egypt and a prosperous civilization. The places with white Europeans are still prosperous civilizations.

There is no magic earth. It's all the people. Hundreds of years a go a German dude (Johann August Sutter) went to California and made a prosperous settlement inside of a desert by redirecting mountain water.

0

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Murders of a particular race can be correlated with many factors--perhaps say poverty or drug usage or even extreme wealth or lately "being a rich Russian billionaire." Why those factors exist might be spiritual, economic, self-caused, other-caused, or a whole slew of sociao-political reasons. The bottom line is, if you want to see it as race alone, that's how you are going to see it, but that isn't really science talking. More likely, it is some "liberal academic conditoning" talking, which often masquerades as science.

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

What I defined are the pieces that constitute an actual scientific study. What you are trying to make a case for is correlation between murder victims and color. You are confusing "fact" with "Correlation" which is a huge scientific no no. You posted facts. The "pattern" to the numbers could come from any number of factors which may or may not be race related.

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Nah. Those facts are a reflection of statistical measures of people who get murdered without any operational definitions defining what "murder" is. Skin color, on the other hand, is a measurable difference that people readily detect and foolishly base conclusions upon.

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by smallpond in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Thanks for validating my "collective power". On the other hand, you aren't going to change a moron's mind so what you are saying is that you like wasting your time talking to morons who are going to do whatever it is they collectively do. You don't even get a share in the power in that scenario--you are just a total loss of life/time.

1

smallpond OP wrote

Reply to comment by spektor in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

Even the smartest guy on earth (obviously not me) has to spend all day talking to the intellectually inferior. Morons may be morons, but they have collective power and are important nonetheless.

2

smallpond OP wrote

Reply to comment by spektor in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

New rule: only smart people get to have free speech. (i.e. not you)

Well, that is your retarded argument in a nutshell. Which is the same argument as the censors and those fighting against free speech. I think you struck accidental lucidity.

1

spektor wrote

Reply to comment by Wahaha in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

No, that is someone's IDEA of the free speech argument. This isn't about what I "Like to hear". The classical argument is that you aren't, through free speech, allowed to yell out the word FIRE when there is no fire in a crowded theater. Such an action would cause probable death and panic. Therefore, the statement "your free speech doesn't go past your nose" is usually the metric because when you speak a thing, it enters into a larger arena than just your desire to say a given thing.

I'd argue racist statements are like yelling in that crowded theater when there is no fire. Just because you hate something or someone does not give you an automatic right to start raising an alarm about that someone or group of someones unless you have some kind of actual evidence. So, if I tell you you should be careful of the Chinese because of the Great Firewall and sleeper agents sympathetic to the communist party, that's different than if I say you should beware Chinese cause they gots yellow skins, and I hates me some yellow skins!

It isn't about what I want to hear, but it is about conveying information in a responsible way to a larger accountability than just saying whatever the hell comes into your mind. Most people censor themselves quite heavily, for instance, on a first date since they understand if they say things like "I want to be inside you" or "I want you inside me" most likely that isn't going to function in a way that moves to a second date and if it does, one has to wonder about the longevity of such a relationship since the sexual emphasis was so high and immediate...

0

Wahaha wrote

Reply to comment by spektor in Update to site wide rules by smallpond

No, that's the entire free speech argument. You don't need to protect the right of someone to say what you like to year. You only need to protect the right of someones saying things you do not like to hear.

2