It makes no sense if you're looking at it as trying to get competent people into positions where they can actually do some good.
If you're looking at the jobs as a patronage system, it makes perfect sense. Who cares if they can't do their jobs as well? You want to bring in your supporters, and screw the people who are hurt by it.
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
IQ is most useful as a threshold. That’s why the military won’t accept people with IQs lower than 83.
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies. Not anyone else’s problem, truthfully.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
You probably didn’t think you were indirectly advocating for ethnostates, huh?
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies
Alright, was ancient Egypt a functional and prosperous society, or are you going to make some ad hoc rationalizations for that? The IQ was higher back then, it's the luck of the Nile, back then you could have a functional society without a higher IQ.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
OK, so how come majority-white nations weren't the most prosperous in say 400 BC? How come you want to make judgments based on the exact moment when it suits you?
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
So you don't oppose racial preferences, and any criticism you level at blacks for wanting affirmative action is done in bad faith, because you want the exact same thing to benefit yourself.
Not previously involved in this thread, but I think some reasonable answers:
Ancient Egypt was generally not a sub-Saharan black nation. Some of the dynasties had more African influence, but genetically far more Middle Eastern, Mediterranean (Greek), Semitic, North Africa, etc. Genetic influence seems to indicate a steady gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Egypt over the last millenium, meaning Egypt today is more "African" than it probably ever has been before.
Your second question, I'll combine with an unasked question--why were black African peoples (including Melanesians/Australians) historically and globally the least developed peoples, no development of written language, etc? Why were white NORTHERN Europeans (since Greek/Rome/etc were very advanced) relatively undeveloped in 400BC? Geography and climate plays a very big role in both.
I'm not one to make that big a deal out of IQ differences, though I think there probably are statistically significant population-wide IQ differences when you compare certain groups. E.g. Ashkenazi Jews / Northern Europeans / East Asian Chinese / Sub-Saharan African / Australian Aborigine. IMHO, the differences are relatively minor, yet nonetheless present. I don't see any other way to explain how Jews are so incredibly over-represented as Nobel physicists or why no sub-Saharan people ever developed writing [Ethiopian ge'ez script was borrowed from Arabia].
Ancient Egypt was generally not a sub-Saharan black nation. Some of the dynasties had more African influence, but genetically far more Middle Eastern, Mediterranean (Greek), Semitic, North Africa, etc. Genetic influence seems to indicate a steady gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Egypt over the last millenium, meaning Egypt today is more "African" than it probably ever has been before.
But not a lot. Certainly not enough to lower an IQ that is the average of whites to 80 or so. Not when blacks in America which have far higher rates of black DNA have an average IQ of 85 or 89.
Your second question, I'll combine with an unasked question--why were black African peoples (including Melanesians/Australians) historically and globally the least developed peoples, no development of written language, etc? Why were white NORTHERN Europeans (since Greek/Rome/etc were very advanced) relatively undeveloped in 400BC? Geography and climate plays a very big role in both.
The Northern Europeans were the whitest of them all, and some do not even consider Greeks to be white. So that is why I cited them as the example. It's an ad hoc argument to blame 'geography and climate' when it's whites but discount them when it's blacks. Of course, the climate also differs for blacks, which is why they're black!
Why are Africans underdeveloped? Part of the reason is isolation, which also applies to Melanesians. That it may also be partly genetic is something that I do believe, but I don't like that people pretend to know causes for sure (rather than likelihood) and how they make sweeping assertions like a supposed IQ cutoff for a civilization.
I think there probably are statistically significant population-wide IQ differences when you compare certain groups.
Yes, that is not even called into question by serious people on the left. The dispute is about what the causes of these are.
I don't see any other way to explain how Jews are so incredibly over-represented as Nobel physicists or why no sub-Saharan people ever developed writing [Ethiopian ge'ez script was borrowed from Arabia].
Writing was not invented that often. And of course, the Arabs and the Jews did not invent their own alphabet, they took it from the (Semitic) Phoenicians. Same for the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. Did the Europeans invent any writing system? Linear A maybe? I'm not sure if that was borrowed from someplace else, but ours was.
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
Where the fuck are you seeing this? Is this one of those, "I know I hang out with a bunch of bad people but at least I don't (hate Asians) (like Drumpf) (love Putin) (hate the Jews)" rationalizations that people have? If so, it's a new one to me.
Just a while back, there were a lot of people who argued vociferously in favor of discriminating against Asians to benefit whites.
It's interesting that all those people were very happy with criticism of undue racial preferences for blacks, but not with criticism of the undue racial preferences for whites that they support.
Explain how a country that has a double-digit percentage of Arabs is an 'ethnostate', and cite an Israeli practice that is remotely a justification for barring Asians from universities in order to have more whites.
i dont care how good chinks are at math, they live like actual bugmen and are eternally retarded in spirit for it, i want none of that in my country even if it means we'll have to go to mars in 2120 at the hand of Richard Stoneweather instead of in 2119 with Chin Som Ban's research
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
I've literally never seen this opinion espoused on this board or...anywhere really. Perhaps you're conflating this with people who are just white nationalists? I dont necessarily agree with it, but its certainly a different position than wanting affirmative action in universities and employment in trivial jobs.
I guess you could frame it as 'just' being white nationalists, but do you really think such people would oppose racial preferences for whites if they cannot get through their more drastic step of deporting anyone of a different color?
It makes no sense if you're looking at it as trying to get competent people into positions where they can actually do some good.
If you're looking at the jobs as a patronage system, it makes perfect sense. Who cares if they can't do their jobs as well? You want to bring in your supporters, and screw the people who are hurt by it.
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
IQ is most useful as a threshold. That’s why the military won’t accept people with IQs lower than 83.
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies. Not anyone else’s problem, truthfully.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
You probably didn’t think you were indirectly advocating for ethnostates, huh?
Alright, was ancient Egypt a functional and prosperous society, or are you going to make some ad hoc rationalizations for that? The IQ was higher back then, it's the luck of the Nile, back then you could have a functional society without a higher IQ.
OK, so how come majority-white nations weren't the most prosperous in say 400 BC? How come you want to make judgments based on the exact moment when it suits you?
So you don't oppose racial preferences, and any criticism you level at blacks for wanting affirmative action is done in bad faith, because you want the exact same thing to benefit yourself.
Not previously involved in this thread, but I think some reasonable answers:
Ancient Egypt was generally not a sub-Saharan black nation. Some of the dynasties had more African influence, but genetically far more Middle Eastern, Mediterranean (Greek), Semitic, North Africa, etc. Genetic influence seems to indicate a steady gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Egypt over the last millenium, meaning Egypt today is more "African" than it probably ever has been before.
Your second question, I'll combine with an unasked question--why were black African peoples (including Melanesians/Australians) historically and globally the least developed peoples, no development of written language, etc? Why were white NORTHERN Europeans (since Greek/Rome/etc were very advanced) relatively undeveloped in 400BC? Geography and climate plays a very big role in both.
I'm not one to make that big a deal out of IQ differences, though I think there probably are statistically significant population-wide IQ differences when you compare certain groups. E.g. Ashkenazi Jews / Northern Europeans / East Asian Chinese / Sub-Saharan African / Australian Aborigine. IMHO, the differences are relatively minor, yet nonetheless present. I don't see any other way to explain how Jews are so incredibly over-represented as Nobel physicists or why no sub-Saharan people ever developed writing [Ethiopian ge'ez script was borrowed from Arabia].
But not a lot. Certainly not enough to lower an IQ that is the average of whites to 80 or so. Not when blacks in America which have far higher rates of black DNA have an average IQ of 85 or 89.
The Northern Europeans were the whitest of them all, and some do not even consider Greeks to be white. So that is why I cited them as the example. It's an ad hoc argument to blame 'geography and climate' when it's whites but discount them when it's blacks. Of course, the climate also differs for blacks, which is why they're black!
Why are Africans underdeveloped? Part of the reason is isolation, which also applies to Melanesians. That it may also be partly genetic is something that I do believe, but I don't like that people pretend to know causes for sure (rather than likelihood) and how they make sweeping assertions like a supposed IQ cutoff for a civilization.
Yes, that is not even called into question by serious people on the left. The dispute is about what the causes of these are.
Writing was not invented that often. And of course, the Arabs and the Jews did not invent their own alphabet, they took it from the (Semitic) Phoenicians. Same for the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans. Did the Europeans invent any writing system? Linear A maybe? I'm not sure if that was borrowed from someplace else, but ours was.
Where the fuck are you seeing this? Is this one of those, "I know I hang out with a bunch of bad people but at least I don't (hate Asians) (like Drumpf) (love Putin) (hate the Jews)" rationalizations that people have? If so, it's a new one to me.
Just a while back, there were a lot of people who argued vociferously in favor of discriminating against Asians to benefit whites.
It's interesting that all those people were very happy with criticism of undue racial preferences for blacks, but not with criticism of the undue racial preferences for whites that they support.
He is criticizing us for wanting a White ethnostate instead of a race-blind meritocracy. Only Jews are allowed to do that.
Explain how a country that has a double-digit percentage of Arabs is an 'ethnostate', and cite an Israeli practice that is remotely a justification for barring Asians from universities in order to have more whites.
Hey, remember this:
https://scored.co/c/KotakuInAction2/p/142B5hQHGD/israeli-minister-90-of-ukrainian/c
i dont care how good chinks are at math, they live like actual bugmen and are eternally retarded in spirit for it, i want none of that in my country even if it means we'll have to go to mars in 2120 at the hand of Richard Stoneweather instead of in 2119 with Chin Som Ban's research
I've literally never seen this opinion espoused on this board or...anywhere really. Perhaps you're conflating this with people who are just white nationalists? I dont necessarily agree with it, but its certainly a different position than wanting affirmative action in universities and employment in trivial jobs.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/15K6zdsG9f/x/c/4Of1MTVLBYf
I guess you could frame it as 'just' being white nationalists, but do you really think such people would oppose racial preferences for whites if they cannot get through their more drastic step of deporting anyone of a different color?