But that's not the argument he made. He said skin color doesn't matter, ideology does. Who would you prefer keep company with, this white person or this black person?
This very much implies that there is no relationship between "skin color" and ideology and that we can know that for certain.
Who would you prefer keep company with
I'd strongly prefer thomas sowell. But that is irrelevant when we discuss "the browning of america".
When I state that women are shorter than men I'm fully aware that most women will be higher than Peter Dinklage. Anyone with common sense will understand that I'm talking about the average height of women compared to men.
Everyone understands this when we talk about the height difference between women and men. But when it comes to race or any other difference among the sexes everyone suddenly loses all common sense.
I was offering a proof by counter-example. A single outlier is all it takes.
If I gave you this formula and asked you to simplify it, you might look at several data-points and come to the wrong conclusion:
y = -120 x + 274 x^2 - 225 x^3 + 85 x^4 - 15 x^5 + x^6
When x = 0, y = 0.
When x = 1, y = 1.
When x = 2, y = 2.
When x = 3, y = 3.
When x = 4, y = 4.
When x = 5, y = 5.
You look at that and you say "why, this is just a complex version of y = x" but you'd be wrong. When x = 6, y = 720. One counterexample is all it takes to disprove a wrong theory. If your theory is "race matters more than ideology", then I provided a pretty compelling counter-example.
His argument is valid - decisions of association are made on the individual level, outside of the domain of averages or related statistical appliances. Statistical understandings are useful in aggregate, when understanding populations, and as 'placeholder' information (when meeting a new individual) until better information is known (this is fuzzy logic as applied to relations, which I haven't finished writing on).
For personal company that is true. I like Sowell and would prefer his company over hillary's.
When it comes to the "browning of america" and anything that is related to this, that is immigration laws and laws that influence birth rates (like wealth redistribution), than statistics are more important.
You're missing the trees for the forest, though, which was the entire point Ben Shapiro was making. The "browning of America" is just generalizations made by people who aren't rational enough to recognize that groups are just made of us much more nuanced individuals. In almost every group there are good and bad, and depending upon how you slice that group (green eyes, left handed, raised with access to the internet...) will likely change the statistics.
Correlation is obvious to anyone with objective data and a couple dozen IQ points. The point Ben Shapiro was making was that you can get MUCH better "quality groups" (that is: good groups like Sowell and Hayek, and bad groups like Clinton and AOC) by doing your groupings on ideology instead of skin tone.
Plus you'll win over more moderates by not falling into the simpleton argument of a race war when this has always been one of minds.
and depending upon how you slice that group (green eyes, left handed, raised with access to the internet...) will likely change the statistics.
Can you prove that the correlation with access to internet is on par with biology / race?
It seems like you believe that race is completely arbitrary. Do you believe this to be the case or do you KNOW this to be the case? Because you are arguing as if you happen to know this to be the case.
you can get MUCH better "quality groups" by doing your groupings on ideology instead of skin tone.
If two people of extraordinarily height or intelligence have children those will inherit traits not only from their parents but also grandparents and grand-grandparents... Which means that they will be less extraordinaire and more like everyone else from wherever they come from.
In almost every group there are good and bad, and depending upon how you slice that group
Do you believe that incest can cause damage and that generations of incest can cause lasting damage?
I ask because marriage among relative is so common that it has it's own wikipedia article:
Now if you take someone who is healthy and has average intelligence from such a country, do you think his children might be more likely to have hereditary diseases?
Because you probably know that if your grandparents had a genetic disease and you happen to be healthy that your children still have higher risk.
Plus you'll win over more moderates by not falling into the simpleton argument of a race war when this has always been one of minds.
Japan is very homogenous and it is not in a race war. It simply has strict immigration policies. Israel also has some strict immigration policies and a strong border...
Do you think these countries are filled with simpletons?
Japan is very homogenous and it is not in a race war. It simply has strict immigration policies. Israel also has some strict immigration policies and a strong border...
Immigration policies are fine. But the rest of your post is just a straw man: this whole thread is about Ben Shapiro pointing out that race isn't what you should worry about, ideology is. If your immigration policy was "do you have a 120+ IQ?" you would yield "better" results than "are you white?".
If your immigration policy was "do you have a 120+ IQ?" you would yield "better" results than "are you white?".
What about their children? What if they end up more like their grandparents?
For example in the UK young moslems are more radical than their parents. And not just slightly more radical, 36% of them think that executing someone for blasphemy is acceptable.
"According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55.[39] Also 36% of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so."
view the rest of the comments →
FatBruceWillis ago
Pretending racial differences are only skin color is a kike lie.
Bing11 ago
But that's not the argument he made. He said skin color doesn't matter, ideology does. Who would you prefer keep company with, this white person or this black person?
meow_cow ago
There are a lot of actual Nazis on this site. Nazis aren't small government conservatives.
llegendary ago
I'd personally keep the top 10% to the right of the black bell curve and give up the last 10% of the white bell curve.
Bing11 ago
Which is exactly Ben Shapiro's point. Ideology matters, not race.
llegendary ago
I have to admit I do have some ashkenazi genetics. not much but its there.
VoatsNewfag ago
This very much implies that there is no relationship between "skin color" and ideology and that we can know that for certain.
I'd strongly prefer thomas sowell. But that is irrelevant when we discuss "the browning of america".
When I state that women are shorter than men I'm fully aware that most women will be higher than Peter Dinklage. Anyone with common sense will understand that I'm talking about the average height of women compared to men.
Everyone understands this when we talk about the height difference between women and men. But when it comes to race or any other difference among the sexes everyone suddenly loses all common sense.
FatBruceWillis ago
A pig wearing lipstick is correct twice in the hand; outliers are not the norm.
Bing11 ago
I was offering a proof by counter-example. A single outlier is all it takes.
If I gave you this formula and asked you to simplify it, you might look at several data-points and come to the wrong conclusion:
y = -120 x + 274 x^2 - 225 x^3 + 85 x^4 - 15 x^5 + x^6
When x = 0, y = 0. When x = 1, y = 1. When x = 2, y = 2. When x = 3, y = 3. When x = 4, y = 4. When x = 5, y = 5.
You look at that and you say "why, this is just a complex version of y = x" but you'd be wrong. When x = 6, y = 720. One counterexample is all it takes to disprove a wrong theory. If your theory is "race matters more than ideology", then I provided a pretty compelling counter-example.
FatBruceWillis ago
Your example was shit so are you. Your math is fake. User some real sociological data if you want to create a proof.
Bing11 ago
Huh, you don't understand the meaning of the word "proof". You're not exactly a good example of superiority.](http://anewdomain.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Screen-Shot-2015-08-25-at-12.28.14-AM.png)
FatBruceWillis ago
I'm not falling for your hypnotism. Math was invented by Muslims and promoted by Jews.
alele-opathic ago
His argument is valid - decisions of association are made on the individual level, outside of the domain of averages or related statistical appliances. Statistical understandings are useful in aggregate, when understanding populations, and as 'placeholder' information (when meeting a new individual) until better information is known (this is fuzzy logic as applied to relations, which I haven't finished writing on).
VoatsNewfag ago
For personal company that is true. I like Sowell and would prefer his company over hillary's.
When it comes to the "browning of america" and anything that is related to this, that is immigration laws and laws that influence birth rates (like wealth redistribution), than statistics are more important.
Bing11 ago
You're missing the trees for the forest, though, which was the entire point Ben Shapiro was making. The "browning of America" is just generalizations made by people who aren't rational enough to recognize that groups are just made of us much more nuanced individuals. In almost every group there are good and bad, and depending upon how you slice that group (green eyes, left handed, raised with access to the internet...) will likely change the statistics.
Correlation is obvious to anyone with objective data and a couple dozen IQ points. The point Ben Shapiro was making was that you can get MUCH better "quality groups" (that is: good groups like Sowell and Hayek, and bad groups like Clinton and AOC) by doing your groupings on ideology instead of skin tone.
Plus you'll win over more moderates by not falling into the simpleton argument of a race war when this has always been one of minds.
VoatsNewfag ago
Can you prove that the correlation with access to internet is on par with biology / race?
It seems like you believe that race is completely arbitrary. Do you believe this to be the case or do you KNOW this to be the case? Because you are arguing as if you happen to know this to be the case.
How do you account for the Regression towards the mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
If two people of extraordinarily height or intelligence have children those will inherit traits not only from their parents but also grandparents and grand-grandparents... Which means that they will be less extraordinaire and more like everyone else from wherever they come from.
Do you believe that incest can cause damage and that generations of incest can cause lasting damage?
I ask because marriage among relative is so common that it has it's own wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_in_the_Middle_East
According to that article in some islamic countries more than every second marriage is among relatives and has been for a while.
And according to their own health institutes arabs have the most genetic health problems. This once again has it's own wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Arabs
Now if you take someone who is healthy and has average intelligence from such a country, do you think his children might be more likely to have hereditary diseases?
Because you probably know that if your grandparents had a genetic disease and you happen to be healthy that your children still have higher risk.
Japan is very homogenous and it is not in a race war. It simply has strict immigration policies. Israel also has some strict immigration policies and a strong border...
Do you think these countries are filled with simpletons?
Bing11 ago
Immigration policies are fine. But the rest of your post is just a straw man: this whole thread is about Ben Shapiro pointing out that race isn't what you should worry about, ideology is. If your immigration policy was "do you have a 120+ IQ?" you would yield "better" results than "are you white?".
VoatsNewfag ago
What about their children? What if they end up more like their grandparents?
For example in the UK young moslems are more radical than their parents. And not just slightly more radical, 36% of them think that executing someone for blasphemy is acceptable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_toward_terrorism
"According to a 2007 poll conducted by the PolicyExchange think tank in Britain, nearly 60% said they would prefer to live under British law, while 37% of 16- to 24-year-olds said they would prefer sharia law, against 17% of those over 55.[39] Also 36% of 16- to 24-year-olds British Muslims believed that those converting to another religion should be executed. Less than a fifth of those over 55 think so."