Zone1 Let's Talk About "Merit"

[Hector12]

Come on, tell us true. What horrible thing happened in your life that has this much hate behind it.

You are the most hostile poster here. I respond to your abuse calmly, because I am confident in the truth of what I state here, and I suspect that you are privately aware that what I say is true.

You endorse violence, suppression, censorship, and thought control

When Professor Arthur Jensen of Berkeley accurately predicted that little could be done to improve academic performance and test scores, and close the race gap, new left thugs interrupted his classes, he received death threats. and often required police protection.

When Professor Richard Herrnstein of Harvard wrote an article in the Atlantic in which he introduced ideas he was to later put into The Bell Curve SDS called for his termination and held a convention at Harvard the following spring calling for the firing of him and Professor Jensen.

You think that kind of thing is appropriate. The reason is obvious. Your perspective can only thrive when it is backed up by force.

My perspective thrives in an environment that appreciates facts, logical reasoning, and civility.

 

[JoeB131]

Quotas never existed. They wwere ruled out in Bakke. Now you're right in the fact that you can't chhoose your facts and the faacts are that white women benefitted the moost from the policy and that if quuotas would hhaavee beenn legal they would havvee been 70 percent whiite.. We will continue playing the culture of low expectations by automatically admitting white legacy students.

Did your keys get stuck or did you have a stroke in the middle of typing this.

I'll say this again.

White women would be perfectly fine with getting rid of Affirmative Action tomorrow. You whine about 400 years of oppression (and yes, it's a valid complaint) but women have had to deal with THOUSANDS of years of oppression. Yet in less than 50 years of the "Women's Lib" movement, White women have not only achieved near equity with men, they've even come to see Feminists as kind of an annoyance.

Now, I have no problem getting rid of legacies, children of staff, children of donors, and my personal favorite, athletics (you're there to learn, not play games!) Let's make admissions purely on the basis of GPA and Test Scores. The problem is, of course, that if you did that, Harvard's graduating class would look like this....

 

[Lisa558]

Did your keys get stuck or did you have a stroke in the middle of typing this.

I'll say this again.

White women would be perfectly fine with getting rid of Affirmative Action tomorrow. You whine about 400 years of oppression (and yes, it's a valid complaint) but women have had to deal with THOUSANDS of years of oppression. Yet in less than 50 years of the "Women's Lib" movement, White women have not only achieved near equity with men, they've even come to see Feminists as kind of an annoyance.

Now, I have no problem getting rid of legacies, children of staff, children of donors, and my personal favorite, athletics (you're there to learn, not play games!) Let's make admissions purely on the basis of GPA and Test Scores. The problem is, of course, that if you did that, Harvard's graduating class would look like this....

Not true. There would be Jews is that photo too.

 

[JoeB131]

You are the most hostile poster here. I respond to your abuse calmly, because I am confident in the truth of what I state here, and I suspect that you are privately aware that what I say is true.

I'm hostile to awful people. Racists. Religious Fanatics. Idiots.

You know, people who have it coming.

I will also state that I'm a lot more hostile here than I am in real life, because here I can really let loose on stupid and awful people, as opposed to having to bite my tongue professionally.

You endorse violence, suppression, censorship, and thought control

Absolutely, when an idealogy is dangerous, it should be suppressed. That's why we ban kiddie porn and treat NAMBLA like a criminal conspiracy.
We need to treat the Nazis, Klan, and "Race Realists" the same way, because we KNOW where their philosophy ends...

Once you dehumanize people, THIS is where you end up. Always.

When Professor Arthur Jensen of Berkeley accurately predicted that little could be done to improve academic performance and test scores, and close the race gap, new left thugs interrupted his classes, he received death threats. and often required police protection.

As he should. Maybe he might even take stock of his life and realize he's an awful human being.
Of course, little WAS done to improve academic test scores. That's kind of the problem. In fact, test scores for all races has declined in the last 50 years. Whites haven't gotten any smarter because of all the money we've spent on education, either. Frankly, I kind of suspect they are getting dumber.

When Professor Richard Herrnstein of Harvard wrote an article in the Atlantic in which he introduced ideas he was to later put into The Bell Curve SDS called for his termination and held a convention at Harvard the following spring calling for the firing of him and Professor Jensen.

As they should have been.

You seem to think it's a terrible thing when Racists are subjected to life ruins.
I don't. Nothing makes me happier than when a racist blurts out the wrong thing and society utterly ruins his life
Hey, has anyone seen the Dilbert guy lately?

You think that kind of thing is appropriate. The reason is obvious. Your perspective can only thrive when it is backed up by force.

My perspective thrives in an environment that appreciates facts, logical reasoning, and civility.

No, I'm for ruining the lives of racists because you have already damaged the country, and you keep doing it.

When did America start declining? Right after the GOP realized it could get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests by playing on their racial fears. thanks Tricky Dick!

But keep cowering behind screen names and spewing racist garbage you'd never have the guts to say out loud.

 

[JoeB131]

Not true. There would be Jews is that photo too.

Probably not. YOu people have a habit of alienating people no matter where you go. The only reason why you do well in America is because we have a tradition of religious tolerance.

 

[braalian]

whites are smarter, stronger and more successful. period. deal with it im2 im not black liar.

Stronger? Idk

I feel like there’s a lot more strong black dudes out there than there are white dudes

 

[MizMolly]

Whites have nothing based on merit.

Proof of your racism.

 

[Hector12]

I'm hostile to awful people. Racists. Religious Fanatics. Idiots.

You know, people who have it coming.

I will also state that I'm a lot more hostile here than I am in real life, because here I can really let loose on stupid and awful people, as opposed to having to bite my tongue professionally.



Absolutely, when an idealogy is dangerous, it should be suppressed. That's why we ban kiddie porn and treat NAMBLA like a criminal conspiracy.
We need to treat the Nazis, Klan, and "Race Realists" the same way, because we KNOW where their philosophy ends...

View attachment 800127
Once you dehumanize people, THIS is where you end up. Always.



As he should. Maybe he might even take stock of his life and realize he's an awful human being.
Of course, little WAS done to improve academic test scores. That's kind of the problem. In fact, test scores for all races has declined in the last 50 years. Whites haven't gotten any smarter because of all the money we've spent on education, either. Frankly, I kind of suspect they are getting dumber.

As they should have been.

You seem to think it's a terrible thing when Racists are subjected to life ruins.
I don't. Nothing makes me happier than when a racist blurts out the wrong thing and society utterly ruins his life
Hey, has anyone seen the Dilbert guy lately?



No, I'm for ruining the lives of racists because you have already damaged the country, and you keep doing it.

When did America start declining? Right after the GOP realized it could get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests by playing on their racial fears. thanks Tricky Dick!

But keep cowering behind screen names and spewing racist garbage you'd never have the guts to say out loud.

JoeB131,

Your anger reveals that you are unsure of the truth of what you pretend to believe. People do not become angry when opinions they are confident in are questioned. Self confidence in the truth of my opinions explains my serenity and courtesy.

Your use of the Holocaust as an example of why heriditarianism and race realism should be suppressed, rather than debated in an uncoerced and civil environment, is an example of the guilt by association fallacy. In the guilt by association fallacy one associates what one personally dislikes with what is universally deplored.

Heriditarianism and race realism assert that native intelligence is valuable, and that it differs significantly between individuals. Moreover, average and significant differences exist between racial groups.

Associating heriditarianism and race realism with the Holocaust is an invalid association for two reasons.

First, the Holocaust was an attempt to exterminate the most accomplished group in the world. For example, Jews are 0.2% of the world's population. They have won about one fourth of Nobel Prizes. When Jews are not discriminated against they are disproportionately present in fields requiring superior intelligence.

Second, the Holocaust happened in an environment that used force to suppress the free expression of facts and ideas. Once force becomes an acceptable way of controlling discussion, what matters is not truth; what matters is who has superior power.

From the beginning of the McCarthy Era in the late 1940's to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in the spring of 1968 it was dangerous in the United States to criticize capitalism, advocate socialism, or to say anything good about any Communist country.

This led to the policies that got us into the War in Vietnam. It also contributed to policies that eventually culminated in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

The Tet Offensive made it safe to examine America's exaggeration of the the threat of Communism.

Unfortunately, since 1968 it has become dangerous to examine correlations between genetics, intelligence, crime, and race. This has led to increases in crime and illegitimacy, as well as to the elevation of people to positions where they lack the ability to perform adequately.

The overall crime rate has declined since 1980 because of the increase in the prison population rate. The rate of violent crime has declined since 1992 because of the growing use of abortion. The kind of females most likely to have abortions are also most likely to give birth to boy babies who become violent street criminals: those females have low IQ's; they are unmarried; they are marginally employable.

Illegitimacy has continued to grow, along with the attendant social pathologies.

Political policies that are based on false assumptions fail and often have unfortunate, even disastrous consequences.

So you see JoeB131, I do not think you are qualified to determine which points of view are safe, and which are dangerous and should be suppressed. I think there is no better way of determining that than the free expression of facts and ideas.

By the way, there are plenty of people who agree with me about hereditarianism and race realism. We discuss it a lot. Even if they disagreed with me they are not the sort who would try to silence me violently, which is what you wish would happen to me.

 

[Lisa558]

Probably not. YOu people have a habit of alienating people no matter where you go. The only reason why you do well in America is because we have a tradition of religious tolerance.

Wow. Lookie at what the ”tolerant” Democrat who decries prejudice and bigotry (as he defines it of course) has to say about “YOU people” (as in Jews).

We do not alienate smart, successful people. We may bring about resentment and/or jealousy from people like you who hate the idea that a horrifically persecuted minority can rise above the hate and go on to be quite successful via their own traits and characteristics.

 

[JoeB131]

Your anger reveals that you are unsure of the truth of what you pretend to believe. People do not become angry when opinions they are confident in are questioned. Self confidence in the truth of my opinions explains my serenity and courtesy.

Nope, Nazis and racists don't merit courtesy.

Your use of the Holocaust as an example of why heriditarianism and race realism should be suppressed, rather than debated in an uncoerced and civil environment, is an example of the guilt by association fallacy. In the guilt by association fallacy one associates what one personally dislikes with what is universally deplored.

A 1940's Nazi could lecture all day about the "inferiority" of the Jew, the Gyspy and the Slav. Let's be blunt, Hitler didn't come out of left field, his views on Jews were the culmination of hundreds of years of racial thinking (even though the Jews were just as white as he was, and his grandfather might have in fact been a Jew).

Now, my Aunt had a long history of our family tree because the Nazis required you to get one to make sure there were no Jews back there. (All this documentation was lost by her white trash grandchildren, so much for race.)

This is why I don't believe in race realism. I've seen people devolve into White Trash in a few generations of bad decisions.

Heriditarianism and race realism assert that native intelligence is valuable, and that it differs significantly between individuals. Moreover, average and significant differences exist between racial groups.

Blah, blah, blah... born on third base, thought you hit a triple. If Blacks are behind, it's because we've had 400 years of keeping them down. It's really not that complicated that if there was a law against teaching your grandfather to read, and your parents went to a school that was segregated, you aren't going to do a lot better because the finally make the bare effort to educate you.

First, the Holocaust was an attempt to exterminate the most accomplished group in the world. For example, Jews are 0.2% of the world's population. They have won about one fourth of Nobel Prizes. When Jews are not discriminated against they are disproportionately present in fields requiring superior intelligence.

And so? Why do you think the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews? Beause they were afraid they'd take over? Of course not.

Part of it was religious. 2000 years of Christians being told the Jews killed their God-Man.
Part of it was economic. Because Jews gravitated towards banking (not because they were "smarter", but because usury was considered a sin in Christiandom), that gave them economic advantages and put them at the brunt of a lot of resentment.
And part of it was that Social Darwinist theories like your villified them.

Second, the Holocaust happened in an environment that used force to suppress the free expression of facts and ideas. Once force becomes an acceptable way of controlling discussion, what matters is not truth; what matters is who has superior power.

Naw, man, the Holocaust didn't happen because of "Free Speech" being suppressed. It happened because the Nazis were losing the war and simply expelling them wasn't an option.

Hitler's original plan was to send them all back to Palestine. You know, like you want to send all the blacks back to Africa. When that wasn't an option, he tried to confine them to Ghettos to provide menial labor. The word "Ghetto" refers to a black neighborhood now, but it was originally a term for a Jewish enclave. The plan to exterminate them didn't happen until 1942.

When you start with hate as your premise, you get to the concentration camp eventually.

From the beginning of the McCarthy Era in the late 1940's to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam in the spring of 1968 it was dangerous in the United States to criticize capitalism, advocate socialism, or to say anything good about any Communist country.

Yes, and?

Unfortunately, since 1968 it has become dangerous to examine correlations between genetics, intelligence, crime, and race. This has led to increases in crime and illegitimacy, as well as to the elevation of people to positions where they lack the ability to perform adequately.

One thing I found out early in life is being the smartest person in the room isn't an advantage. I've almost always found myself working for dumber people who were a bit better looking, a bit more sociable, and a bit more dishonest. Intelligence is overrated, at best.

I did show you the video of the guy with the 300 IQ who died alone in a tenement because he had no social skills.

The overall crime rate has declined since 1980 because of the increase in the prison population rate. The rate of violent crime has declined since 1992 because of the growing use of abortion. The kind of females most likely to have abortions are also most likely to give birth to boy babies who become violent street criminals: those females have low IQ's; they are unmarried; they are marginally employable.

Um, not really. First, abortion didn't really effect the birth rate, because women were having just as many abortions before Roe as after. What put a big dent in the birth rate was the Pill, which is why the Baby Boom ended in 1965. Also, the Crime rate didn't peak until the 1990's, and then started declining due to Boomers getting too old for that sort of thing.

As for illegitmacy, if the crime rate kept going down since 1990, but the illegitimacy rate kept going up for ALL races (It's at about 30% for whites now.) then there is no correlation between crime and illegitimacy. You fail.

Illegitimacy has continued to grow, along with the attendant social pathologies.

France has an out of wedlock birth rate of close to 60%.

yet they have nowhere near our problems.

Why?
They have strong social programs, they don't let the average person get guns, and mental illness and addiction are treated as medical problems.

So you see JoeB131, I do not think you are qualified to determine which points of view are safe, and which are dangerous and should be suppressed. I think there is no better way of determining that than the free expression of facts and ideas.

Sure I am. Which is why I'm happy to inflict life ruins on racists. Look, I realize that whatever Jamal did to you, there's probably no fixing you and making you a better person. You probably need years of therapy, but I cant think of a therapist I dislike enough to wish you on. But we can keep your garbage out of the public square.

By the way, there are plenty of people who agree with me about hereditarianism and race realism. We discuss it a lot. Even if they disagreed with me they are not the sort who would try to silence me violently, which is what you wish would happen to me.

I'm sure there are rocks under which the cockroaches meet, but they are still cockroaches. Sadly, the internet creates a lot of rocks.

 

[Hector12]

Probably not. YOu people have a habit of alienating people no matter where you go. The only reason why you do well in America is because we have a tradition of religious tolerance.

Jews alienate people who cannot compete with them academically and economically. The typical Jew hater has spent his life watching Jews get better grades, better jobs, and better incomes. Now he fears being replaced by a more intelligent, better paid Jew who will perform his job faster, better, and with less effort, before being promoted to an even better paying positions.

Expressing my admiration for Jews has gotten me banned from four of the white nationalist websites you seem to think would welcome me.

We race realists recognize a racial hierarchy with Ashkenazi Jews at the top. By the way, I am a Gentile.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow. Lookie at what the ”tolerant” Democrat who decries prejudice and bigotry (as he defines it of course) has to say about “YOU people” (as in Jews).

We do not alienate smart, successful people. We may bring about resentment and/or jealousy from people like you who hate the idea that a horrifically persecuted minority can rise above the hate and go on to be quite successful via their own traits and characteristics.

Um, here's the thing. Your religion is a choice.
Your religion endorses behaviors that alienate people.
It's why your entire history has been one of being chased out of one country to the next.

I abhor racism, but what I hate even more is people who use religion to justify their bad behavior.

 

[JoeB131]

Jews alienate people who cannot compete with them academically and economically. The typical Jew hater has spent his life watching Jews get better grades, better jobs, and better incomes. Now he fears being replaced by a more intelligent, better paid Jew who will perform his job faster, better, and with less effort, before being promoted to an even better paying positions.

Or they just don't like working for them because they are awful bosses. I really had nothing against Jewish people... until I ended up working for some.

I really don't worry about being "replaced". Jobs come and jobs go. No one ever said on his deathbed, "I wish I had spent more time at the office".

 

[Hector12]

Let's make admissions purely on the basis of GPA and Test Scores. The problem is, of course, that if you did that, Harvard's graduating class would look like this....

That is fine with me. I prefer Orientals to whites, although I am white myself. Of course, in addition to more Orientals, there will be more Jews in Harvard's graduation classes. That is fine with me too. There will even be a certain number of white Gentiles. Of course, there will be many fewer Negroes.

 

[hadit]

A prime example of the length and consistency of a big lie is the distortion of Affirmative Action. Whites have been given what the right complains about blacks getting since the beginning of this country. The discomfort some whites have in recognizing how they benefit from race-based law and policy is evident in any discussion a person of color has with a person who opposes equal rights legislation. Do they not understand how long whites were hired, promoted, admitted into colleges, and even allowed citizenship rights only because of the color of their skin? Do they not question the qualifications of white legacy students?

While Harvard is currently gearing up for a lawsuit around affirmative action and discriminatory admissions policies against Asian Americans, the real vector for race-based discrimination goes on unchallenged: white privilege. While white privilege operates at every level of society, the case against affirmative action cleverly hides how white privilege influences college admissions specifically. This article will answer the question what is white privilege, and will explain how it is pertinent within the discussion of affirmative action and college admissions. To conclude the article, a discussion of how our understanding of white privilege can be rectified in concrete ways to help end racial discrimination in college admissions. The central argument of this article is that white privilege affects admissions in three crucial ways: the importance placed on legacy admissions and connections, affluence-restricted athletics, and wealth.

Before we can analyze how white privilege affects admissions, it is important to examine what white privilege means. Francis E. Kendall, author of Understanding White Privilege, explains white privilege as “having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do”. There are two main aspects of white privilege that have been identified over the last 50 years: 1) legal and systemic advantages, or overt white privilege 2) subconscious, psychological prejudice. As Cory Collins writes in his article “What is White Privilege, Really?”, “white privilege is both unconsciously enjoyed and consciously perpetuated. It is both on the surface and deeply embedded into American life”. This dual thrust of white privilege is critical to understanding how white privilege operates both visibly and behind the scenes. While there are some overt policies that can be directly critiqued as favoring whites, the subtle ways that white privilege operates can be much harder to identify. Within the realm of college admissions, both forms of white privilege operate in equal measure.

The first way that white privilege impacts admissions is through overt admissions preference through legacy admissions. To contextualize, legacy admissions are defined as “the boost that most private colleges and universities give to the children of alumni”. The the list of schools that place weight on legacy status include: Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Cornell, Georgetown, the University of Southern California and the University of Virginia. These students who are eligible for legacy consideration are called “legacies”, and they are “admitted at twice the rate of other applicants at some universities, and average SAT scores for legacies are, in some cases, [are] lower than the average scores of their peers”.

Blogs Decommission Notice | Brown University

Blogs Decommission Notice

blogs.brown.edu

​

While legacy admissions are not overtly racialized, Richard D. Kahlenberg explains that these advantages overwhelming benefit white students: “legacy preferences disproportionately benefit white students to the detriment of AsianAmerican, African-American, and Hispanic students… only 7.6% of legacy admits in 2002 were underrepresented minorities, compared with 17.8% of all students”. To drive this point home even further, while “Asian Americans composed 15.7% of all Harvard applicant [they only represented] 3.5% of alumni children”. While legacy admissions could benefit any student who has family that attended the university, research shows that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white students. As a result, they form one arm of white privilege’s impact on admissions. In concurrence with legacy admission, elite private universities also place a large amount of weight on the connections of a student and there family. For example, “at the University of Texas at Austin, an investigation found that recommendations from state legislators and other influential people helped underqualified students gain acceptance to the school”. These preferences thus elevate “predominantly white, affluent applicants”.

Blogs Decommission Notice | Brown University

Blogs Decommission Notice

blogs.brown.edu

Study finds 43 percent of Harvard's white students are legacy, athletes, related to donors or staff

The number drops dramatically for black, Latino and Asian American students with less than 16 percent each coming from those categories, the study said.

www.nbcnews.com

‘Affirmative Action’ For Wealthy, White Students: Why Colleges’ Legacy Admissions Must End Now​

In 1963, Duke University admitted its first five Black undergraduates.

When I walked onto campus as a freshman 29 years later, most of my Black classmates and I were still the first in our families to attend the prestigious university. We—like many lower-income students across racial and ethnic backgrounds and first-generation college students—could not benefit from the legacy preference that was extended to our white, wealthier peers—a privilege bestowed upon applicants whose parents or grandparents are alum of the school.

While the United States Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissions—essentially “affirmative action” for wealthy and white students—remain untouched.

It’s time to demand colleges and universities end the unfair, unjust, and unearned privilege of legacy admissions that has excluded students of color and low-income students for decades.

Among the top 30 universities, legacy students have a 45% greater chance of being admitted than non-legacy students and fill between 10% and 25% of all available slots in an incoming class

'Affirmative Action' For Wealthy, White Students: Why Colleges' Legacy Admissions Must End Now

While the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether race-based affirmative action should persist, legacy admissions—essentially “affirmative action” for wealthy and white students that's excluded students of color and low-income students for decades—remain untouched.

newsone.com

Should Howard and Tuskegee universities be forbidden to offer legacy admissions? How about Morehouse?

 

[Hector12]

Or they just don't like working for them because they are awful bosses. I really had nothing against Jewish people... until I ended up working for some.

I really don't worry about being "replaced". Jobs come and jobs go. No one ever said on his deathbed, "I wish I had spent more time at the office".

I have lived with Jews, gone to school with Jews, and worked with Jews. That contributes to my admiration for them.

 

[JoeB131]

That is fine with me. I prefer Orientals to whites, although I am white myself. Of course, in addition to more Orientals, there will be more Jews in Harvard's graduation classes. That is fine with me too. There will even be a certain number of white Gentiles. Of course, there will be many fewer Negroes.

I know, man, that's your fantasy. Not sure what Jamal did to you but you need to get over it.

I have lived with Jews, gone to school with Jews, and worked with Jews. That contributes to my admiration for them.

Have you worked FOR one? I'm sure you'd have a different attitude if you did.

First job out of the Army, had a Jewish Boss. Smart guy, horrible manager. The entire staff hated him with a passion. Company had an attrition rate of something like 90% a year. After 3 years, I was the most senior staff member they had. Thankfully the company crashed and burned, and we were all better off for it.

Second job was a medical manufacturer. Founded by a Jewish Doctor. Entire management was corrupt and backstabbing. Finally got fed up with that one and went to work for a Japanese company.

 

[Lisa558]

Probably not. YOu people have a habit of alienating people no matter where you go. The only reason why you do well in America is because we have a tradition of religious tolerance.

Of course yes. Jews are overrepresented in all the Ivys due to their superior academic achievement. Stop being so resentful of a people who have become successful despite the bigotry of people like YOU.

 

[Hector12]

I know, man, that's your fantasy. Not sure what Jamal did to you but you need to get over it.

I have never known anyone named Jamal. Jamal is your fantasy.

 

[Lisa558]

I know, man, that's your fantasy. Not sure what Jamal did to you but you need to get over it.


Have you worked FOR one? I'm sure you'd have a different attitude if you did.

First job out of the Army, had a Jewish Boss. Smart guy, horrible manager. The entire staff hated him with a passion. Company had an attrition rate of something like 90% a year. After 3 years, I was the most senior staff member they had. Thankfully the company crashed and burned, and we were all better off for it.

Second job was a medical manufacturer. Founded by a Jewish Doctor. Entire management was corrupt and backstabbing. Finally got fed up with that one and went to work for a Japanese company.

So you worked for two successful Jews you didn’t like, and now you smear all of them.

The only thing worse than a bigot is a hypocritical bigot.