She is an okay mod. She removed plenty of my posts but I'm not banned.
On most other subs, if you go against the narrative, they ban you but leave the post, so it looks like your argument got obliterated to the point where you could not even respond with a counter-argument.
I obviously don't like my posts getting removed, but I see why she does it. It's not to feed her ego, she's honestly doing her best to keep the sub from getting banned in today's PC world.
I never saw anyone complaining about bans from bbw on satellite subs like recently banned /r/malecels. Does she really ban people?
I have a reasonable suspicion that showing appreciation and respect for ISIS will get your comment removed as well. It's better not to talk about them at all.
bbw_gaming removed youtube links for allahu trapbar. Youtube videos with tens of millions of views.
You know this 'statistic' was debunked, right? It's no surprise you retards don't do research. There aren't any statistics on the source that separates crime by income.
Inter-racial differences are better explained by family structure than economic conditions.
These differences are even found in some pretty affluent/low-poverty communities
The (intra-racial) black homicide rate, in particular, is better explained by family structure than poverty rates and, especially, other economic measures.
There are large differences in family structure between whites and blacks, in particular.
Conclusion from the same article. That said, a wordpress article doesn't seem like the best statistic reference. The way crime is processed doesn't consider the effect of socio economic status of people persecuted.
This article cherry-picks 20 year old studies that weren't even properly conducted. The writer of the article has no idea what the phrase 'correlation doesn't imply causation' means. He clearly has no knowledge on statistics, seeing that he just throws together graphs that looked like they agreed with his opinion without any consideration for how nuanced this problem is.
I'm willing to bet you just looked at the article, saw it agreed with you and assumed it was correct. For a sec I thought you got me, until I actually did research, actually reading the article and checking for opinions on it from people that actually know anything about statistics. You people are so fucking dishonest.
Educate yourself on statistics before acting like you know anything.
I'm willing to bet you just looked at the article, saw it agreed with you and assumed it was correct.
Yes. I'm sorry dude, I'm old and I got no interest in winning internet arguments anymore, besides, I don't really care about the subject. I got the picture from a /r/cringeanarchy thread that I opened before this one, and I got the article from selecting a part of your reply and doing a google search from a context menu. It was the first result.
Lol yeah that's a common leftist agrgument for black underachievement.
But the truth is that they, as a race, have a lower IQ on average than other races.
They're perfectly suited for the environment they evolved to live in, but that environment is not the civilised world. Hence crime stats.
Also, there's a high correlation between crime (especially violent) and IQ, and surprise surprise you will find that less than 12% (12 or 13% being total, then when you factor in likelihood of committing crime i.e. males between 14-28) the population commit over 60% of said violent crime.
Oh, and furthermore you could start delving into recidivism and see that blacks are WAAAAAAAAAAY more likely to be repeat offenders.
They also rape more. And nearly every case of reported interracial rape (m on f) was perpetrated by black men.
And murders. And muggings. And blah blah blah. I could go on, but I'll stop here.
Bottom line: they're just like us! And is only cause of racism that they've n been held down despite being given every opportunity to succeed. Nope, it has nothing to do with inherent traits.
Ok, first of all, thank you for replying and actually arguing with tangible shit instead of crying muh racism.
Second, I will be glad to address these when I'm off work and have more time to post.
But in the meantime, how do you get it to put what I say (or you for that matter) in the way you did so I can format it in a way that adresses each rebuttal so that it can be organized?
OK I planned on doing that but it's not gonna be viable since I have to do this on my phone.
Your first point, of course IQ is an accurate determination for details. It measures critical thinking, problem solving, pattern recognition, and reading retention. It becomes a little more obvious when you can clearly see that smarter people in real life correlate with high IQ scores. Is it flawed? Sure, it's hard to get an exact measure of psychometrics because they aren't tangible things, but its been pretty much accepted that it's a pretty good indicator of intelligence if not by virtue of being the only one around. So let's not play "move the goalpost".
As for women's IQ rising, I could not find anything as far as data was concerned to even begin talking about this. I'm not saying it's untrue, but just that I'm not going to speak about things I don't know. If you want to do that vein, then I'll be happy to, just link me the study.
Retarded used to be 80 IQ, which also would lend some clout to IQ being a measure of intelligence. But since blacks were consistently scoring in this range they lowered the limit to I believe 70 for mental retardation. As for the climbing of IQ, that's what's called the Lynn effect, which is just an adjusted score to keep up with new updates and standards for testing. From my understanding it seems more like "inflation" but for IQ and not money. As for your claim that African IQ is on par with that of Dutch I can already see problems, which I will get into in a bit.
Your study that you posted does seem to have an agenda, but not one that's nefarious. They want my money in order to view the data, and I'm not about to do that. So what we CAN look at is the abstract, which is what you posted. Although it DOES state sub-Saharan Africans at one point, it goes on to lump in all African adults, which is made up of many non blacks too, which would certainly skew the average. Again, I don't have the data to look at to verify my suspicions but the argument here isn't "Africans" but whether "blacks" have lower IQ, so unless they show the breakdown in their data BY RACE then I remain skeptical and will continue to rely on studies which I've read. On another note, it goes on to say that the trend is believed to continue if living conditions improve. They won't as long as the white genocide continues. We've seen time and again what happens to black countries when whites aren't there to run them anymore (and it isn't Wakanda).
The Tulsa Race Riots were an unfortunate event. I'd site it as more proof that racial homogeneity is the best way for humans to live. And also it was started by the rape of a young white girl by a black guy. And this isn't one of those J-left "I secretly want a black man but can't let anyone know so when it's found out I'll cry rape". This was during a time that the word rape hadn't lost its meaning like it has now. This was also during a time when it was extremely taboo and shameful for miscegenation. Not that there weren't those that practiced it, but those ones that did were known and didn't cry rape when they went off. The pillaging of the black community that thrived there is very sad, but thats solely one example in pretty much the history of ever, or at least the only one people reference. Outliers happen and are a thing. If this was something that was normal in their community it would have cropped up more than once.
Everyone race was enslaved at one point. Blacks are not even the worse treated example or the most recent. They're just the only ones that continue to bitch about it because, like when a child (who coincidentally has similar IQ scores) throws a tantrum to get what they want. Jim Crow, and even Apartheid were necessary and both blacks and whites performed better in nearly every metric under them, but let's focus on blacks. They had lower unemployment, lower divorce and illegitimacy rates, lower poverty rates, and higher literacy rates than they do post Jim Crow and forced integration. Some of that can be blamed on government intervention (which ironically enough wasn't conservatives that passed the legislation). Besides that was over 60 years ago, and they've been given every opportunity to turn their lot around and given chance after chance, money, at the expense of others and they STILL underperform. So much so that the standard has to be lowered so they have a better chance which they still fall short at.
Yes, single motherhood is a terrible terrible thing and I would argue is probably one of the biggest indicators for criminality. Along with intelligence, two things that are an issue for the black community. Crazy to see that there is a high criminality in their community.
Recidivism doesn't necessarily mean reconviction. So I'm struggling to see your argument here. Recidivism is just the repeated offense or arrests after already being previously arrested or incarcerated.
Blacks are more likely to be arrested in the first place. No shit, because they commit more crimes. The idea that this is because they're poor or of racism is garbage. I'll find the study that shows even the richest percentiles of blacks still commit crimes at rates of poorer blacks, and a couple times more than poorer percentages of other races. But that will be in an edit.
The first problem I see with your data you posted is the fact that there is no Hispanic metric in there. Don't be alarmed, they're there. But what they do is lump them in with the white population for purposes of skewing stats to make it seem like whites are committing more crimes then they really do. After all how bad would it look if the actual numbers are posted. This is why when it asks for race/ethnicity in forms they have white and then a sub qualifier of non-hispanic. It's simple. On certain stats like that of violent crime and sexual assault etc. They lump them in, but in other stats will separate them. Of course you will have more cases of white crimes just due to the fact that theres more whites, but when you look at the percentages when adjusted per capita then it becomes quite clear.
As for the BBC myth, it has nothing to do with anything that "makes me feel good" I could care less, I have a pretty good ween, and I'm married. But I just like truth to be out there.
The average dick size only varies among races by like a couple centimeters, with only a .25 centimeter difference among black/white. So sure. The average black dude has a bigger dick than the average white by not even an 1/8th of an inch.
Of course you won't see that in porn, but porn is unrealistic, and like models are the +2 standard deviation's from the norm.
Also, I noticed your comment about criminologists. Well I'm not one, but I have my B.A.S. in both Psychology and Criminal Justice. For what it is worth to you.
My comment on the BBC thing wasn't for the argument that it exists. I just found it funny you were eager to mention that. Not saying you are but it makes you seem a bit insecure when it comes out of nowhere like that.
I won't even lie to you, I've seen and been in enough debates to know this is headed nowhere and I'd rather spend time doing something productive. You seem concrete on your views and the way you handle my arguments is a common bad sign. You answer in a way that makes your intention and belief obvious and not in a good way. Coupled with the fact that your sources for racial arguments are right-leaning websites, while you claim my sources seem to have an agenda, which is a bit ironic. The sidebar headlines that consist of Trump praise (Not inherently wrong) and news coverages that specifically focus on illegal immigrant crime doesn't help. (Not that it discredits you or automatically means the sites are wrong. Just that it says a bit.)
Let's just agree to disagree and end it here. If you want to see my arguments against yours for the sake of seeing them, just ask, but you'll have to agree that you won't address them, for the sake of not wasting our time. We're not going to convince each other.
I'm not gonna lie, that novel I wrote wasn't in response to your comment lol I just clicked the wrong comment to reply to. It was supposed to be for board gaming, since she was the one that replied to my original. So that's my bad.
As for the discrediting of HER sources though, I don't think their invalid. I was just making a joke at how their "agenda" was that they wanted my money to view the data and I'm too cheap to buy it.
As I said with the BBC thing, I can't stand false things being peddled as truth. That's why I tacked that on there at the end, cause eventually that's where it leads to. "You're just upset cause blacks have bigger dicks than you!" So I was just heading that off in the beginning.
Yes, I'm biased to conservativism and right leaning views, I'm not pretending to be partial. I believe in that ethnostates are the way to go for all people, and will happily discuss that with anyone. If you don't want to that's cool.
But I won't say that when faced with convincing evidence I won't change my views or accommodate this new information. That's the purpose of debate which is why I was super excited when she replied. I'm not concrete, but it will take convincing!
As for the ethnostate thing, you're entitled to your opinion. Me not agreeing really won't change anything so do you. It's good that you're honest and at least acknowledge biases you might have. Of course I'll have my own too.
Buzzfeed tier shit article. Even if the average black is a quarter inch bigger, look at how bell curves work, it could mean 90% of people with 8+ inch dicks are black.
A quarter centimeter. But hey that's close enough to a quarter inch.
No, it doesn't mean that. Maybe if the bell curve was for all males, but when broken down by race you can clearly see the means for each race. Which are pretty fucking close.
Since that one doesn't suffice for you though let me look for some others and get back to you.
No no no. Let's do it like IQ and say group A has 100 inch average and group B has 105 inch average and they both have bell curves with standard deviation 15 inches.
37% group A has 105 inches or more
50% of group B has 105 inches or more
TINY DIFFERENCE
now let's do 110
25% vs 37%
Bigger difference
115
16% vs 25%
120
9% vs 16%
125
5% vs 9%
130
2% vs 5%
135
.99% vs 2%
140
.37% vs .99%
145
.14% vs .37%
As you can see with 2 bell curves if group B is just a third of a standard deviation bigger, then there are over 50% more bigger than 1 stdev, over 100% more at 2 standard deviations and over 150% more at 3 standard deviations.
Of course dick size is NOT a bell curve so you can't apply this to it, BUT it is just an example to show that tiny differences in the average can make a huge difference at the extremes.
Sure. But again, when you look at the mean for all males, and then compare that to means gathered for individual races you'll find that both means are (roughly) the same.
You could argue that in the overall category, that those skewing the statistics to the bigger end could be black. But then when you compare the mean for individual race and find that it's very close, you can easily conclude that is not the case. Because if it were you would see a huge jump in the average for specifically black individuals when compared to the average for all.
When you break it down that way you're controlling the standard deviation for a specific group. Now you could, like you suggest, take the percentage of those in higher deviations and find out what approximate percentage they are of the overall, but that will only be an approximation, and even then just an estimate of how many outlier's of one group are outliers of another. Which doesn't really prove anything other than them being outliers.
Sadly, I don't really know/care much about ISIS. Some muzzies are over there killing people. I could hardly give a shit, we've got problems to solve here.
But wait, they might come here of we don't stop them over there.
No they won't, if we stop letting in muzzies and other brown people.
theres no such thing as an "okay" mod - moderation has no place in text based conversation. words can do no harm, if something is wrong articulate why rather than arbitarily removing it.
the truth is self evident by virtue of counter-arguments against it falling short.
Inter-racial differences are better explained by family structure than economic conditions.
These differences are even found in some pretty affluent/low-poverty communities
The (intra-racial) black homicide rate, in particular, is better explained by family structure than poverty rates and, especially, other economic measures.
There are large differences in family structure between whites and blacks, in particular.
Conclusion from the same article. That said, a wordpress article doesn't seem like the best statistic reference. The way crime is processed doesn't consider the effect of socio economic status of people persecuted.
This article cherry-picks 20 year old studies that weren't even properly conducted. The writer of the article has no idea what the phrase 'correlation doesn't imply causation' means. He clearly has no knowledge on statistics, seeing that he just throws together graphs that looked like they agreed with his opinion without any consideration for how nuanced this problem is.
I'm willing to bet you just looked at the article, saw it agreed with you and assumed it was correct. For a sec I thought you got me, until I actually did research, actually reading the article and checking for opinions on it from people that actually know anything about statistics. You people are so fucking dishonest.
Educate yourself on statistics before acting like you know anything.
I'm willing to bet you just looked at the article, saw it agreed with you and assumed it was correct.
Yes. I'm sorry dude, I'm old and I got no interest in winning internet arguments anymore, besides, I don't really care about the subject. I got the picture from a /r/cringeanarchy thread that I opened before this one, and I got the article from selecting a part of your reply and doing a google search from a context menu. It was the first result.
I'm not gonna lie, that novel I wrote wasn't in response to your comment lol I just clicked the wrong comment to reply to. It was supposed to be for board gaming, since she was the one that replied to my original. So that's my bad.
As for the discrediting of HER sources though, I don't think their invalid. I was just making a joke at how their "agenda" was that they wanted my money to view the data and I'm too cheap to buy it.
As I said with the BBC thing, I can't stand false things being peddled as truth. That's why I tacked that on there at the end, cause eventually that's where it leads to. "You're just upset cause blacks have bigger dicks than you!" So I was just heading that off in the beginning.
Yes, I'm biased to conservativism and right leaning views, I'm not pretending to be partial. I believe in that ethnostates are the way to go for all people, and will happily discuss that with anyone. If you don't want to that's cool.
But I won't say that when faced with convincing evidence I won't change my views or accommodate this new information. That's the purpose of debate which is why I was super excited when she replied. I'm not concrete, but it will take convincing!
55 comments
1 renownedquietkid 2018-05-09
Put your face in it and take a big old sniff
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
She is an okay mod. She removed plenty of my posts but I'm not banned.
On most other subs, if you go against the narrative, they ban you but leave the post, so it looks like your argument got obliterated to the point where you could not even respond with a counter-argument.
1 HalalHaramKabab 2018-05-09
Justbcause you didn't get banned doesn't mean hundreds of incels weren't.
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
I obviously don't like my posts getting removed, but I see why she does it. It's not to feed her ego, she's honestly doing her best to keep the sub from getting banned in today's PC world.
I never saw anyone complaining about bans from bbw on satellite subs like recently banned /r/malecels. Does she really ban people?
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
So, if anyone interested, here is what you should not do on /r/Braincels:
1) making fun of ISIS. Tried it 3 times, removed 3 times
2) Mentioning hatefacts like racial intelligence or FBI crime statistics. Will be removed.
3) using n-word. deleted
1 HalalHaramKabab 2018-05-09
Hamdulillah!
Don't insult the islamic state you filthy white infidel.
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
I have a reasonable suspicion that showing appreciation and respect for ISIS will get your comment removed as well. It's better not to talk about them at all.
bbw_gaming removed youtube links for allahu trapbar. Youtube videos with tens of millions of views.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
I can't tell if joking or not.
1 emdeemcd 2018-05-09
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
It's so nice of you to make a point knowing that my counter-argument will get deleted.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
I'll fall on the sword for you bro.
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
no homo?
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
Let's not rule anything out lmao
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
You know this 'statistic' was debunked, right? It's no surprise you retards don't do research. There aren't any statistics on the source that separates crime by income.
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
https://randomcriticalanalysis.wordpress.com/2015/11/16/racial-differences-in-homicide-rates-are-poorly-explained-by-economics/
it has links to all sources
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
Conclusion from the same article. That said, a wordpress article doesn't seem like the best statistic reference. The way crime is processed doesn't consider the effect of socio economic status of people persecuted.
This article cherry-picks 20 year old studies that weren't even properly conducted. The writer of the article has no idea what the phrase 'correlation doesn't imply causation' means. He clearly has no knowledge on statistics, seeing that he just throws together graphs that looked like they agreed with his opinion without any consideration for how nuanced this problem is.
I'm willing to bet you just looked at the article, saw it agreed with you and assumed it was correct. For a sec I thought you got me, until I actually did research, actually reading the article and checking for opinions on it from people that actually know anything about statistics. You people are so fucking dishonest.
Educate yourself on statistics before acting like you know anything.
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
Yes. I'm sorry dude, I'm old and I got no interest in winning internet arguments anymore, besides, I don't really care about the subject. I got the picture from a /r/cringeanarchy thread that I opened before this one, and I got the article from selecting a part of your reply and doing a google search from a context menu. It was the first result.
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
ok
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
Lol yeah that's a common leftist agrgument for black underachievement.
But the truth is that they, as a race, have a lower IQ on average than other races.
They're perfectly suited for the environment they evolved to live in, but that environment is not the civilised world. Hence crime stats.
Also, there's a high correlation between crime (especially violent) and IQ, and surprise surprise you will find that less than 12% (12 or 13% being total, then when you factor in likelihood of committing crime i.e. males between 14-28) the population commit over 60% of said violent crime.
Oh, and furthermore you could start delving into recidivism and see that blacks are WAAAAAAAAAAY more likely to be repeat offenders.
They also rape more. And nearly every case of reported interracial rape (m on f) was perpetrated by black men.
And murders. And muggings. And blah blah blah. I could go on, but I'll stop here.
Bottom line: they're just like us! And is only cause of racism that they've n been held down despite being given every opportunity to succeed. Nope, it has nothing to do with inherent traits.
Oh yeah, also BBC is a myth.
1 [deleted] 2018-05-09
[removed]
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
Ok, first of all, thank you for replying and actually arguing with tangible shit instead of crying muh racism.
Second, I will be glad to address these when I'm off work and have more time to post.
But in the meantime, how do you get it to put what I say (or you for that matter) in the way you did so I can format it in a way that adresses each rebuttal so that it can be organized?
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
You can use >
to quote
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
OK I planned on doing that but it's not gonna be viable since I have to do this on my phone.
Your first point, of course IQ is an accurate determination for details. It measures critical thinking, problem solving, pattern recognition, and reading retention. It becomes a little more obvious when you can clearly see that smarter people in real life correlate with high IQ scores. Is it flawed? Sure, it's hard to get an exact measure of psychometrics because they aren't tangible things, but its been pretty much accepted that it's a pretty good indicator of intelligence if not by virtue of being the only one around. So let's not play "move the goalpost".
As for women's IQ rising, I could not find anything as far as data was concerned to even begin talking about this. I'm not saying it's untrue, but just that I'm not going to speak about things I don't know. If you want to do that vein, then I'll be happy to, just link me the study.
Retarded used to be 80 IQ, which also would lend some clout to IQ being a measure of intelligence. But since blacks were consistently scoring in this range they lowered the limit to I believe 70 for mental retardation. As for the climbing of IQ, that's what's called the Lynn effect, which is just an adjusted score to keep up with new updates and standards for testing. From my understanding it seems more like "inflation" but for IQ and not money. As for your claim that African IQ is on par with that of Dutch I can already see problems, which I will get into in a bit.
Your study that you posted does seem to have an agenda, but not one that's nefarious. They want my money in order to view the data, and I'm not about to do that. So what we CAN look at is the abstract, which is what you posted. Although it DOES state sub-Saharan Africans at one point, it goes on to lump in all African adults, which is made up of many non blacks too, which would certainly skew the average. Again, I don't have the data to look at to verify my suspicions but the argument here isn't "Africans" but whether "blacks" have lower IQ, so unless they show the breakdown in their data BY RACE then I remain skeptical and will continue to rely on studies which I've read. On another note, it goes on to say that the trend is believed to continue if living conditions improve. They won't as long as the white genocide continues. We've seen time and again what happens to black countries when whites aren't there to run them anymore (and it isn't Wakanda).
The Tulsa Race Riots were an unfortunate event. I'd site it as more proof that racial homogeneity is the best way for humans to live. And also it was started by the rape of a young white girl by a black guy. And this isn't one of those J-left "I secretly want a black man but can't let anyone know so when it's found out I'll cry rape". This was during a time that the word rape hadn't lost its meaning like it has now. This was also during a time when it was extremely taboo and shameful for miscegenation. Not that there weren't those that practiced it, but those ones that did were known and didn't cry rape when they went off. The pillaging of the black community that thrived there is very sad, but thats solely one example in pretty much the history of ever, or at least the only one people reference. Outliers happen and are a thing. If this was something that was normal in their community it would have cropped up more than once.
Everyone race was enslaved at one point. Blacks are not even the worse treated example or the most recent. They're just the only ones that continue to bitch about it because, like when a child (who coincidentally has similar IQ scores) throws a tantrum to get what they want. Jim Crow, and even Apartheid were necessary and both blacks and whites performed better in nearly every metric under them, but let's focus on blacks. They had lower unemployment, lower divorce and illegitimacy rates, lower poverty rates, and higher literacy rates than they do post Jim Crow and forced integration. Some of that can be blamed on government intervention (which ironically enough wasn't conservatives that passed the legislation). Besides that was over 60 years ago, and they've been given every opportunity to turn their lot around and given chance after chance, money, at the expense of others and they STILL underperform. So much so that the standard has to be lowered so they have a better chance which they still fall short at.
Yes, single motherhood is a terrible terrible thing and I would argue is probably one of the biggest indicators for criminality. Along with intelligence, two things that are an issue for the black community. Crazy to see that there is a high criminality in their community.
Recidivism doesn't necessarily mean reconviction. So I'm struggling to see your argument here. Recidivism is just the repeated offense or arrests after already being previously arrested or incarcerated.
Blacks are more likely to be arrested in the first place. No shit, because they commit more crimes. The idea that this is because they're poor or of racism is garbage. I'll find the study that shows even the richest percentiles of blacks still commit crimes at rates of poorer blacks, and a couple times more than poorer percentages of other races. But that will be in an edit.
The first problem I see with your data you posted is the fact that there is no Hispanic metric in there. Don't be alarmed, they're there. But what they do is lump them in with the white population for purposes of skewing stats to make it seem like whites are committing more crimes then they really do. After all how bad would it look if the actual numbers are posted. This is why when it asks for race/ethnicity in forms they have white and then a sub qualifier of non-hispanic. It's simple. On certain stats like that of violent crime and sexual assault etc. They lump them in, but in other stats will separate them. Of course you will have more cases of white crimes just due to the fact that theres more whites, but when you look at the percentages when adjusted per capita then it becomes quite clear.
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/
http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/12/the-truth-about-interracial-rape/
As for the BBC myth, it has nothing to do with anything that "makes me feel good" I could care less, I have a pretty good ween, and I'm married. But I just like truth to be out there.
The average dick size only varies among races by like a couple centimeters, with only a .25 centimeter difference among black/white. So sure. The average black dude has a bigger dick than the average white by not even an 1/8th of an inch.
https://medium.com/globalnewsasia/does-race-affect-penis-size-28a1e47e0748
Of course you won't see that in porn, but porn is unrealistic, and like models are the +2 standard deviation's from the norm.
Also, I noticed your comment about criminologists. Well I'm not one, but I have my B.A.S. in both Psychology and Criminal Justice. For what it is worth to you.
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
I was writing my argument but it turns out I have to do a chore for somebody, so bare with me. Might take a bit.
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
My comment on the BBC thing wasn't for the argument that it exists. I just found it funny you were eager to mention that. Not saying you are but it makes you seem a bit insecure when it comes out of nowhere like that.
I won't even lie to you, I've seen and been in enough debates to know this is headed nowhere and I'd rather spend time doing something productive. You seem concrete on your views and the way you handle my arguments is a common bad sign. You answer in a way that makes your intention and belief obvious and not in a good way. Coupled with the fact that your sources for racial arguments are right-leaning websites, while you claim my sources seem to have an agenda, which is a bit ironic. The sidebar headlines that consist of Trump praise (Not inherently wrong) and news coverages that specifically focus on illegal immigrant crime doesn't help. (Not that it discredits you or automatically means the sites are wrong. Just that it says a bit.)
Let's just agree to disagree and end it here. If you want to see my arguments against yours for the sake of seeing them, just ask, but you'll have to agree that you won't address them, for the sake of not wasting our time. We're not going to convince each other.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
I can respect that.
I'm not gonna lie, that novel I wrote wasn't in response to your comment lol I just clicked the wrong comment to reply to. It was supposed to be for board gaming, since she was the one that replied to my original. So that's my bad.
As for the discrediting of HER sources though, I don't think their invalid. I was just making a joke at how their "agenda" was that they wanted my money to view the data and I'm too cheap to buy it.
As I said with the BBC thing, I can't stand false things being peddled as truth. That's why I tacked that on there at the end, cause eventually that's where it leads to. "You're just upset cause blacks have bigger dicks than you!" So I was just heading that off in the beginning.
Yes, I'm biased to conservativism and right leaning views, I'm not pretending to be partial. I believe in that ethnostates are the way to go for all people, and will happily discuss that with anyone. If you don't want to that's cool.
But I won't say that when faced with convincing evidence I won't change my views or accommodate this new information. That's the purpose of debate which is why I was super excited when she replied. I'm not concrete, but it will take convincing!
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
Ah that makes more sense.
As for the ethnostate thing, you're entitled to your opinion. Me not agreeing really won't change anything so do you. It's good that you're honest and at least acknowledge biases you might have. Of course I'll have my own too.
Have a nice one though.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
Right?! Everyone has biases. It's foolish to think otherwise.
You too man!
1 StrikingLengthiness 2018-05-09
BBC is not a myth. Show me the white mandingo.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
https://medium.com/globalnewsasia/does-race-affect-penis-size-28a1e47e0748
Also I'm pretty sure Mandingo is fake.
You can buy the little extension thing at sex shops, it even pumps out fake jizz too.
1 StrikingLengthiness 2018-05-09
Buzzfeed tier shit article. Even if the average black is a quarter inch bigger, look at how bell curves work, it could mean 90% of people with 8+ inch dicks are black.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
A quarter centimeter. But hey that's close enough to a quarter inch.
No, it doesn't mean that. Maybe if the bell curve was for all males, but when broken down by race you can clearly see the means for each race. Which are pretty fucking close.
Since that one doesn't suffice for you though let me look for some others and get back to you.
1 StrikingLengthiness 2018-05-09
No no no. Let's do it like IQ and say group A has 100 inch average and group B has 105 inch average and they both have bell curves with standard deviation 15 inches.
37% group A has 105 inches or more 50% of group B has 105 inches or more TINY DIFFERENCE
now let's do 110 25% vs 37% Bigger difference
115 16% vs 25% 120 9% vs 16% 125 5% vs 9% 130 2% vs 5% 135 .99% vs 2% 140 .37% vs .99% 145 .14% vs .37%
As you can see with 2 bell curves if group B is just a third of a standard deviation bigger, then there are over 50% more bigger than 1 stdev, over 100% more at 2 standard deviations and over 150% more at 3 standard deviations.
Of course dick size is NOT a bell curve so you can't apply this to it, BUT it is just an example to show that tiny differences in the average can make a huge difference at the extremes.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
Sure. But again, when you look at the mean for all males, and then compare that to means gathered for individual races you'll find that both means are (roughly) the same.
You could argue that in the overall category, that those skewing the statistics to the bigger end could be black. But then when you compare the mean for individual race and find that it's very close, you can easily conclude that is not the case. Because if it were you would see a huge jump in the average for specifically black individuals when compared to the average for all.
When you break it down that way you're controlling the standard deviation for a specific group. Now you could, like you suggest, take the percentage of those in higher deviations and find out what approximate percentage they are of the overall, but that will only be an approximation, and even then just an estimate of how many outlier's of one group are outliers of another. Which doesn't really prove anything other than them being outliers.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
You can't say nigger?
Or mention the fact that there's a direct correlation with race and IQ?
There's no such thing as hate speech!
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
you forgot ISIS
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
Sadly, I don't really know/care much about ISIS. Some muzzies are over there killing people. I could hardly give a shit, we've got problems to solve here.
But wait, they might come here of we don't stop them over there.
No they won't, if we stop letting in muzzies and other brown people.
1 deadmedium 2018-05-09
theres no such thing as an "okay" mod - moderation has no place in text based conversation. words can do no harm, if something is wrong articulate why rather than arbitarily removing it.
the truth is self evident by virtue of counter-arguments against it falling short.
1 jrdanXX 2018-05-09
i just threw up a little
1 TfwNoMommyGf 2018-05-09
Hating fat women is not bad.
1 Zaadfanaat 2018-05-09
I mean if she didnt step in every now and them this sub would be removed in mo time
1 HalalHaramKabab 2018-05-09
True.
1 justforlulzandkeks 2018-05-09
Has anyone any evidence that this is true or is it just conjecture that keeps getting parroted?
1 HalalHaramKabab 2018-05-09
There has to be some reason this sub hasn't been banned.
1 PROLAPSED_SUBWOOFER 2018-05-09
Not just her, but the work of the other mods as well.
1 Crackcel 2018-05-09
It's conjecture. Someone said it once and now everyone repeats it. Though there does have to be a reason why this sub is allowed to exist.
1 Board_Gaming 2018-05-09
It's vagina magic?
1 Crackcel 2018-05-09
Shut up cunt
1 Plague-Lord 2018-05-09
a male mod could step in all the same, its an insult to allow her to even exist here. You're cucked if you think otherwise.
1 justforlulzandkeks 2018-05-09
Daily reminder that bbw_gaming is black
1 HalalHaramKabab 2018-05-09
How do you know?
1 justforlulzandkeks 2018-05-09
https://www.reddit.com/r/Braincels/comments/8bm7v0/ok_yall_we_need_to_talk/dx7yxio/?context=3
1 maskedcel 2018-05-09
Oh wow. Cool.
1 HalalHaramKabab 2018-05-09
She could just be trolling.
1 191132 2018-05-09
That confirms the bbw part
1 Nancy125 2018-05-09
lol so thats why its entitled as fuck
we wuz cleopatra n nefertiti n bitchez
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
Haha...
1 IncelSlayerZero 2018-05-09
Foid hates me lmao won't even respond to mod duty related PMs. Salty af lol. Here's a kiss for you babe 😘
1 HalalHaramKabab 2018-05-09
There has to be some reason this sub hasn't been banned.
1 Crackcel 2018-05-09
It's conjecture. Someone said it once and now everyone repeats it. Though there does have to be a reason why this sub is allowed to exist.
1 Uggocel 2018-05-09
Conclusion from the same article. That said, a wordpress article doesn't seem like the best statistic reference. The way crime is processed doesn't consider the effect of socio economic status of people persecuted.
This article cherry-picks 20 year old studies that weren't even properly conducted. The writer of the article has no idea what the phrase 'correlation doesn't imply causation' means. He clearly has no knowledge on statistics, seeing that he just throws together graphs that looked like they agreed with his opinion without any consideration for how nuanced this problem is.
I'm willing to bet you just looked at the article, saw it agreed with you and assumed it was correct. For a sec I thought you got me, until I actually did research, actually reading the article and checking for opinions on it from people that actually know anything about statistics. You people are so fucking dishonest.
Educate yourself on statistics before acting like you know anything.
1 m41aspd 2018-05-09
Yes. I'm sorry dude, I'm old and I got no interest in winning internet arguments anymore, besides, I don't really care about the subject. I got the picture from a /r/cringeanarchy thread that I opened before this one, and I got the article from selecting a part of your reply and doing a google search from a context menu. It was the first result.
1 A1C_SubZero 2018-05-09
I can respect that.
I'm not gonna lie, that novel I wrote wasn't in response to your comment lol I just clicked the wrong comment to reply to. It was supposed to be for board gaming, since she was the one that replied to my original. So that's my bad.
As for the discrediting of HER sources though, I don't think their invalid. I was just making a joke at how their "agenda" was that they wanted my money to view the data and I'm too cheap to buy it.
As I said with the BBC thing, I can't stand false things being peddled as truth. That's why I tacked that on there at the end, cause eventually that's where it leads to. "You're just upset cause blacks have bigger dicks than you!" So I was just heading that off in the beginning.
Yes, I'm biased to conservativism and right leaning views, I'm not pretending to be partial. I believe in that ethnostates are the way to go for all people, and will happily discuss that with anyone. If you don't want to that's cool.
But I won't say that when faced with convincing evidence I won't change my views or accommodate this new information. That's the purpose of debate which is why I was super excited when she replied. I'm not concrete, but it will take convincing!