6,867 Forum Posts by "SadisticMonkey"
At 12/30/14 10:45 PM, orangebomb wrote: Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon and a likely candidate for 2016 for the Republican party states that the 2016 elections might not happen because Obama is going to declare martial law over things like ISIS, Ebola and government spending to name a few. The question is does anyone think that Carson is serious, or is this just another smoke and mirrors trick to rile up his potential voter base?
they said the same thing about Bush at the end of his second term
i think i remember seeing a thread on it back in the day lol
wow. what a plight. back people sure have legitimate grievances with oppressive white society.
At 12/29/14 11:24 PM, Light wrote: Anyway, there's a reason that black people feel oppressed by the forces of racism in this country and are, by and large, angry about the state of affairs in the U.S.
There's reasons, sure. Doesn't make them valid or something that anyone else should take seriously.
You should look into those reasons through research, because I get the feeling that my repeating them here might fall on deaf ears. I could cite the numerous statistics and historical evidence to substantiate my position, but I'm not sure it'll be all that effective.
That's a cop out. Use your words or stop posting about it.
A majority of White Americans are uncomfortable with the idea that they may be more racist than they think, or that racism didn't cease to exist in this country after the 1960s.
A majority of black americans are uncomfortable idea that they're responsible themselves in any amount for their 'plight'.
If you're white, you're statistically likely to be one of those people.
black people are more racist than anyone else
Better yet, why don't you talk to a black person or two and hear about their experiences with racism in the U.S.? A conversation about the issue can go a long way towards reexamination of one's views about this problem.
racism is so common in america that it has to be fabricated
At 12/29/14 10:21 PM, naronic wrote: rense.com?
Are you really this much of a fucking idiot?
http://www.rense.com/general77/chinsec.htm
It's the first one I googled. here's another.
It's not my fault you're too fucking lazy to look into things on your own.
Protester who advocates peace charged with setting fire at Berkeley QT
bahahahahahaa
At 12/29/14 09:07 PM, Light wrote: I understand the hypocrisy behind the Ayatollah's statement made on twitter, but how is "black lives matter" an insult?
The point is that he doesn't giving a flying toss about Mike Brown or anyone else, he just using it to stir up america.
At 12/28/14 12:53 PM, Korriken wrote: Of course, as far as South Africa goes, it was always that bad, Mandela just didn't magically fix the problems like everyone believed he would.
Well like I said, in many ways things have gotten worse. 20 years is a long time, and mandela's party has not even been able to maintain previous socio-economic outcomes. Europeans took an empty area and made it an ahistorically (for sub-saharan africa) prosperous and industrialized country. Black rule of south african has significantly worsened this country after 20 years of rule.
No matter how you slice it, south africa does not fit the liberal narrative.
At 12/29/14 11:25 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Imagine if the protests were a well organized machine and Kareem Abdul Jabbar were the only one allowed to speak or act...
That would be a great coup for them. What he's saying is still largely bullshit, but on the absolute surface its very defensible and is vastly more palatable to moderate whites than the nonsense coming from the current protesters.
At 12/29/14 11:35 AM, MrPercie wrote: But I guess we would rather pick out all the bad apples of the protesters, who are naturally flawed by emotions,
Well first of all, most protests don't have these 'bad apples' at all, not like these protests. I honestly believe most liberals are in denial over how bad some of these protests have truly been.
The majority of protesters are still fucking morons. Like there are honestly still people saying 'hands up, don't shoot'. There are protesters in countless cities blocking traffic. Protesters at the Berkeley shooting are all idiots because they had no fucking idea what was going on and decided it was a good idea to protest at all, not ot mention throw shit at the police, loot the convenience store and start a fire. At a gas station.
I also never saw a single progressive complaining about the vitriolic lies spread by the liberal media, politicians and pundits about the tea party protesters. So you're simply trying to have your cake and eat it too.
than the bad apples in professional positions in law and government expected to be held to a higher standard in the first place.
So we should give a free pass to violent lunatics who destroy people's businesses because they are 'flawed by emotion', but Darren Wilson, who killed someone who had just ostensibly attempted to murder him, should be dragged through the streets. Christ almighty.
At 12/28/14 02:07 PM, naronic wrote: Apartheid ended in 1994.
South Africa's "crime surge" started in the 1980's and 1970's and modern data has shown that in most places violent crime has been steadily dropping from 2004 to now.
http://www.saps.gov.za/resource_centre/publications/statistics/crimestats/2014/crime_stats.php
http://www.csvr.org.za/index.php/publications/1518-crime-trends-in-south-africa-1985-1998.html
Except the crime figures are totally unreliable:
South Africa's Murder Rate Far Worse than Reported
"Victims' surveys have consistently uncovered between 60% and
70% more crime than reported by official sources. Upwards of
50% of crime in many serious categories goes unreported."
http://www.rense.com/general39/reose.htm
Also the "prosperous, beautiful growth" of South Africa during apartheid is mostly an illusion. It was mostly the "prosperous, beautiful growth" of a single small demographic of Afrikaners whom mostly had representation and power during that period thanks to the National Party.
Close to 90% of black south africans have ancestors who moved to south africa after european settlement, many of who moved from not just bordering countries but from all over africa, largely because south africa was better than most anywhere else in africa.
I mean, if apartheid was a remotely bad as hysterical liberal idiots claim that it was, the apartheid government should have been struggling to stop people from leaving. The US needed slave patrols to stop slaves from escaping. North Korea forbids people from leaving and deals extremely harsh punishment to those caught trying to leave. South Africa on the other hand had millions of people moving there during its existence.
Nobody is saying that blacks had it great under apartheid, but we're talking about a country that went from completely empty except for a few primitive tribes to a highly industrialized country that was completely unprecedented for sub-saharan africa and which millions of africans were willing to permanently relocate to. Even more importantly, since apartheid ended things have gotten worse for blacks by most major socio-economic metrics. The low levels of wealth (relative to white south africans, not pre-colonial black africans) of the black south-africans was supposed to be because of white oppression and exploitation of them. That's why apartheid was so fiercely opposed in south africa. Everyone was absolutely certain that things would get better after apartheid was abolished and mandela's black nationalist party ruled south africa. It would be understandable if things has stayed more of less the same for at least a while, but 20 years on and things have largely gotten worse. Simple as that.
At 12/28/14 03:11 AM, Korriken wrote:At 12/27/14 09:35 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:Hilariously, ending apartheid has if anything vindicated racial supremacism.I can agree with your stance on Xenophobia, but this one you may need to explain.
Well European rule saw an almost entirely empty and undeveloped country turned into one of the most prosperous countries in Africa and a first-world country in many respects. Black rule has seen south africa go from the safest country in africa to the murder capital of the world and a country where a third of men admit to having committed rape and where tens of thousands of children are raped annually and prisons are routinely over capacity (though many inmates are simply released without trial). Black rule has seen a decrease in black life expectancy, black education achievement, median wealth, black/white income equality, black employment, black housing quality (with an enormous rise in the number of informal settlements), agricultural productivity, . Black rule has brought about an almost caricatural level of government corruption and a rapist president who took a shower after raping a woman in the belief that this would prevent the contraction of hiv and who squanders foreign aid on personal mansions. Black rule has seen beautiful tourist destinations like Durban turned in squalid, dangerous hellholes. I could go on but I think you get my point.
At 12/28/14 02:21 AM, Ranger2 wrote: I think the two biggest issues concerning European rejection of Turkey's ascension are a) the fact that Turkey will not call what happened to the Armenians a genocide, and b) a lot of Europeans are against the idea of a 95% Muslim nation joining the Christian-majority European Union. I think had Europeans swallowed their pride/fears and made Turkey an EU member, we would not be seeing this Eastward shift.
It's think its mostly that these countries don't want the massive influx of turkish migrants that would follow Turkey EU membership. Which is absolutely fair enough.
fuck the turks
At 12/28/14 12:15 AM, TNT wrote:At 12/27/14 11:57 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: for fucks sakeI think this would be more suited for the race relations thread, even if police were mentioned in a few lines. It doesn't seem to directly talk about the police, but more about race, especially the part of "he was being harassed because he was black."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/singing-reference-ferguson-behind-flight-diversion-n275346
you're right, I was just following on from my posts about ferguson protesters above I guess
for fucks sake
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/singing-reference-ferguson-behind-flight-diversion-n275346
A passenger's loud singing and references to Ferguson, Missouri, was behind Thursday's diversion of a Los Angeles-bound jet, officials said in their report of the incident.
Delta Flight 81, traveling from Atlanta to Los Angeles, made the unscheduled stop at Albuquerque International Sunport just after 6 p.m. Thursday so that a first-class passenger could be removed from the plane, in what a passenger said was described as a "security issue."
An incident report shows that issue was a 27-year-old Wichita man's singing aloud to music playing from his headphones, which bothered other passengers. When he was asked by another passenger and later a flight attendant to stop, the passenger "made references to the recent Ferguson Missouri incident" and "also stated he was being harassed because he was black," according to an incident report released by airport police. The upset and crying passenger went to the restroom several times "and it became a concern to the flight crew" and prompted the diversion, aviation police said in their report.
The passenger was not charged but was not allowed back on the flight. He caught a flight to Los Angeles Friday morning, police said. He never made any direct threats, passengers interviewed by police said.
Ferguson is the St. Louis suburb where black teenager Michael Brown was fatally shot by a white police officer, prompting weeks of protests in that town and in other cities across the country. On Saturday, a gunman who police believe made posts on social media referencing Brown's death killed two New York City police officers in what authorities have described as an ambush. Attempts to contact the passenger were not immediately successful. A call to Delta was not returned.
At 12/25/14 05:42 AM, lapis wrote: 1- Racial supremacism: the idea that your race is better than (some) other races or at least better off when it's kept free from foreign influences. This is largely what informed things like Jim Crow in the US, Apartheid in South Africa or the White Australia policy. Something similar (religious supremacism) is what fuels discrimination of non-Muslims in most Islamic countries.
Xenophobia is not necessarily supremacist. You don't have to think you're superior to other groups to not want them in your country, for instance. Groups with different cultures and behaviors will, in large enough numbers, undoubtedly change the culture of a region and its entirely understandable that people would wish to protect their culture.
Historically, it would seem that the best way to fight a supremacist system would be to fight it, like what happened with the boycott of South Africa and the civil rights struggle in the US.
Hilariously, ending apartheid has if anything vindicated racial supremacism.
Cultural appropriation is basically blacks (or whatever other 'people of color') saying 'no whites allowed'. It's about creating an exclusive cultural space for themselves whilst denying whites that same privilege. Race doesn't exist, race doesn't matter, but only people with a certain skin tone can do X. And that's equality.
Of course, I think races should stick to their own respective cultures. But black people are just being massive hypocrites.
Not mindless idiot protesters release address of NYPD police officer present at death of Eric Garner less than a week after NYPD officers murdered in 'revenge' for death of Garner
http://nypost.com/2014/12/25/eric-garners-daughter-posts-address-of-cop-present-at-his-death/
not mindless idiot protesters so offended that mayor de blasio would dare suggest that protesters should refrain from anti-police protests until after the funerals of the recently murdered NYPD officers that they hold a not mindless and idiotic protest out of spite
http://nypost.com/2014/12/23/anti-cop-protesters-flood-nyc-despite-de-blasios-appeal/
At 12/25/14 02:59 PM, orangebomb wrote: While sites like CNN aren't without their biases, they are a far more reliable news source than less reputable news networks like Russia Today or Fox News.
Fuck off they are. That's pure bias on your part.
At 12/25/14 11:12 PM, Warforger wrote:At 12/25/14 08:37 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:No he didn't. The Coroners report states that he died of being choked to death, not heart attack or asthma attack. Either way I'd like to hear where you heard that when you try to stop someone resisting arrest you get a guy to strangle him.
He wasn't strangled. he was tackled to the ground with a chokehold that ended shortly after they hit the ground.
If they were white more likely the case would've been a simple conviction of improper use of force. For Brown it was a bit murky but with Garner we have footage that showed that the cops used excessive force beyond the restrictions put upon them and if it were a white person people wouldn't even factor in race and just convict the cops.
That's certainly what happened with Kelly Thomas.
Wonder where all the protesters were for that poor bastard.
At 12/25/14 01:40 PM, Warforger wrote: Brown had apparently punched him in the face. Either way he was running away when Wilson shot him.... like 6 times. Yes in self defense of course! Say what you want but that's an extreme overreaction.
Brown had reached for Wilson's gun initially. When Brown was shot he was at least facing towards Wilson, and also fell forwards. Wilson claims Brown was charging towards him. If Brown was charging towards him, 6 shots is is no way an extreme overreaction. But I'm interested to hear how you reacted the last time a man much bigger than you attempted to kill you.
Yes look at how violent this man was, so much so that one guy was required just to choke him to death. Oh and he didn't die of a heart attack, he died of compression of the chest and neck by the police officers i.e. he was choked to death.
He only died because of his health problems. His death was not remotely intentional and the police officers actions would not have killed someone without health problems.
More importantly, if Brown or garner had been white, the case would not go to trial and there would be no rioting over the grand jury decision.
reports that the not mindless idiot peaceful protester din du nuffins have looted the gas station and started a small fire
Peaceful protesters who are definitely not mindless idiots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv0jVULB9Gg
- 300 people protest like retards at the crime scene
- punch and kick police and throw rocks and bricks at them
- some cop get hits with brick and goes to hospital
- cop car gets damaged and back windshield broken
- the geniuses protesting also lit a bunch of fireworks at the gas pumps near police, injuring one cop lightly
- cops respond with force to the violent crowd
- the crowd cries and complains like babies about MUH POLICE BRUTALITY WAAAA
At 12/24/14 07:34 PM, Boredy-Mcbored wrote: Why are these people mindless? Because they have an opinion that differs from yours? They're fed up because police are doing whatever they want and getting away with it.
You mean like Darren Wilson, who shot Brown in self defense an shortly after brown had attempted to murder him?
You mean the Eric garner case, where garner resisted arrest which necessitated a forceful arrest that exacerbated an existing health problem, resulting in a heart attack?
gee it's like the wild west or something?
ALL of the footage they have are placed at angles just out of reach and make things hard to conclude. The department said Martin had a gun, but many wintesses say the opposite. Sure, the witnesses are mad so it's hard to trust them, but the police are just as mad and are under scrutiny. They'd do anything to save their asses at this point.
So what? The case is being investigated. There is absolutely no reason for these protests to occur because they don't know what happened and nobody has said that the police officer gets to walk away or anything.
People are upset because the police in that area haven't been transparent and always act like they have something to hide.
Policeman were just murdered in cold blood. People have sent Darren Wilson's death threats and put bounties on his head. Why the fuck do you think they're going to be cautious.
Nobody trusts anyone in that area, and for good reasons. So no, they aren't mindless idiots, they're people feed up with injustice. Regardless of if Martin had a gun or not, the tension is sickeningly thick in that area and it's unfair to just cast the blame or demonize the people of that area.
They are mindless idiots because they don't know shit about what happened but still protest hysterically because white man killed black teen and that's all that matters to them.
if they weren't mindless idiots, they would have stopped protesting after forensic and autopsy reports were released for the Mike Brown case, which showed that Brown did NOT have his hands up, was NOT shot in the back, had attacked Wilson and had reached for his gun.
If these people weren't mindless idiots, they would have protested about the death of Kelly Thomas, but they didn't make a fucking peep about it.
At 12/24/14 09:25 PM, LordJaric wrote: You can ask any anthropologist, biologist and genealogist and they tell you what I've told you. Being an anthropology major I've learned the matters of "race" over the past few years, so I have experience in the field.
1. Anthropology isn't science so neither you nor any other anthropologist has any claim to scientific authority.
2. Your "experience" does not refute the scientific studies I have posted in this thread.
3. According to musician, the opinion of "any" biologist etc. is not relevant. Only those with direct knowledge of population genetics etc.
4. I actually posted several studies showing that biologists aren't universally opposed to the idea of biological racial differences and new research is casting doubts over the unscientific anthropological 'social construct' hypothesis.
You have no idea what you're talking about, please stop posting on the issue.
there is honestly no hope for america
At 12/24/14 05:22 PM, Boredy-Mcbored wrote:It's sad when an entire class of people have become mindless drones who can be whipped into a frenzy so easily.You mean the police right?
You're an idiot. Post something constructive or fuck off.
At 12/24/14 11:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 12/24/14 12:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: light claimed that im an ignorant racist whose views on this topic are invalid because I had supposedly said (in the past, not even this thread) that blacks are less intelligent and more criminal than whites, and I explained why this is not ignorant, and on it went...Get back on topic, I don't want to see this thread locked because of two people compuslively trying to compare penis size.
It's not compulsive penis-comparison though, it's hysterical idiots dismissing my views out of hand because their anti-scientific view of race conflicts with mine.
I'm happy to continue discussing the original topic if these morons will post in kind instead of simply accusing me of race heresy.
At 12/23/14 11:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm curious as to what exactly the intelligence differential between blacks and whites (if there is one) has to do with the two officers' deaths...
light claimed that im an ignorant racist whose views on this topic are invalid because I had supposedly said (in the past, not even this thread) that blacks are less intelligent and more criminal than whites, and I explained why this is not ignorant, and on it went...
At 12/23/14 11:46 PM, Light wrote: lol @ SadisticMonkey claiming that @Musician knows nothing about science and peer review while citing studies that aren't supported by science
What does that even mean?
or peer-reviewed.
Which of my studies weren't peer-reviewed?
This is why no one here respects your opinions, dude.
I have definitively shown you to be wrong.
At 12/23/14 12:01 PM, AxTekk wrote: @SadisticMonkey despite whatever you read from AmRen, we're still a long way off from having anything like the detailed understanding of intelligence (& IQ) you'd need to have a proper scientific discussion about race and intelligence.
Why the FUCK are you only telling me that?
A: Race doesn't exist! Intelligence has nothing to do with race! Intelligence is has nothing to do with genetics!
B: Well these scientific studies I have here suggest that you are wrong
C: Wow B don't you know that we can't be certain about race and intelligence and stuff?
If we did have the definitive, working understanding of intelligence they claim, we'd also understand a lot more about developmental disorders, certain brain injuries, personality disorders and our education systems would also be much more advanced. But this is a stupid discussion that I have no interest in having with racist white people on ng, so please feel free not to reply.
Liberals refuse to examine race (or sex) honesly and openly and will do whatever they can to push their egalitarian gender.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0&list=FL2w1CQqPli4w94-PCg2UvJQ&index=5
http://theweek.com/article/index/273736/how-academias-liberal-bias-is-killing-social-science
At 12/23/14 05:34 PM, Fim wrote: Just passing by to say SadistMonkey is a bigoted, sad angry wankgoblin.
hey, look at that, yet another hysterical anti-science liberal! Thanks for your contribution!
At 12/23/14 08:02 PM, kabogh wrote: I laugh at you poor Americans, people of barbarians with untamed ideas of different races. Oh no why is it happening?! Stupid Americans. We laugh at how your society is poorly advanced socially.
It must be nice living somewhere without lots of black people.
At 12/23/14 10:32 AM, Musician wrote: IQ tests indicate an ability to do well on tests, not intelligent.
It's bizarre that 'test-taking ability' is distributed almost exactly the same as the skills and traits required for positive socio-economic outcomes. Also bizarre that races with a strong history of agriculture have greater 'test-taking abilities' than those with little-to-no history of agriculture.
Also weird is how if a black person and a white person have a child together, the child's IQ is almost always in the middle of the two parents' IQs (which usually means baove the black mean IQ and below the white mean IQ). Is test-taking ability itself hereditary (and distributed differently between races), or do mixed race kids receive an amount of social discrimination exactly proportionate to their level of black ancestry?
The g-factor, an important and widely accepted measure of cognitive ability and a component of IQ, has been shown to be heredity and also to correlate with brain size. Brain size varies, you guessed it, with race, with MRI studies confirming that asians have the largest brains, followed by whites and then blacks, which also happens to be the descending order of mean IQs.
Does test-taking ability somehow cause the brain (and the carnium accordingly) to swell up or something? We're really getting some cool hypotheses going today!
Since passing tests like the SAT is a stepping stone to higher education, and ultimately better job opportunities, it makes sense for it to predict those outcomes.
IQ tests themselves predict these outcomes, and at an early age.
It still doesn't say anything about that person's inherent intelligence.
Have you ever done an IQ test? I don't see how individuals, let alone populations could go well on them without possessing cognitive abilities that are required for general success in life.
Even if intelligence could be measured and reduced to a single number, that doesn't mean the gap is a result of race.
If that number correlates with race and is hereditary, then there's every reason to assume that it is.
How do you isolate heredity from social factors?
Twin adoption studies look at identical twins who are separated at birth and raised by different families. The IQ of these twins are measured and compared later in life. Because the twins have identical genetics*, any aggregate differences in IQ between twins must result from environmental ('social') factors. These studies indicate that IQ is at least 80% hereditary.
Other studies such as as trans-racial adoption studies look at black children who were adopted by white families and compares their IQs to blacks raised by their biological parents, and there was found that no significant IQ differences exist between the adopted and non-adopted groups. This demonstrates that the home environment differences between blacks and whites can not explain the black/white IQ gap.
*This is not 100% true, and assuming that it is leads to an underestimation of heritability.
And social-economic issues extend beyond wealth.
The black/white IQ gap has not changed since 1918 when IQ first started being tested (http://occidentalascent.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/secular-bw-ii.jpg?w=640). You may think that america is still "racist" but things certainly are better for blacks now than they were 100 years ago, and if 'social factors' were the cause of the black/white IQ gap then we absolutely should have expected a narrowing of the gap over the past century, but this is not the case. So wealth and 'social factors' are out, what else you got?
*yawn* testosterone levels are effected by more than hereditary, so this argument runs up against the same kind of wall.
Don't "yawn" me. You literally said they weren't heredity.
You act like blacks and whites live in completely different countries or something. The idea that the different environments faced by blacks and whites within america could account for significant testosterone differences is simply bizarre. Why do asians have LESS testosterone? They're supposedly dscriminated against by white people, and yet this apparently has the opposite effect to that for black men. Is their culture somehow affecting their T-levels? lol
The surveys you cite of biologist opinion are old (most recent being 1984, 30 years ago), and even so the survey is meaningless without knowing the definition of race being used. Even if most biologists did believe in the white-black-asian conception of race that dominates public thought, most biologists don't have the specialization in genetics necessary to have an informed opinion on it anyways.
Well would you look at that.
"Mainstream biological science has rejected the theory of biologically determined race for over half a century. "
1. A minute ago it was some monolithic 'mainstream biological science' that was supporting your view. I definitively disproved that, and now only advanced genetics experts are qualified to comment on the matter. Talk about shifting the goalposts!
2. You said over half a century. If that were the case, then any survey after this period should demonstrate your point. 30 years ago not even more biologists than not rejected biological race.
3. It says 'a concept of biological race'. That's really all that we need to know because no scientist who believes that race is a 'social construct' would accept any 'concept of biological race' whatsoever. This is a total cop out and a half.
The first study you link is flawed because it took a sample group, and then fit the members into genetic clusters after taking their genetic information, rather than forming a model and then running a random sample against it as a test. I can't make heads or tails of the second study as it's too heavy on genetics terminology, but I imagine it has the same problem.
Genetic clustering should not occur at all if there was no biological aspect to race.
Also, if you had bothered to read other studies, they used unknown groups.
You clearly know diddly-squat about science but you're happy to simply dismiss peer-reviewed papers out of hand.
Get out of here kid, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you would rather stick your fingers in your ears than be open to evidence that challenge your secular creationist theories.
