When I think mass shooting I think Columbine or Virginia Tech. They changed the definition of it to be any crime involving 2-3+ people being shot, which lumps almost all petty violent crime into the mix if it involves a gun. You know we don’t have a shitton of mass shootings because if we did they’d all be in the news because they’d love to be able to use that for narrative purposes. All you get is the occasional one with people lying about it. Technically most Arabs are ‘white’, but by that count so are the Spanish and ‘Latinos’.
Apparently black people are the most prolific mass shooters and need to be stopped by their definitions. I’ve chosen to identify as black, and feel offended by my own comment and demand reparations as well as ammunition. It’s getting harder to find as everyone worries me and my fellow joggers are going to pay them a visit.
There are very few Spanish people in America, but plenty of Spanish speaking. All the Spanish speaking are brown, so eventually you just associate Spanish language with brown. The same way Arab and Muslim are basically synonymous to most people.
For America its like a 95% success rate, so its hard to say its a problem. Its not like Spain is relevant in almost any discussions in the modern era.
There are absolute tons of Spanish people in the Americas (I'm not sure if the "America" you meant USA or the Americas). But they don't illegally immigrate so as americans we see them less. But pretty much every famous hispanic is of spanish descent. Shakira, white. Demi Lavato, white. Selena Gomez, white. AOC, whiiiiiiiiite. Ted Cruz, white. Marc Antony, white, Pitbull, white. It's funny that the spanish were far more brutal than the british but their descendants get a free pass.
I know there are. My mother's side is descended entirely from one Spanish idiot (that's family canon) who found himself in Louisiana and bought a bunch of unsettlable swamp land no one wanted.
But we aren't speaking Spanish, so like the rest of America we are just "white." America has very few recent Spain immigrants to have a concept of them and their place in the common consciousness. Most of them are likely clustered on the East Coast (aka New York City) like the rest of the European immigrants meaning the rest of the country never sees a single one, much like Asians outside the West Coast.
So when you say "Spanish" the first thing people think of is the language, not the people. And when you think of a Spanish-speaker its a brown Latino, not some Iberian immigrant. And for most of the country that's a 99% accurate assumption, because nobody really cares what flavor of white we are.
Arab Caliphates with Berber subordinates/troops ruled Spain to one degree or another for 800 years, till they were gradually subsumed by the native population.
I am not sure about the specifics of the numbers you refer to. But would be confident that the Iberian peninsula has the largest amount of Negroid contributions. Just like a supposition that the Ural area would have the largest mix of Caucasoid/Mongoloid followed by the Baltic's (might be close).
All in all, your probably right that its a small amount, but definite is still kind of an iffy qualifier.
They did leave. Boabdil and some other Moors already left in 1493, because they could not bear to live under the infidel. Between 1499 and 1525, several edicts were enacted expelling Muslims who had not been converted. But most of them pretended to convert, while still practicing their religion of peace. And between 1610 and 1614, all Moriscos (converted Moors) were expelled - of whom some were unfortunately sincere Christians.
You're right the Moors as a group varied in their numbers throughout the 800ish years of what is considered their rule of Spain.
Historically, both the Arab muslims and Berbers were never particularly known for their stable, expansive empires. So, those that did stay after the conquest of Spain/Portugal, had to make do virtually on their own. Those that couldn't left.
But considering 800 years, average lifespan of 35ish, that is 23 generations of interbreeding...
Also this is during the end of the Middle ages, and I have no idea as to the efficacy of efforts to expel a people (I know this was about the time of the Reconquista but that would just add to the chaos).
They changed the definition of it to be any crime involving 2-3+ people being shot, which lumps almost all petty violent crime into the mix if it involves a gun.
Likewise someone an heroing in their car near enough to a school will be counted as a "school shooting" despite only one person involved.
It's the inner city culture that is born from welfare policies that incentivizes single mother homes.
You wanna know what the biggest indicator of someone growing up to be a shitty person, criminal, murderer?
No father.
We gotta quit playing the race game. The left says all white people are privileged and have it easy, we laugh at that. Then folks like you do the same thing about crime. You need to have principles and self awareness.
If a commie doimg something is retarded, doing something similar makes you retarded
You wanna know what the biggest indicator of someone growing up to be a shitty person, criminal, murderer? No father.
You are vastly underestimating the effects IQ have. Something that is highly inherited and we have an unfortunate amount of data about the average IQs in certain races, ethnic groups, and areas.
We can't also play the Left game where we ignore all data and science because we don't like it and it makes us uncomfortable.
You could probably argue that a lot of the no father problem stems from low IQ related issues, like inability to delay gratification, poor long term planning, and need for government assistance to survive.
You could probably argue that a lot of the no father problem stems from low IQ related issues, like inability to delay gratification, poor long term planning, and need for government assistance to survive.
Blacks had more intact families before the 1960s. So I don't think whatever effect IQ does have, necessarily has an impact on that.
It's the inner city culture that is born from welfare policies that incentivizes single mother homes.
It's both. It's a combination of individual behaviors and population statistics.
The difference between 'us' and 'them' is that we still judge individuals as individuals, while the left demands that we "not see race" and judge everybody based on their immutable characteristics.
Denying genetic makeup for intelligence is just as stupid as judging an individual based off of their genetics over their actions. We all know that black people on average have lower iq scores, just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age. What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age.
The time of the Islamic Golden Age (falsely called Islamic in my view) was also the Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon culture, so this was very much unmerited. But there is one Islamic commentator who said that the more north you go in Europe, the paler they get, and also the dumber they get.
What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
Let us hope so, because if racial inequalities are permanent, then almost every Western country is going to be in a state of perpetual racial strife and civil war.
There is a slight difference though between people in tribal societies being stupid and today. Of course, if a people lives in condition of pure savagery, then the intellectual achievements are not going to be impressive. But when you have all the opportunities in the world, and still score so low, then that becomes more troubling.
But by that same point, you've identified why using race to correlate to IQ generally through genetic markers makes no sense. If there was an innate racial-genetic causal relationship to IQ, you wouldn't see IQ changes in races. Instead you see different IQ groups within races all the time, and related to behavioral factors.
Sure, the Islamic nations probably had a very high IQ... before they started inbreeding. I bet you that incest probably has an impact on IQ.
Germans have a high IQ too, until the IQ of East Germans collapsed under socialism.
What's the best way to blunt a kid's IQ for the rest of his life? Malnutrition at a young age. That, in and of itself, answers a lot of questions about Socialism.
On the other end of the spectrum, Jewish IQ in the use significantly rose since the dawn of the century. Much of the early Progressive arguments about IQ included the arguments that Jews were too intellectually underdeveloped to adapt to western societies.
Think about this point:
smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
And what are those better practices? Culture. What happens when their subsection replaces all the others? We should see a rise in IQ because of culture.
Even more than that, IQ is not a single genetic marker, but a measurement of someone's ability to work with abstraction. That ability to manage abstract analysis also correlates to your success within a western society. Your success in a western society, is something that is going to act women. Women who are sex selecting based on successful males.
Women would be, effectively, sex-selecting higher IQ. Which would cause a significant change in the population as low IQ males aren't mated. By definition, we should see the population's IQ increase overtime in a western society. That suggests, again, this not some static genetic factor, but related to beneficial behaviors.
If you pressure that population with starvation and perpetual threats and stress, where the behaviors of high IQ people are disincentivized (anti-meritocracy, equitable distributions of wealth and property, totalitarian paranoia), you remove Abstract thinking / IQ as useful survival mechanism in favor of others, like brute strength. Meaning that women won't sex select for it, driving down the IQ of a population over time.
Culture clearly has a massive impact on IQ since IQ is more of a measurement related to some genetic characteristics, that populations are selecting for. Rather than it being a static genetic element of race.
When I think mass shooting I think Columbine or Virginia Tech. They changed the definition of it to be any crime involving 2-3+ people being shot, which lumps almost all petty violent crime into the mix if it involves a gun. You know we don’t have a shitton of mass shootings because if we did they’d all be in the news because they’d love to be able to use that for narrative purposes. All you get is the occasional one with people lying about it. Technically most Arabs are ‘white’, but by that count so are the Spanish and ‘Latinos’.
Apparently black people are the most prolific mass shooters and need to be stopped by their definitions. I’ve chosen to identify as black, and feel offended by my own comment and demand reparations as well as ammunition. It’s getting harder to find as everyone worries me and my fellow joggers are going to pay them a visit.
There are very few Spanish people in America, but plenty of Spanish speaking. All the Spanish speaking are brown, so eventually you just associate Spanish language with brown. The same way Arab and Muslim are basically synonymous to most people.
For America its like a 95% success rate, so its hard to say its a problem. Its not like Spain is relevant in almost any discussions in the modern era.
There are absolute tons of Spanish people in the Americas (I'm not sure if the "America" you meant USA or the Americas). But they don't illegally immigrate so as americans we see them less. But pretty much every famous hispanic is of spanish descent. Shakira, white. Demi Lavato, white. Selena Gomez, white. AOC, whiiiiiiiiite. Ted Cruz, white. Marc Antony, white, Pitbull, white. It's funny that the spanish were far more brutal than the british but their descendants get a free pass.
I know there are. My mother's side is descended entirely from one Spanish idiot (that's family canon) who found himself in Louisiana and bought a bunch of unsettlable swamp land no one wanted.
But we aren't speaking Spanish, so like the rest of America we are just "white." America has very few recent Spain immigrants to have a concept of them and their place in the common consciousness. Most of them are likely clustered on the East Coast (aka New York City) like the rest of the European immigrants meaning the rest of the country never sees a single one, much like Asians outside the West Coast.
So when you say "Spanish" the first thing people think of is the language, not the people. And when you think of a Spanish-speaker its a brown Latino, not some Iberian immigrant. And for most of the country that's a 99% accurate assumption, because nobody really cares what flavor of white we are.
Except for their absolute conquest by radical Leftists, particularly of the Femminist sort.
Spain was invaded in the 700's by Moors/Muslims, it was conquered all the way to the Pyrenees. They never really left...
Same sort of logic for a good portion of the Baltic's.
Arab Caliphates with Berber subordinates/troops ruled Spain to one degree or another for 800 years, till they were gradually subsumed by the native population.
I am not sure about the specifics of the numbers you refer to. But would be confident that the Iberian peninsula has the largest amount of Negroid contributions. Just like a supposition that the Ural area would have the largest mix of Caucasoid/Mongoloid followed by the Baltic's (might be close).
All in all, your probably right that its a small amount, but definite is still kind of an iffy qualifier.
Not sure what the O blood type has to do with it.
They did leave. Boabdil and some other Moors already left in 1493, because they could not bear to live under the infidel. Between 1499 and 1525, several edicts were enacted expelling Muslims who had not been converted. But most of them pretended to convert, while still practicing their religion of peace. And between 1610 and 1614, all Moriscos (converted Moors) were expelled - of whom some were unfortunately sincere Christians.
You're right the Moors as a group varied in their numbers throughout the 800ish years of what is considered their rule of Spain.
Historically, both the Arab muslims and Berbers were never particularly known for their stable, expansive empires. So, those that did stay after the conquest of Spain/Portugal, had to make do virtually on their own. Those that couldn't left.
But considering 800 years, average lifespan of 35ish, that is 23 generations of interbreeding...
Also this is during the end of the Middle ages, and I have no idea as to the efficacy of efforts to expel a people (I know this was about the time of the Reconquista but that would just add to the chaos).
edit: and later the Inquisition.
I identify as black too - because I need a new TV and the Chauvin acquittal riots are coming up.
Remember George Floyd!
Why buy a TV, when you can just peacefully protest?
Likewise someone an heroing in their car near enough to a school will be counted as a "school shooting" despite only one person involved.
'European Caucasians' would include the Ashkenazi Jews, but they are most hated by people who are with least cause most proud of being white.
It's not race.
It's the inner city culture that is born from welfare policies that incentivizes single mother homes.
You wanna know what the biggest indicator of someone growing up to be a shitty person, criminal, murderer?
No father.
We gotta quit playing the race game. The left says all white people are privileged and have it easy, we laugh at that. Then folks like you do the same thing about crime. You need to have principles and self awareness.
If a commie doimg something is retarded, doing something similar makes you retarded
You are vastly underestimating the effects IQ have. Something that is highly inherited and we have an unfortunate amount of data about the average IQs in certain races, ethnic groups, and areas.
We can't also play the Left game where we ignore all data and science because we don't like it and it makes us uncomfortable.
You could probably argue that a lot of the no father problem stems from low IQ related issues, like inability to delay gratification, poor long term planning, and need for government assistance to survive.
Blacks had more intact families before the 1960s. So I don't think whatever effect IQ does have, necessarily has an impact on that.
Everyone had more intact families then. Cultures change.
It's both. It's a combination of individual behaviors and population statistics.
The difference between 'us' and 'them' is that we still judge individuals as individuals, while the left demands that we "not see race" and judge everybody based on their immutable characteristics.
Denying genetic makeup for intelligence is just as stupid as judging an individual based off of their genetics over their actions. We all know that black people on average have lower iq scores, just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age. What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
The time of the Islamic Golden Age (falsely called Islamic in my view) was also the Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon culture, so this was very much unmerited. But there is one Islamic commentator who said that the more north you go in Europe, the paler they get, and also the dumber they get.
Let us hope so, because if racial inequalities are permanent, then almost every Western country is going to be in a state of perpetual racial strife and civil war.
There is a slight difference though between people in tribal societies being stupid and today. Of course, if a people lives in condition of pure savagery, then the intellectual achievements are not going to be impressive. But when you have all the opportunities in the world, and still score so low, then that becomes more troubling.
But by that same point, you've identified why using race to correlate to IQ generally through genetic markers makes no sense. If there was an innate racial-genetic causal relationship to IQ, you wouldn't see IQ changes in races. Instead you see different IQ groups within races all the time, and related to behavioral factors.
Sure, the Islamic nations probably had a very high IQ... before they started inbreeding. I bet you that incest probably has an impact on IQ.
Germans have a high IQ too, until the IQ of East Germans collapsed under socialism.
What's the best way to blunt a kid's IQ for the rest of his life? Malnutrition at a young age. That, in and of itself, answers a lot of questions about Socialism.
On the other end of the spectrum, Jewish IQ in the use significantly rose since the dawn of the century. Much of the early Progressive arguments about IQ included the arguments that Jews were too intellectually underdeveloped to adapt to western societies.
Think about this point:
And what are those better practices? Culture. What happens when their subsection replaces all the others? We should see a rise in IQ because of culture.
Even more than that, IQ is not a single genetic marker, but a measurement of someone's ability to work with abstraction. That ability to manage abstract analysis also correlates to your success within a western society. Your success in a western society, is something that is going to act women. Women who are sex selecting based on successful males.
Women would be, effectively, sex-selecting higher IQ. Which would cause a significant change in the population as low IQ males aren't mated. By definition, we should see the population's IQ increase overtime in a western society. That suggests, again, this not some static genetic factor, but related to beneficial behaviors.
If you pressure that population with starvation and perpetual threats and stress, where the behaviors of high IQ people are disincentivized (anti-meritocracy, equitable distributions of wealth and property, totalitarian paranoia), you remove Abstract thinking / IQ as useful survival mechanism in favor of others, like brute strength. Meaning that women won't sex select for it, driving down the IQ of a population over time.
Culture clearly has a massive impact on IQ since IQ is more of a measurement related to some genetic characteristics, that populations are selecting for. Rather than it being a static genetic element of race.