Be a Chad
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (65)
sorted by:
Stereotypes are among the most reproducible phenomena in all of social science. On a population level, they are true.
The only way to combat stereotypes is to adopt a laser focus on the individual. It doesn't matter what stereotypes surround your various identity groups if you are strictly evaluated based on your individual merit.
The left have adopted a laser focus on identity groups while simultaneously denying the reality of stereotypes. The result is our current insanity. Black people view their "blackness" as the most essential aspect of their identities, and then we all have to pretend that black culture isn't completely toxic and destructive.
Not only are stereotypes reproducible, but the role they play in inter-personal interactions is fairly well understood:
- Stereotype Accuracy: One of the Largest and Most Replicable Effects in All of Social Psychology, a chapter from the Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination
So we already do "adopt a laser focus on the individual".
Not from a policy perspective.
Of course you would want to adopt a laser focus on the individual from a policy perspective.
Otherwise you create a purely collectivist and tyrannical society where individual actions are irrelevant. Doesn't matter if you rob a bank or not, you are Amish, and are therefore not known for robbing banks.
Similarly, if you didn't rob a bank, or weren't even on the scene, but you're a former bank robber, you must be guilty of robbing the bank.
You're appealing to the literal "prosecutor's fallacy".
That depends entirely on the stereotype and it's application. There are stereotypes that are wholly fictitious based entirely on myth.
A lot of people who are 'colorblind' also engage in that pathetic ritual of denying that they are racist. It never works, just like denying that you are a witch never worked. Instead, you need to go on the offensive. I've never bothered to deny that I am a 'racist', and no one has been able to provide any evidence that I am.
Colorblindness is an identity politics ceasefire. When someone says "I don't see race", what they're actually saying is "I refuse to base my behavior on race".
This was a good thing. It's over now. The left destroyed it in order to create fault lines leading to the collapse of Western Civilization followed by the implementation of communism.
If a man calls you racist in real life the correct answer is a punch in the mouth. If a woman does you ignore her because who takes women seriously anyway.
Nah, it means that it got to you. White people need to stop caring about the word and all other SJW 'isms'.
also homophobia, Islamophobia and sexism, all coined by the same group of people ?
That is an insane comment that is basically an attack on white people.
Not only are you claiming that all whites are morally degenerate, you're also accepting the Leftist premise that to be white is to be racist and anti-semetic by definition.
You are accepting guilt for the crimes of your race.
Why would you ever intentionally do that?
an accusation of racism is a call for violence against the target
The correct response to being attacked is retaliation, not meek acceptance.
Nah, you're acting like blacks who think that being called 'nigger' means that they are allowed to be violent. The proper response for them in that case is also to ignore it. Such words only have as much power as you give them.
Black gets called nigger. Free license to assault and get away with it.
White gets called a slur. Don't you dare fight back
And people wonder why we lose more freedoms every day
Or just point out that for SJWs "racist" means "white".
Surely pointing out hypocrisy to the ruling class who don't give 2 shits about it will work this time!
If all you're pointing it out to is the ruling class, no. That one's for the audience - the ruling class already know they're racist, and celebrate this fact.
If the audience isn't aware of the state of the world they're willfully ignorant at this point and need to be dealt with in the same way as the ruling class.
Personally I'm in favor of free helicopter rides. They've got a certain flair to em. But there are more cost effective options
I believe the traditional response is that you can make them cheaper by only offering one-way helicopter rides...
I don't need to give a shit about any particular words to care about the intent. Someone calling me racist or any other -ist is intended as an attack, against both my character and in the present social climate, my security. Reacting is rational, as long as it's effective.
You said yourself that the best response to shut that down is to go on the offensive, not just taking it. Not everyone's strength is words and verbal debate though, some are so bad at it that they will actually make things worse like that, but are great at punching someone in the face hard enough that they regret their life choices, and are in a context where they can get away with it. It's self defence in my eyes and I say let people stick to their strengths.
Plus I'm just tired of a society that has made being a two-faced, cowardly, bitch crying wolf meta by nerfing the ability to beat them the fuck out.
Everybody is racist it's just human nature
Rewatching the boondocks and Pastor Ruckus's "Hate thyself to save thyself" mantra perfectly sums up modern leftest thinking. Also Jimmy Rebel episode where it's okay to be racist because you'll find other people who you can be racist with, even if they're of another color.
Just because you belong to one group and try to deny being racist while other groups actively encourage it, it's just suppressing a natural response to in-group preference. So it's okay to be racist.
I typed some of my thoughts to comments here the last time this was posted on c/funny
https://communities.winc/Funny/p/12i3uccpIX/xc/4DyOSLSTdQG
This is boomer tier.
bottom text
despite being 13 of the population, blacks commit over 50 percent of the violent crimes and receive nearly 40% of the welfares. richest black neighborhoods have higher crime rates than poorest white neighborhoods. blacks scored about 200 points lower on the sat than whites and Asians across all income levels
I don't know about the SAT thing, but I can tell you that this is false:
I know because I actually had to prove it in an argument once so I started finding all of the wealthiest almost exclusively black neighborhoods. The worst white neighborhoods have very, very, high in crime. So the question was, do extremely wealthy black neighborhoods have even mediocre crime rates. The answer was yes, and I found one that was far below the national average and comprised of predominantly wealthy African immigrant suburbanite families who were making well over $250,000 a year.
The statistics for African Immigrants to the US tend to trend in that direction anyway, and it's been a long running problem in the SJW community to explain why African Immigrants (who are being literally paid to become citizens because major corporations are simply recruiting them) are having disproportionately better economic and social outcomes better than Blacks, Whites, and even Asians.
https://consumeproduct.win/p/12hRQOFOJq/trust-the-science-wealthy-blacks/c/
https://media.consumeproduct.win/post/DkyYMG8U.png
0.4 for the absolute lowest income bracket? That seems suspicious. The poorest whites commit the least crime of literally everyone in that table? My personal experience begs to differ. And it's also a couple decades old.
maybe the 0.4 was from some tiny town in the Appalachia that just isn't into violence, or maybe it was a typo for 4.0. Even if you drop the lowest income group for both, rich blacks still have higher homicide rates than second poorest whites. personal experience doesn't mean jack, national statistics still showed blacks commit disproportional amount of crimes especially in violent crimes, maybe poor whites do commit more petty drug related crimes, but that doesn't really matter compared to murder, rape and armed robbery. couple of decades old? do you think that blacks suddenly improved their behaviors in the last 20 years even though the violent crimes stats are trending up?
That's assuming the same questionable methodology that generated a crazy result like 0.4 didn't generate bad results in any other column, which I doubt since the methodology is likely the same.
This in a post where there are literally dozens of people arguing exactly the opposite because statistics have been intentionally manipulated to craft a narrative?
Violent crime statistics have been trending down since the 70's, not up. And down by a significant margin, and in all groups.
I'm talking about violent crime rate, latest fbi crime tables still show blacks commit over 50 percent of the violent crimes and that's increasing. I mean you're welcome to go live with the blacks and prove that blacks are just as peaceful as all the other races and the stereotype is wrong, the rest of us will keep never relaxing around blacks.
Those are entirely different statistics that aren't even similar to what you quoted.
I have no problem living with blacks. I have a problem with trash. ghetto trash or trailer trash, it makes no difference.
Only white people (as a group) were ever colorblind. No other racial groups in the West were colorblind. It was merely a tool to set ingroup preference to "neutral" for white people and Critical Race Theory is the logical next step. They are now setting white people's preference to "other".
That's not really true. Racialism, maybe even reducing it to 'colorism' is an obsessive thing involving the US predominantly. The focus on color v. color racial animosity is not replicated even in other western countries prior to American Social Justice artifacts being imported.
France, for example, has repeatedly rebuffed American Racialism as they have insisted upon a kind of unifying French culture after their Revolution. It's why Battlefield 1 was mocked for pretending that the French's Imperial troops were experiencing extremes of racism. In fact, the US Army repeatedly had to protest the French military, and the French military had to issue out orders not to allow White French to interact with Black Americans or treat Black Americans the same as White Americas because it was seen as an act of disrespect to White Americans. Black American troops on many occasions ended up immigrating to France due to the much better treatment they were receiving by the French than they had in the Jim Crow South.
Up until recently, the same could easily be said for the English who simply recognized Blacks as Commonwealth peoples, having never previously adopted American color grievances. Scandinavians basically hadn't even seen black people.
Latin America is particularly racially integrated because of the behavior of the Spanish Conquistadors who both enslaved and interbred with native populations to such a complete extent that it simply caused the populations to effectively merge. There are still technically Black, White, Indigenous, and Latino populations in Latin American countries, but none really had any of the extreme racial experiences that the Americans did.
Even White Supremacist Confederates who fled to Brazil and maintain both White Supremacy and the institution Slavery, ended up integrating with the local population anyway.
From what I understand, american nigger culture hasn't been much of a thing in other western nations. My best guess for tracing its roots are the american civil war and how black slaves were used as an excuse for deeper conflicts coming to a head.
It's hard for me to figure when nigger culture really became cemented (likely only in the past century!), but I think it's simple to understand the confusion modern foreigners might have about it. Firstly, "nigger" is the ultimate No-No word here, so any attempt to easily categorize the difference between blacks who wish to be productive members of society and those who don't (let alone the ability to easily call out a non-black for antisocial inclinations) is eradicated from public discourse. So a brit might hear some harsh stuff from an american about blacks, and they'll probably just write it off as american racism - they wouldn't do this if they were confronted with nigger culture themselves; much like how our american twitter randoms can venerate all manner of outsider, because they have no clue about barbarity in the real world.
Unfortunately, the recent immigration surge in all western nations seems to be providing a harsh lesson to people about some downsides of multiculturalism, but I think they're all a few decades off from having anything like american nigger culture. The strong must already support the weak everywhere, and this is taken to an extreme by governments attempting to put all outsiders before their own citizens. All that's really needed from there is for a particular class of people in each society to be raised with a sense of entitlement that is effectively backed by the law. It'd be a big challenge to become an integrated member of society after that kind of upbringing.
Outside of nigger culture, I mostly blame professional victims for the boom in racialism. I'd even say that they couldn't have done it without nigger culture. But I'd also say that the veneration of victimhood is part of jewish culture (and that a lot of modern american culture has conformed to jewish culture).
I need to just point you in the direction of "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell who goes over all of this. He refers to it as Cracker Culture, because it actually stems from the Ulster Scotts in part, even down to linguistics.
Jesus, I didn't realize Sowell was still alive. It's surprising to see old people still cognitively functional, he even gave opinion on recent american politics (I hope he's not involved in social media, that shit's a brain drain).
I guess I'd never really bothered looking him up, as I only ever see him mentioned in passing. A lot of his ideas expressed on wikipedia sound legit. Actually kind of irritating the more I think about it - we could be hearing people talk about him instead of some youtuber geared towards tweens.
The book sounds interesting, thanks. Claiming the origin of cracker culture to be from an identifiable group of foreigners is enough to make me interested. Hopefully he actually puts a definition or description to it, as I have had very poor results from questioning those I encounter using the term cracker to describe people.
He nails it down to a specific kind of culture that existed in pre-aglicanized Ulster among the Scotts living in Ulster. Their culture and language crossed the ocean with them during some of the initial settlements of the colonial south, and they took a some of their bad behaviors with them.
It's so significant that the act of burning a cross on your enemy's land comes from the Scotts (though they didn't traditionally burn crosses, they burned other symbols for the same dramatic and intimidation effect). It's why they the KKK called themselves a clan.
To be specific, I can tell you that he doesn't go into the specific entymology of each term, but historical lineage of the terms are fairly well understood.
Cracker, referred originally to these same people, but chiefly people who happened to braggarts. Similar to the usage of the phrase "Not all it's cracked up to be". A cracker is someone who cracks up himself.
Rednecks were not inclined from a necessarily derogatory term, but was also more clearly pointed at this same group of people. Particularly because the Ulster-Scotts were Presbyterian, and Presbyterians of the era were known for having worn red neckware to symbolize a blood oath taken in defiance against the King of England who had attempted to seize control of their official church.
I had some time and listened to an audiobook version on youtube. It was overall worthwhile.
I prefer your summary here to the long-hand version of that essay, but there were a couple of extra bits, such as cracker also coming from "wisecracker", which is pretty satisfying from an etymology angle. It'll be interesting to see how frequently I see "cracker" used in a way that directly conflicts with all of this information. I expect it to be very frequently, based off of all the prior reports I got about what it meant.
My major gripe was with him fellating middlemen so much. Surely he understands that not all middlemen are perfect super workers..? I think he sabotaged his argument by not discussing the possibility that anyone at any point might have been right to despise middlemen. I certainly refuse to accept managerialism just because hard workers existed in the past. Oh well. At least I learned that there were other groups that got conflated with jews for that kind of stuff, which reaffirms some assumptions.
Maybe I'll look for an audio version of Culture of Critique next. Reading a review of that years ago was what led me to take the culture pill. (My real reading time is still stuck on Nietzsche, he's definitely not an author you can speedread)
Overall, I only really reaffirmed some of my labelling positions. I gave it some consideration due to new information, but I'm gonna have to stick with the goal of having my words understood easier rather than being more correct in proper labelling. I have more terms I can use in restrictive normie areas, at least.
Obviously, but middle men have a point in a society. They can introduce a positive exchange where there would otherwise be none. Middle men positions are also an excellent method of creating social mobility when you have relatively low direct skill, so there are a lot of major advantages to them. In some cases "eliminating the middle men" will be done by efficiency. The problem is when those people themselves are being directly targeted. One of the reasons they come about is because there are some stoppages within the economic system that are not allowing transactions to take place.
I mean, when he's talking about middle-men minorities, it's not exactly the same as just the economic concept, because hatred of middle-men minorities comes from resentment of a single group's success, typically observed by a domestic population that doesn't understand why that group succeeded.
There isn't really a good reason to hate middle-man minorities because that hatred is from resentment, bred from not having actually done the same level of work to succeed.
Opposing middle-men from an economic perspective is a slightly different analysis about economic efficiency.
If it's culture that might be interesting to you, and you're still looking at Sowell, I found Immigrations & Cultures and Conquests & Cultures to be excellent.
Relative risk, stereotypes and crime statistics are not, however.
Nigger, what? Keeping your stuff to yourself is the most "human nature" thing there is.
The "anti-racists" are used to breed the "color-blind". Nature segregates differences to inspire senses. Miscegenation aims to corrupt inspiration by attacking differences, and racism is used to prevent all races from defending themselves against miscegenation.
Racism equals hatred of other races; ? equals love of ones own race...see; attack (yes); defense (no). No one wants to take the opposition to the anti-racist, so they choose colorblindness instead. Once again miscegenation continues unopposed.
Not if leftists have their way.
No . fuck all niggers
Imagine an Englishman who doesn't laugh at jokes about tea and crumpets and warm beer.
That's the kind of joyless faggot you sound like.
t. Englishman
Gonna need to hear the joke first.
Being able to laugh at racist jokes doesn't mean you think every joke is funny. Most jokes about white people are just dumb things like "white people really love hiking amirite?"
The implied "punchilne" of statements like that is "now we laugh because its funny how much we all hate whitey"
Exactly
This comment is proof of the horseshoe theory
Leftists combine race realism with Marxist inversion.
Race realists tell the truth but present no plan for coexistence.
Colorblindness was a valid solution, and it worked beautifully for 2+ decades.
There is no horseshoe. The idiots don't realize that their Racialism was always progressive.