So, I've spent a lot of time arguing with leftists. I've studied them, and their thought processes. I looked for a logical pattern. I've found one.
The entire argument of the left all stems back to one single axiom:
>There is no cognitive difference between blacks and whites as large groups (despite obvious variation within the groups).
If you take this axiom to be a fact, all of their arguments are (almost) 100% correct. I guarantee you that if you spend a long time arguing with a leftist, and pulling them back down to their axiomatic reasoning, you will hit this axiom. From here, you can go no further.
We have IQ tests that show differences between races.
>The IQ tests were written for, and by, white people.
Asians score higher.
(This glitches them a little bit, but they will either stop responding or something like: )
>Asians work harder than whites, also are quite prone to cheating.
So Asians are smarter than whites and blacks?
>I don't know, I don't really care. All I know is that whites and blacks are the same, and hence any difference must be due to racism.
If the Axiom is true, then I agree with this person, actually. If whites and blacks are the same, then our society, as a whole, must be completely racist towards blacks. There is no other explanation.
What is the point of this post? Basically, I'm suggesting that a lot of arguing with the left can be saved. Just cut straight to this axiom. But once you get here, there isn't really any way to go from there. It's like arguing with someone who believes there is a god, or believes there is no god. You just can't prove, or disprove it, and despite all the evidence for your opinion you give them, if this is what they believe, they will continue to believe it.
>Also, what is the answer to this one? The pattern in my answer is pretty weak, but it's the only pattern I could find.
>>76692729
>There is no cognitive difference between blacks and whites as large groups (despite obvious variation within the groups).
leftist here. i can't speak for anyone else, but i don't deny this and it has zero to do with my political philosophy.
what else you got?
it would be the third one on the right
>>76693184
>This has zero to do with my political philosophy.
It has everything to do with your political philosophy, friendo.
Here's an example; an article from back in 2002:
>Blacks make up 23% of people being pulled over for speeding.
>Blacks and leftists cry racism, since blacks are only 10% of the population (using the axiom).
>So instead, we just randomly take photos of cars we see speeding.
>Turns out actually 25% of the people in the photos are black, even more than the ones being pulled over.
>Conclusion? Cameras are racist, and placed in areas where black people frequently travel.
>Given that the axiom is true, this is the only possibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/21/nyregion/study-suggests-racial-gap-in-speeding-in-new-jersey.html?pagewanted=all
Rather than ever attempt prove that all races are the same despite skin color, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, you still assume it to be true.
>But blacks make up 90% of the basketball teams?
>Yeah, because they are better at sports.
This does not break the axiom, because the axiom only concerns cognitive differences.
>>76693420
>it would be the third one on the right
You mean top right?
Also, what is the pattern?
>>76692729
You can't prove that races are NOT the same, though. So, don't you think it is pretty unfair to assume they are not without being able to prove it?
>>76694000
>Don't you think it is pretty unfair to assume they are not without being able to prove it?
All evidence we have suggests that races are not the same.
I think it is unfair to assume they are the same, despite having no evidence.
Because when white males are 33% of the population, but 70% of successful CEOs, the assumption that all races are the same means that this is only due to racism. Hence, we end up with these ridiculous affirmative action laws that punish white males for being part of the most successful group. Hence, we choose somebody from a different group, not based on merit, but based on skin color. This is the very definition of racism.
>>76693603
so let's say blackness is literally a congenital deformity. which is basically the angle you're pushing. that blacks are disabled people.
what is your POINT? what should we do about people who are lifelong invalids?
>>76693603
>speed
>never use turn signals
>always jaywalk or
>use crosswalk when it says "don't walk"
>cut you off on the highway
They don't give a shit. Fuck whitey.
>>76694197
This is not what I am saying at all. There are plenty of successful and intelligent black people. But as large groups, whites and blacks behave differently on average (for example, the article I just gave you).
If I need a job done, and I can choose between a white person, and a black person, and I can interview them, get to know them, etc. I will always choose the person who I think can get the job done. I don't care if they are black, or white. Maybe this means that 65% of the time I choose the white person. But this is not because of the color of their skin, this is because they simply do the job better 65% of the time.
Now, when I have proportionally more white males than blacks, the left goes back to the axiom, to "prove" that I am racist. And demand I fire whites who I hired because they were the better candidate, and replace them with blacks - because of skin color.
That is my point. This is wrong.
>>76692729
>you just can't prove or disprove ït
You can prove or disprove it, what you can't do is have them accept the proof.
>>76692729
The correct response is bringing up koko the gorilla.
Why are white designed tests more raciss against nogs than gorillas?
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/patterson01.htm
>>76692729
>If the Axiom is true, then I agree with this person, actually. If whites and blacks are the same, then our society, as a whole, must be completely racist towards blacks. There is no other explanation.
Except that they make different choices.
>>76694942
You can't quite disprove it. There are some very creative explanations as to how it could all just be due to racism. Just like you can't disprove the existence or non-existence of god - there are creative explanations either way.
All you can do is give a fuckton of evidence that their view is incorrect. Then have them dismiss it - because your evidence breaks the axiom, and the axiom is 100% correct, so your "evidence" must be wrong.
>>76695220
>If whites and blacks are the same, society must be racist towards blacks. No other explanation.
>Except that they make different choices.
Then they are not the same, this is not another explanation.
>>76693728
If you look at it from a diagonal perspective it makes sense, however if you follow the left to right, or top to bottom lines then you might assume the blocks should always flip vertically on consecutive lines and if they change in size they can only grow, however there isn't an answer to satisfy that reasoning. But yeah the top right would give the whole thing diagonal symmetry.
>>76694549
>There are plenty of successful and intelligent black people. But as large groups, whites and blacks behave differently on average
this generalization works with any disability. there are dyslexics who learn to read. there are paraplegics who learn to work.
are you upset that concessions are made to support these people, too?
>>76695869
If I was forced to hire a handicapped person over a more competent person, just because they are handicapped (not because they do the job better), I would be upset by this, yes.
Don't you think it is wrong that I am forced to hire a black employee who is less competent over a white employee who is more competent, just because of skin color? Isn't this the very definition of racism?
>>76695755
The pattern I had in mind was that the middle row flips up, add vertically or horizontally, big + big = big, big + small = big, small + small = big. big + nothing = big, small + nothing = small.
This would give bottom middle as correct answer. But it is a little weak.
>>76692729
>Asians work harder than whites, also are quite prone to cheating.
>So Asians are smarter than whites and blacks?
Well I guess studying for an IQ test makes you a smarter person that thinks outside of the box... At the same time I would only do an IQ test to see my level without studying
>>76695168
Pretty irrelevant because we have no idea how many (if any) humans did the same test as koko the gorrila. If the others were gorillas then yeah.
>>76696450
After arguing with many leftists, I am convinced they don't give a shit about this.
a) They have no interest in it.
b) It does not break the axiom.
As far as they are concerned, it may be true, it may not be true. But it has nothing to do with white vs black, and that is all they are bothered with.
>>76696173
yes, i agree. forcing private businesses to hire along racial lines is destructive to everyone involved.
how would you feel about blacks getting certain exclusive government entitlements, just like other disabled people?
for example, you know how they drive like shit (they really do!)? well, make public transit available to them for free or at reduced cost. it saves money and it saves lives!
>>76695247
I don't think you understand how evidence works.
"I know lots of people who are hard working minorities". This evidence is circumstantial and subjective.
"Minorities commit more crime". Assuming you provide the evidence for this (there are countless studies looking at crime statistics), this is objective fact.
I fear that this won't swing you, so I'll go on further. If somebody pulls the trigger of a gun and it kills the person they are aiming it at, THE EVENT HAPPENED. If ten thousand of these events HAPPENED and (for example) blacks committed nine thousand of the offences, then they ARE more violent with guns.
I'm still gonna continue because you will create an inductive leap towards the equal propensity for violence between races. This is, in logical terminology, an offence called "ignoratio elenchi" - The black people in this example ARE more violent, there is no way round this reality. Just as white nationalists ARE more dangerous than hippies. Just Black nationalists ARE less intelligent than Mexicans. These are measurable collections of phenomena. If minorities stop committing any murders and rapes then WOW... suddenly they aren't as dangerous as white people!
You're still going to disagree, which is fine. But it doesn't change reality one iota.
>>76695469
>Then they are not the same, this is not another explanation.
It is. They can make different choices due to differences in the local environment that blacks experience.
For example: Black culture.
Culture isn't something that necessarily follows from intelligence.
>>76696407
That would also work, makes sense. It's probably right also, I just don't like it because two different combinations lead to the same answer.
But I guess if it's like addition first line plus second d line equals third line, except it only has notations for 0,1 and 2, anything that would result in larger than 2 is just 2.
>>76694549
Sure it's wrong, but I think a leftist would argue that these differences are environment rather than inherent.
>>76696786
>How would you feel about blacks getting certain exclusive government entitlements, just like other disabled people?
If I am not forced to hire a disabled person that can't do the job well, just because they are disabled, then this is not a valid comparison.
Also, any entitlements that the government gives to disabled people, are generally understood to be because these people have a condition that renders them inferior to most.
Nothing like that happens with blacks. They are still offered many entitlements, but we are instead told that it is to combat white racism.
Also, why should smart blacks be offered the entitlements? You seem to think I am saying every single black is stupid. I am not. I am just saying there is a difference between the group of whites and the group of blacks, on average.
To answer your question, I believe anyone who needs help, should get help. But it should not be based on color, which it is at the moment. The left always bases it on color, due to the axiom. I find this despicable.
>>76697158
>Culture isn't something that necessarily follows from intelligence.
I think it is, if we have a useful definition of "intelligence."
Perhaps "intelligence," is not even the correct word for this argument (my bad, I was the one who used it first, I know). It is a broad word that can mean many different things to many people.
Let's instead replace it with "productivity." The ability to produce and maintain useful things that function in society.
Making different choices has a clear effect on one's productivity.
>>76696959
>I fear that this won't swing you, so I'll go on further.
Who do you think you're arguing with? I can tell you didn't read the rest of my posts.
As far as I'm concerned, the Bible was made up by people trying to control humanity. All evidence points to this. But I'll never be able to "prove" this to a Christian.
Also, I think blacks are, on average, stupider, more violent, and I think the axiom that all races are the same, is utter bullshit. But you will never be able to prove it to a leftist, no matter how much factual evidence you give them.
I have a masters in math, mate. I know what a "proof" is, and I know how evidence works. Read the rest of my posts.
Axioms we can believe in!
>>76697657
>>76696959
>I think a leftist would argue that these differences are environmental, rather than inherent.
Bingo. This is why you will never be able to "prove" that they are wrong.
At this point, I look at black countries, and I look at white countries, and I ask which one we would prefer to live? Which one produced the most? Etc.
They then go back to the axiom, and perhaps say something along the lines of the rain helping England grow its crops faster, boosting its economy, and helping them take over the world faster. Not because they were more productive as people.
Unlikely, but possible situation. Since the axiom is 100% correct, this possible situation is more likely than any logical one.
>>76698171
But, for example, If a black person grew up in a house that said being productive is good, and if you're a lazy nigger, you're worthless and everybody will hate you...
You're going to have a different result that if he grows up in a house that says fuck the U.S.; they just want to make you a slave; and if you bow your head and work hard, you're an uncle tom spineless idiot and if you don't do any work, you'll be in the cool kids club and have friends.
The problem is that it's very difficult to do an experiment that separates these two factors. Even if a black kid is raised by a white family, they're inevitably going to come in contact with other black people who espouse the "hate whitey" ideology. And I think there are real effects due to this.
That said, i'm not saying it's the only factor either. It's just another possible explanation.
>>76697881
>these people have a condition that renders them inferior to most
what were you trying to imply by posting that article if not exactly this? what makes them shitty drivers besides their negroidism?
are you suggesting that blacks are more prone to behave like idiots by virtue of something beyond their inherent and immutable genetic makeup?
because that's what i'm implying too!
>>76698773
Yeah, I think I know exactly what you are saying, and I agree that it is a possibility. Which is why we cannot disprove the axiom.
My point, and the point of this entire thread, is that every leftist argument boils down to this one axiom.
>>76698798
>Because that's what I'm implying too!
Yes, this is what WE are implying.
This is not what SOCIETY implies.
It is generally understood, that handicapped people get a break, because of some condition rendering them inferior in some way. Society has no problem with this. Handicapped people have no problem with this. Everyone knows it is true.
Society blames whites for all the failures of black people. And the reason, is because of the axiom - whites and blacks are the same cognitively. Hence, I am saying the handicapped comparison is not valid.
>mfw left used to be about property
>mfw left used to be about fighting for workers' rights, so any gibmedat scum would be considered a bad thing, no matter the skin color
>mfw now left is about identity politics entirely, and literally anything that makes at least some economic sense makes you a ultra-right nazi
>>76698928
>My point, and the point of this entire thread, is that every leftist argument boils down to this one axiom.
I think you're right. Many disagreements center around it. "Everybody is equal" is a lie.
>>76699126
>This is not what SOCIETY implies.
>Society has no problem with this.
>Society blames whites for all the failures of black people.
who is this "society" guy and why do i care about his opinions?
>And the reason, is because of the axiom - whites and blacks are the same cognitively.
can you please give me a definitive up or down on whether you consider negroidism a medical impairment? every post you make has been nothing but equivocal
>>76699938
The whole point of this thread, is that everything they say boils down to this one axiom.
>The left axiom: whites and blacks are exactly the same, cognitively.
If you take this one axiom to be true as a fact, all of their arguments follow, logically. It's quite incredible. It's basically like arguing with religious people. Either you believe the Bible is correct, or it was made up. No side can properly disprove the other.
>>76700261
>Who is this "society" guy, and why do I care about his opinions?
He is everyone on the left. He is Obama. He is everyone who will tick Clinton's name in November (except, apparently, you).
>Can you please give me a definitive up or down on whether you consider negroidism a medical impairment?
What do you mean by "medical impairment"?
I already told you what I think about it. There are plenty of black people, much smarter than me. But I believe if I take 100,000 whites and 100,000 blacks, the white group will always be smarter on average.
That's all I believe. If this is what you mean by "medical impairment," then yes. If you mean something else, then no.
>>76700444
Nice trips, 444 was actually my school number
All the left came from the idea that everyone is equal, but by "everyone" they mostly understood "educated white males". With Marx it became "working white males and females". Now it became extended to niggers, and we can obviously see that this paradigm starts to shatter. Yet, as you noticed, those people are religious and nothing can shake their belief
>>76700261
Please also note, there is evidence to suggest that if we took 100,000 people rated (on average) 9 or 10 on the attractiveness scale, and 100,000 people rated 5 on the attractiveness scale, the 9s and 10s will be smarter, on average, than the 5s.
Does this make being ugly a medical impairment?
>>76701143
Agreed, man. The left really is a religion, based off of the single axiom (and a few variations, like males and females are equal, cognitively). That's what I find so fascinating about it.
If I supposed that the Bible is 100% true. Every argument about religion can be logically proven. And the truth about whether the Bible is honest, or written by 40 clever people at the same time in the same room, is pretty much an axiom.
And, what scares me; we are living in the modern equivalent of the time when anyone who disagreed with the "Christianity axiom" as killed.
>>76700710
>I believe if I take 100,000 whites and 100,000 blacks, the white group will always be smarter on average
well sure. same goes for down syndrome people and non-downies. genetics is a bitch huh? but you and i agree, they aren't as capable as other races.
so what is the solution? just ceasing to police employers' hiring practices? disability checks for the blacks? day of the rope?
whatever it is, you're going to get nowhere with it if it takes this long to drag it out of you.
>>76701519
>the attractiveness scale
please link me to this very scientific study :)
>>76698767
You can prove it is genetic by using studies of identical vs fraternal twins. Basically shows it is at the least 80% genetic.
>>76698773
Not true, you can isolate blacks from black communities by raising them in white communities with hardly any black people.
>>76701904
>Based off a single axiom
Unless you're talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position you're not only wrong you're completely out of the ballpark
>>76702205
All we have to do is get rid of all of the shit that assumes we are the same on average.
Get rid of affirmative action
Get rid of quotas for businesses
Stop harassing police for shotting blacks
Remind whites there is nothing you can change that will stop minorities from disproportionately using welfare except restructuring how it's distributed (UBI).
Stop pretending immigrants will be able to integrate.
Stop calling whites racist because minorities under preform
If we do all these things society will drastically improve.
>>76704364
>there is nothing you can change that will stop minorities from disproportionately using welfare except restructuring how it's distributed (UBI).
i agree with this 100% but i get yelled at by both sides of the aisle whenever i bring it up :(
>>76692729
mostly right but ignores male/female differences too
