| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: I have heard this 3xs this week.... Posted by: Jag - [171592622] Tue, Apr 01, 2008, 16:29 3xs I have heard from 3 different media types, that blacks excel in basketball because they work harder at the game than the lazy white man. These comments went uncontested and illustrates the lunacy of political correctness. You would have a better chance of winning the lottery, then finding someone who truly believes such jibberish. Political correctness, you gotta love it. | |||||||
| 44 | Perm Dude ID: 3232828 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 12:06 | Many of my friends are black. Which lets me link to one of my favorite sites. | ||||||
| 45 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 12:07 |
I don't think there is any doubt that genetics are the most important variable in determining who makes it to the NBA. Like bili, I just don't know what the point is. FWIW - where this thread will wind up anyway | ||||||
| 46 | chode ID: 293141514 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 12:09 |
Re: Posts 20 and 34, Janet Hill is not white, she's African-American. Of course, I don't think that bears on anything at all, but just setting the facts straight. | ||||||
| 47 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 13:36 |
There are white people who have run the 100 meters under 10 seconds. The world record holders have shaved a fraction of a second off of that. They are black. Fine. What I can't stand is people taking that fact - that at the very, very end of the athletic spectrum, people of African heritage are able to train their bodies to attain the fastest speeds possible - and jumping to stupid conclusions like, "Blacks are faster". Only a fool looks at a random black person and assumes that they run faster or can play basketball better than the white person they are standing next to. Holt's post was blocked by the "red herring" filter. Blacks are better athletes, latinos work really hard, whites are smart, and orientals and hindus can really run a small family business very well. It's this lunacy that these conversations lead to. Boxman lumps racial groups in with religious groups and what ever "orientals" are. Do you still call Lebonese "Phoenicians"? Reggie White was rightly castigated for making these similarly stupid, gross generalizations. Why do people say such stupid things? After spending the past year plus in Southwest Washington, the only conclusion I have drawn is that, no, white people are not particularly smart. But I'm smart enough to avoid making such sweeping generalizations. | ||||||
| 48 | J-Bar ID: 292552222 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 16:00 | I thought the whole point of this thread was the PC factor in which the one guy can say that particular people would not fair well in the NBA because they were white and it not be considered stereotyping language and a terminating or resigning offense. If on that same show the opposite was said that particular people can really play basketball because they are black and grew up playing in the streets of the inner cities with little or no parental supervision and basketball was all they knew. i believe that both statements are wrong and should be addressed that way. but one is allowed and the other we know what that would cause. | ||||||
| 49 | Perm Dude ID: 3232828 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 16:29 | Well, the whole idea of the lack of parental supervision by blacks as a component of basketball skill acquisition wasn't mentioned before, and undercuts the point you might have thought you were making. | ||||||
| 50 | J-Bar ID: 292552222 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 16:49 | not really, it's still playing into the stereotyping. but ok, let me simplify; they can't play in the NBA because they are white and they can't play quarterback in the NFL because they are black. don't go ignorant these statements are being used to show pd what i was referring to. one is allowed to be aired as that persons' opinion but the other would be inexcusable. when both should be inexcusable | ||||||
| 51 | Boldwin ID: 12341213 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 16:51 |
PV I love John Stockton as much as the next guy but bringing him up didn't advance your case one iota. The dust on top of the backboard had nothing to fear whatsoever. And it wasn't because Stockton was a slacker not trying as hard as his black counterparts. Just be honest and admit Jag is correct. | ||||||
| 52 | weykool ID: 2842717 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 16:51 |
Why is the argument genetics OR culture? To make it to the NBA...dont you need both? Black or white if you dont hone your game every day it doesnt matter how much talent you have you wont make the NBA. Likewise, black or white if you dont posses the required running and jumping abilites all the practice in the world wont get you to the NBA. My own opinion is that genetics do matter. If 12% of the population has 88% of the roster spots there has to be more to it than just trying harder. It wouldnt surpise me if more white kids play basketball every day than black kids. Maybe not as a percentage but the actual numbers could be very similar. (and no, I dont know the actual numbers so dont be a "cite your source" doofus) | ||||||
| 53 | Boldwin ID: 12341213 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 16:59 |
and i don't know about the rest of you guys, but my girlfriend prefers someone who can go the distance instead of someone who crosses the finish line in under 10 seconds. - Tree LMAO...ok ok we might as well go the whole nine yards. How does she feel about size? Lol | ||||||
| 54 | Perm Dude ID: 3232828 Wed, Apr 02, 2008, 17:01 | When she finds someone with size she'll let us know... | ||||||
| 55 | holt ID: 341542412 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 05:33 |
When I read back through this thread it seems pretty clear that the discussion went way off course. I don't think Jag's point was really to go into the debate of whether blacks have genetic advantages that allow them to dominate the NBA. He was commenting on the fact that such a debate can't occur in the media because of the pressure of political correctness. So, is political correctness ultimately a positive force or a negative one? Probably depends on your conception of what an ideal society is. from Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: politically correct Function: adjective Date: 1936 : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated — political correctness noun | ||||||
| 56 | Boldwin ID: 5231536 Thu, Apr 03, 2008, 08:17 | So if '1984' sounded like utopia yer a PC gal. | ||||||
| 57 | Jag ID: 171592622 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 11:43 | You are absolutely right, Holt. I believe it also illustrates how the Left is fundamentally wrong on most subjects. The economy, national security, education, etc... are more complicated, but Liberals are just as wrong on those subjects as this one. The difference with this case is it blantantly obvious what is the truth. Just about every single person in the world has seen the genetic differences between the races, maybe not completely, there are no absolutes, but on average blacks can run faster. But the Left will tell you to not to believe what you see, don't believe what you have experienced, and you should join them in their Bizarro reality. | ||||||
| 58 | Tree ID: 3533298 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 11:52 |
but on average blacks can run faster and i claim that is false, unless you can prove to me statistically otherwise. i pointed out several examples of non-blacks who run faster than blacks, but that was ignored. you can say "the current record older in the 100m is black," and that would be factually accurate. but unless you're going to find a quantitative way to show me how "on average blacks can run faster", then i'm going to tell you you're false. | ||||||
| 59 | Jag ID: 171592622 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 12:14 |
Tree, you posted middle distance runners, which has as much to do with sprinting and jumping as John Stockton's passing ability. There is no doubt in my mind, that you know, on the average, blacks are faster than whites, but you are like a pitbull on a hambone, with yours jaws locked around your Liberal tenet and no facts, proof or evidence will sway you from your political correctness. | ||||||
| 60 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 12:25 |
on the average, blacks are faster than whites So you are going to line up the 36 million blacks in this country and have them run a race against the 180 or so million white people, average their results and declare that they are faster than white people? What "facts, proof, evidence" do you have to make this ridiculous claim? Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson, Tim Montgomery, Maurice Green? Why do I bother responding to trolls? We were doing great when you were asleep under your bridge. | ||||||
| 61 | Tree ID: 3533298 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 13:29 |
Tree, you posted middle distance runners, which has as much to do with sprinting and jumping as John Stockton's passing ability. speed is relative, and the entire subject is, well, subjective. i think someone who can run middle distances quickly is "faster" than someone who can run a very short distance quickly. it's the same reason i think soccer players are better athletes than football players. There is no doubt in my mind, that you know, on the average, blacks are faster than whites, but you are like a pitbull on a hambone, with yours jaws locked around your Liberal tenet and no facts, proof or evidence will sway you from your political correctness. it's not a liberal tenet. it's a SCIENTIFIC tenet. i realize that facts and actual data really don't mean much to you, and never will mean anything to people like yourself, who prefer to wallow in their own self-importance, ignorance, and general cluelessness about the real world. but, facts and data are an absolute way of proving something true or false. speculation is just that. mere speculation. | ||||||
| 62 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 14:04 |
I believe it also illustrates how the Left is fundamentally wrong on most subjects. The economy, national security, education, etc... And I believe this statement illustrates how Jag continues to talk out of his a**. The inference is that Right is fundamentally not wrong on most subjects, even though there is wide disagreement among the Right about a lot of subjects, as the widespread disapproval of McCain clearly illustrates. So, humor us. Please explain how bombing poor people in urban Iraq is fundamental to this country's national security. | ||||||
| 63 | Frick ID: 23117516 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 14:27 |
I don't know the answer to this, but if you looked at that starting field for the 100M world championships for the last say 20 years, would that be a good source of data? Would you see an even representation of all races, or would you see a trend? Again, I don't know, but would the methodology provide a factual answer? | ||||||
| 64 | WiddleAvi ID: 251113917 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 15:12 | Frick - That might be a good indication that most of the fastest short distance runners are black. But that does not answer if on average blacks are faster. All your example shows is that in the elite runners blacks are faster. But what about your average black and white person ? | ||||||
| 65 | Tree ID: 16334413 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 15:35 | i feel pretty comfortable about the fact i could outrun Whoopi Goldberg, in a sprint, or in middle distances. | ||||||
| 66 | Great One ID: 4231419 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 16:19 | Jewish women? | ||||||
| 67 | Perm Dude ID: 55357411 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 16:23 | Pretty much all I dated when I lived in NYC. For a guy from Ohio, this was very exotic. | ||||||
| 68 | bibA ID: 432103113 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 16:55 |
Are we discussing two subjects here? 1- Are the fastest of the fast young black males faster than the fastest of the fast young white males, in a short sprint? and subject 2 - Is the random black male, whether he may be middle aged, over weight, whatever, faster than the random white male, whatever age, overweight....etc., in an undetermined distance? Possibly one needs to narrow the field from which he states his opinion. | ||||||
| 69 | Perm Dude ID: 55357411 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 16:59 | I guess it depends on which one Jag thinks is the result of bad parenting. | ||||||
| 70 | biliruben ID: 33258140 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 18:12 | I think we are discussing the accusation that liberals are unwilling to discuss that there are racial differences. I think that we can safely put that to rest. | ||||||
| 71 | Jag ID: 171592622 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 18:32 | I know Liberals will discuss it, but like all issues, getting it right is another thing. | ||||||
| 72 | biliruben ID: 33258140 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 19:04 |
I'm a scientist, jag. Or I try hard to be. Whacky, biased feeeeeelings don't fly with me. Facts and data, baby. That's the way to this liberal's heart. Get crackin. | ||||||
| 73 | Madman ID: 14139157 Fri, Apr 04, 2008, 21:56 |
SZ -- There are white people who have run the 100 meters under 10 seconds. The non-west African descent record was 9.93 by Patrick Johnson in 2003. He's kind of a weird case since he's half Australian aboriginal. I don't think any other person of non-West African descent has done so, unless they have done so in the last year. Tree -- Two of those you mentioned are of west african descent. But with that said, there is a tiny "sweet spot" around the 1-mile distance where Europeans seem to be competitive, or at least in theory. Below that, west africans dominate. Above that, east Africans. Remember Bob Kennedy? He was the first white to break 13 in the 5K, I believe ... and he got utterly slaughtered in most major competitions. Of course, this isn't true in women's athletics, but there are larger barriers to entry for women. Data from tails can be used to make inferences about the population. Conceptually, I can guarantee you that Africans are faster than, say, Americans. We're 20-30 years older, many of us are disabled, we weigh twice as much, etc. That's a meaningless notion. What is more interesting is whether there are sets of genes that predispose people toward athletic prowess (almost certainly true) and whether those genes are distributed equally geographically. Given different evolutionary paths and environments, it would be quite amazing if all geographies and all cultures and all evolutionary paths endowed all subsets of humanity with equally weighted chances for athletic prowess. Given that our survival as a species is likely more related to our intelligence, and that intelligence is an adaptable tool regardless of geography, I suspect that evolution has been more merciless on that score, yielding a lower variation overall. But extreme or even 75th percentile athleticism for similarly situated adults? Why assume that? | ||||||
| 74 | astade Sustainer ID: 214361313 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 00:34 | Like many things, it sounds like there could be various factors at play. | ||||||
| 75 | Guru ID: 330592710 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 11:16 |
Madman attempted to post this earlier this morning, but it was deflected by the spam blocker: An archived Washington Post article on some research into high-altitude and evolution ... with an array of opinions. We don't know anything for sure. | ||||||
| 76 | Seattle Zen ID: 29241823 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 13:04 |
Liberals in this thread seem to hold a belief that it is somehow morally superior to hold a null hypothesis of no geographical variation in the propensity to excel (or fail) in physical activities. Wrong. Everyone here recognizes that West Africans hold nearly all of the top times in the 100 meters. What anyone with an iota of common sense refuses to do is to draw from that conclusion is anything like, "blacks are faster" or "blacks are better athletes". One hypothesis as to why West Africans hold nearly all the top times in the 100 meters is that they have more genetic variety as humans have been evolving in Africa, a place of many extremes, for longer than anywhere else. More genetic variety means better chance to have outliers - freaks who can flat out haul ass for 100 meters when trained properly. Seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me. Only fools draw conclusions from the results of outliers. But differences across geographical heritage in extreme or even 75th percentile athleticism for similarly situated adults? Why assume that?" Well, there is a decent explanation for extreme cases, there is no evidence or even reason to suspect that there are differences in geographical heritage when you get down to the 75th percentile. First, "athleticism" is not a scientific value. No one would agree on its definition or how to measure it. Second, when you are talking about a quarter of an entire population's "athleticism", you are not talking about their genetic possibilities, you are simply measuring how much they have "trained". Societies where the majority of its citizens are either subsistence farmers or work in industry with little automation are quite different from someplace like Dubai or Monaco. Hell, if you went around the world measuring "athleticism", what you are really measuring is nutrition. Although we do not know anything definitively, I fail to see why such an initial null hypothesis reflects either scientific rigor or moral rectitude. But I guess it feels nice to believe that. What I fail to see is why you have to use such a vocabulary. Do you realize how preposterously pompous you sound? "Null Hypothesis"? Seriously, you are not William Buckley, you don't have the wit or talent to pull off what you are trying to do. Take a clue from Biliruben, walk, and many other people on these boards who are extremely intelligent but don't alienate people. | ||||||
| 77 | Seattle Zen ID: 29241823 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 13:21 |
Re post 73 Yes, I was referring to Patrick Johnson, the pride of the Aussies. I thought he was not the only one, I guess I was mistaken. Matic Osovnik, the pride of Slovenia, though has run a 10.14 and could be the next to cross that barrier | ||||||
| 78 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 14:51 |
This stuff about track runners is all well and good, but I think without some sort of definitive study by an independent agency both sides are just going around in some circle jerk formation. What is the end result we as a society want out of race relations? Is it white guys walking along side their black friends and saying the word nigger like the rappers can get away with and then the black guy joking about redneck crackers? What do we want the end result to be as a nation? Obama allegedly wants to unite us, well then isn't part of that being able to talk in a public forum about sensitive topics in an effort to make them not so sensitive one day? Finally, how do we shut up the kooks? Those that want the Don Imus types lynched and over react to every single incident out there. Supposed "Reverands" like Jackson and Sharpton that really do more harm than good IMHO. I think until we get a target that we're aiming for as a society on race, we're always going to be wandering around in the darkness afraid to truly talk to one another about what pisses us off or what we like about the races. There are things about black people that I like. I like the fact that there are stories of young blacks overcoming the ghetto, going to college and getting good jobs and providing for their families. Yet I dare not talk about that at work. Why? Why can't you at least compliment someone? | ||||||
| 79 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 37838313 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 15:10 |
Why? Why can't you at least compliment someone? I think that if you came from a poor or disfunctional or broken family in a terrible place to live you might be a bit more sensitive about it than you currently realize. | ||||||
| 80 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 20:31 | So then in the year 10,000 a white guy still can't say the word nigger even in good slang to his friend? | ||||||
| 81 | Perm Dude ID: 13329513 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 21:59 | Why are white guys obsessed with blowing up this insignificant piece of "injustice?" | ||||||
| 82 | Boxman ID: 571114225 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 22:10 | Why do you dodge the broader point in favor of nit picking? | ||||||
| 83 | Mattinglyinthehall Dude ID: 01629107 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 23:17 |
I missed the broader point. What is so important about the freedom to playfully insult your friends with racial epithets? What has to be wrong with someone for him to regard this as some crucial threshold in American race relations? | ||||||
| 84 | Madman ID: 14139157 Sun, Apr 06, 2008, 20:47 |
SZ 76 -- Wrong. Everyone here recognizes that West Africans hold nearly all of the top times in the 100 meters. What anyone with an iota of common sense refuses to do is to draw from that conclusion is anything like, "blacks are faster" or "blacks are better athletes". Again with the insults and straw man arguments. My post referred to null hypotheses, not conclusions. In the absence of quantifiable non-extrema evidence, why is your hypothesis superior to mine? Especially when mine is consistent with the scant evidence that we *do* have vis a vis world record holders and in my limited state high school and collegiate experience, it is consistent with records at those levels as well. Only fools draw conclusions from the results of outliers. Extreme value theory does exactly this. The reasonableness hinges upon the precise hypothesis that you wish to test, and the degree to which there is a known (or estimable) underlying distribution that you can make inferences about. Seriously, you are not William Buckley, you don't have the wit or talent to pull off what you are trying to do. Granted, I have neither the wit nor talent to pull off what I am trying to do. I'm also scribbling these posts in about 3 minutes. Let me explain the distinction. I use the term "null hypothesis" to talk about our starting theory that we would wish to test. A better term would likely be "prior belief", but that would have been excessively confusing. Written plainly, the evidence I've seen suggests to me that it is quite reasonable to hypothesize that geographic variations have led to evolutionary differences among subpopulations of humans. These differences, as I articulated before, are more likely to be physical than mental. We have evidence for physical differences, such as skin pigmentation, disease immunities or weaknesses, etc. If you don't believe geographical evolution can be correlated to extreme physical prowess, respond to the following. If we could select and train 10 randomly selected Baka pygmies and 10 of a similarly sized tribe of non-pygmies in West Africa, who would you put your money on in a game of basketball? More to the point, why do you think it "foolish" to argue that, say, data on the tallest people in either group would be an irrelevant consideration in guessing who would win, since you cannot make inferences about the population based upon the observations of extremes? | ||||||
| 85 | Seattle Zen ID: 49112418 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 12:06 |
Madman, the King of the Strawmen, I see that you really just want to talk to yourself, you are not interested in having an actual conversation. Madman, the anti-Socrates, not at all interested in learning anything because he already knows everything. Go ahead and hang out with the clowns who cling to the "blacks are better athletes" canard. Go ahead and lend credence to these stereotypes simply because you feel so clever arguing with yourself: "since there is no evidence regarding the bulk of the population", oh, excuse me, In the absence of quantifiable non-extrema evidence, (oh, Madman, such big words!) "I'm going to make some conjectures that really add nothing to the conversation." Your typical West African male is taller than a Baka pygmie and therefore if properly trained, will succeed at tasks that reward height. Congratulations, Madman, now you and Boxman can go put together a team of Yoruba tribesman and Boxman can call all his men his Niggaz! Similarly, let me take a random sample of Samoans and you can pick amongst the Mek of New Guinea for a Sumo wrestling competition. What neither of us have done is addressed what the term "athletic" means. All we've shown is that there are physical differences, which no one denies. Do you talk like this in social situations? I'm starting to think you may suffer from Asperger's Syndrome. In a word, lighten-up (that's one word :) ) | ||||||
| 86 | Jag ID: 171592622 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 13:29 |
I can help you translate Madman's post, so you can understand, Zen, since there were no pictures for you. Colored peeples can run faster cuz dey had to git away from dem lions. If u had a lion on yo ass, u wuld lern to run fast too. A null-hypotnis meens u ain't got no hypotnos. There is very little study on the subject, because anyone going against the Liberal politically correct stance would be publicly ruined. The Left will destroy a man's life with absolutely no remorse for going against their Leftist religion and race issues are the most effective way of doing it. However, I know of one book on the subject 'Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We're Afraid to Talk About It' and I can post exerts from it, but for right now, I enjoy watching try to spin the truth to fit your looney West Coast ideologue. | ||||||
| 87 | Boxman ID: 337352111 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 13:35 |
Congratulations, Madman, now you and Boxman can go put together a team of Yoruba tribesman and Boxman can call all his men his Niggaz! I am reminded of the scene from Airplane when Ted Stryker teaches the locals basketball and they instantly know how to slam dunk and have mad skillz with the ball. 
| ||||||
| 88 | Tree ID: 5432717 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 19:29 |
good lord. i go away to San Fran for the weekend to meet up with my (non-Jewish) girlfriend, and this thread goes to $hit. there are some mighty disgusting posts in here, but in regards to the cherry on the sundae in post 80, quite frankly, i don't think anybody should be using that term at all, regardless of the "slang" it's in, or anything else. | ||||||
| 89 | Mattinglyinthehall Dude ID: 01629107 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 19:32 | I thought you were married, Tree. | ||||||
| 90 | Tree ID: 5432717 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 23:05 |
lol. not for a long time. without going into too much detail about my personal life, i married the girl i was with for 5 years, and 6 months later we separated. six months after that, the divorce was final. been nearly two years since we separated. | ||||||
| 91 | Mattinglyinthehall Dude ID: 01629107 Mon, Apr 07, 2008, 23:10 | Sorry to hear that. | ||||||
| 92 | bibA ID: 432103113 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 00:12 | And here I was hoping Tree's response to 89 was going to be something like "er, I am...." | ||||||
| 93 | Tree ID: 3533298 Tue, Apr 08, 2008, 09:18 |
lol. that would have been entertaining... and while i appreciate the sentiment MITH, it's been a couple years at this point, and this things happen. definitely sucked at the time, and very few people around here knew about it, but it's all good now. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||