jerryskids

He should walk around Reno asking random people if they want to abort a month old baby.

I'm in Tuscany so we had a wine tasting last night; Chianti Classico and a few other reds. Tutto bene.

Replace Minny with LA for my guess.

I'm on vacation and don't have time to respond to your snark today. I already stated my theory, perhaps you can regale us with your theory on why the media decided this month to dig into the past of a person they celebrated as a womanizer a decade ago. Slow news month? Maybe it never occurred to anyone for 10 years that he may have crossed a line, until a recent message from God?

By nobody I mean the media and groups with the means and interest to proactively seek such victims out a decade later. But I'm sure you are right, it's just a coincidence that he is anti establishment recently.

Most of the strong opinions are about the "coincidence" that nobody seemed to care that Brand was a self-admitted womanizer and drug addict until he started speaking out against government tyranny, big pharma, etc.

Wrong, ass.

What argument is that?

I didn't try anything. I told you facts and data. You interpret that data as racist. Party of science.

Appreciate the response, a few comments. 1. Rap is still popular, look up some Gunna lyrics he had the too rap song of 2023 when I posted them. 2. You don't have took very hard to find uncle Tom opinions. Larry Elder is the black face of white supremacy. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-08-20/recall-candidate-larry-elder-is-a-threat-to-black-californians Clarence Thomas is an Uncle Tom: https://wlos.com/news/nation-world/state-lawmaker-calls-clarence-thomas-an-uncle-tom-sold-his-soul-to-the-slave-master-georgia-democratic-sen-emanuel-jones-legislature-general-assembly 3. Its not a perfect system. But preserving the family unit doesn't mean you keep treating each other like shiot but stay together anyway. It's about both people respecting each other and working on fixing problems.

I never said inferior, you did, racist. Everything else you said I've addressed, if you'd bothered to read. Do you consider recognition of facts to be racist? If so, did you learn that in lawyer school?

Reads like a legal brief, impressive. I'm listening to a podcast on Hidden Brain with one of the godfathers of cognitive dissonance theory, you are a prime example. When faced with data contrary to your worldview, your brain reestablished your perception of superiority by calling me racist for providing the data. Don't feel bad, it happens to smart people, too.

In my mind you have repeatedly said that you believe that the problems in the inner city black community are due to external circumstances, in which case they would have no agency to fix it themselves. If not, then I apologize. That being said, you asked what is different, and I provided some possible answers: I will add to the list: did you have 1/2 of the country, including the leadership in your city, repeatedly telling you that another more successful race was keeping you down and you'd never be successful?

Oh well, there you go. Deep analysis. I completely broke it down you mongoloid. You can not believe whatever you want; there is evidence, this is incontrovertible. Exhibit A, IQ scores. This is not proof mind you; proof is different than evidence, which I've had to explain to Lefties (don't recall who) before, when pointing out that there is evidence that Joe Biden committed crimes. My point has never been that it is proof, but that there is evidence and that there is value in exploring it. You can disagree in the value, I have no value in that, in fact you might be correct in the end, because shallow-thinking people like white racists and whatever you call yourself and Worms can't process it. What set me off in the beginning was Worms just chiming in that I'm racist, when I hadn't even posted in the thread. That type of unwarranted accusation gets to me, mea culpa. I should have realized the source and ignored him; I truly do wonder how he functions in life with such a simplistic blue pill world view. He is every bit as blue as the reddest supermagatard. That's on me, I'll strive to be better.

You haven't responded to a single point I've made except to call me a racist. Enjoy being a simpleton, I hear ignorance is bliss. ETA: And calling the Bell Curve "hate speech" when it continues to be discussed and debated in academic circles is about an 80 IQ level of analysis. I guess you are proving that white people can be really dumb too, so you've got that going for you.

Interesting that you don't see that you just described that you, as a (presumably) white person, were able to rise out of such a situation, yet you think it is just shy of hopeless for similar black people to do the same. Regarding differences in community, we've hashed these out before, but... did you aspire to be a rap artist, treating women like hos? Did you look at successful white people in traditional society as Uncle Toms who had sold out to the establishment? Were your parents together, and those of your friends? (Honest question here; obviously I don't know and I don't know how different this is in poor black vs. white communities)

You are the Slingblade of discussion boards. At least Gutter tried to have a productive discussion, until he fell back on "yer a raciss!" Thankfully, smart people in this field can debate it while you derp your way through a simple belief that fits your world view.

I've heard that Dole has a portable lettuce factory; part of the year it is near Yuma, AZ by the CA and Mexico borders, and the other part they pick up and move the entire factory to somewhere in Cali, based on the growing seasons.

A bible was very valuable in Book of Eli. @weepaws probably has a few to spare, we could raid his cult compound in Reno. I have a Toto toilet/bidet combo; a clean starfish would be enjoyable during the apocalypse.

Cmon now, every day?

A human hair is about 30,000 times wider than a transistor in the most advanced semiconductors.

Moving on, before Buck and Worms called me out before even posting, here is what I was going to say: It starts with the kids. The young ones. It would be great if we could turn things all back on the parents, as some have suggested here. That is the longer term goal, and without it there is no sustainable solution. That being said, and I'm just keeping it real here: the majority of these parents are lost. No amount of changing incentives etc. is going to fix them. They are broken. Black, white, whatever. Some aren't, though. Hopefully most of them are already doing things to improve their childrens' lot in life. We should make it as easy as possibly for them to take advantage of things like school choice. This approach flies in the face of liberalism, which espouses equity and, I believe it was W, "no child left behind" which basically guarantees all kids fail equally. We can't fix all of the situations. Let's fix the fixable ones first: help the kids in environments that allow them to be helped. There is an old adage: for a kid to be successful in school, two of the following three must care: parent, student, teacher. Presuming we've addressed the parent situation above (most are broken), that leaves the student and the teacher. So... what can we do to make young kids aspire to getting out of their shiotty situation? And how can we enable teachers to help them get there? I don't have the exact answers, but I believe that these are the problems we need to address in the short term. Over time, those kids become parents who aren't broken, and the problem goes away. But it's not a quick fix.

Then there is you. You've exceeded my expectations for idiocy in this response to my well thought-out post, and those expectations were quite high. I sometimes wonder how, with a seemingly non-existent ability for critical thinking, you graduated law school let alone passed the bar. I chalk it up to the "eventually a monkey would type War and Peace, given enough time" phenomenon.

This is at least an attempt at a somewhat intelligent discussion. I am aware that there are contrary positions; did you read what I wrote? Also there was such a link in the top right of the link I provided. It dealt with, among other things, whether or not you believe "racial realism" exists. That's why I said it's contentious. You then contradict yourself. You say I like to be a free thinker, then immediately follow it with "like to keep yourself open to the possibility" like this is some personal life wish of mine. So like I predicted, you are starting with the premise that because I'm open to it, I'm raciss$#@! Regarding the point of such knowledge, I provided several examples of people who share your concern, while also acknowledging that the difference likely exists. Cofnas discusses it; there is the potential utilitarian benefit of using such knowledge to find different strengths, potentially intellectual strengths which aren't captured by IQ tests. Perhaps through these efforts we learn different measures of "intelligence". Keep in mind also that this is a bell curve; Asians score higher on such tests than whites, that doesn't mean that all whites become ditch diggers. There is also a benefit to the general pursuit of truth. When I did college admissions, I would often ask applicants if they thought the invention of the atomic bomb was a good thing. There was no right answer necessarily, but I was interested in how many people believed in knowledge for knowledge's sake. One can argue that the bomb itself was one of the worst things ever created. However, the research that went into it has created immeasurable value through nuclear energy, radiology therapy, and the knowledge of how the universe works, for example. In other words, increasing knowledge can take us places we haven't yet envisioned. It is, in a crude way, the difference between research and development. But then you lose me with the disgusting paragraph. Righteous people; think highly of your opinion, do you? And I haven't said anything has been proven. But I gotta say: to concede the physiological differences in muscle composition and achilles, and in the same sentence say the possibility that the brains could have (not DO have, COULD have) physiological differences is "disturbing," shows quite a shallowness of thinking. In the end, I understand the obvious concern of a certain class of people not seeing the nuance and concluding that whites are superior (while overlooking that Asians are superior to them, by the same measures). Such class including redneck Magatards and, it would seem, folks like yourself who doth protest too much.

I don't know why everything is "strikethrough" after a point, but I can't seem to edit it.