Jump to content
270soft Forum

Ideology Poll  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Of the following I identify with the following groups politically the most

    • Libertarian
    • Tea Party Conservative
    • Christian Conservative
    • Mainstream Conservative Republican
    • Moderate Republican
    • Independent Centrist or 3rd way moderate
    • Moderate Blue Dog Democrat
    • Mainstream Liberal Democrat
    • Progressive Warren-style Democrat
    • Social Democrat, or Sanders-style Independent Democrat
    • Green
  2. 2. If given the following fictional presidential candidates, and you had a tie-breaking vote to elect one of them, who do you think has a better chance at UNIFYING the country and fixing the most pressing problems?

    • Computer Programmer and bit coin advocate, Dave Mulligan, a purist Libertarian of the Ron Paul variety.
    • Pastor Wyatt Taylor, a social conservative, with controversial connections to White Supremacy groups, who advocates more Christianity in local and federal government.
    • Rep. Ryan Paul, a fiscal conservative, Log Cabin Republican, who's number one goal is to maximize profits for businesses, limit government, and reduce government spending to its bare necessities
    • Sen. John Lyndsey McGraham, a former war vet, advocating social moderation and an increased military defense budget and interventionist policies.
      0
    • Gov. Jonny Huntsich, a moderate Republican, advocating a strong desire to work with Democrats on every policy, even if he has to compromise on 40% of his goals to get 60% passed.
    • CEO John Doe, a wealthier billionaire than Trump, known lately for his philanthropy. A "severe moderate" wishing to compromise on everything, promising pass as many Democratic proposals as Republican proposals.
    • Rep. Betsy McCatclaws, a moderate Democrat, often working with and voting with Republicans on their more moderate proposals. She's willing to pass some Republican proposals if they support her more important proposals.
    • Sec. Hillary Clinton 2.0, an immortal robot designed to be exactly like Hillary Clinton, except more robot and less mortal. The robot will work 24-hours and never tire, finding Democratic solutions to our problems within seconds.
    • Prof. Hyam Goldstein, a professor of drama at Harvard, he advocates proven successful Scandinavian governmental policies, which he feels can be adapted to American government.
    • Dr. Albert Oppenheimer, a physicist, agnostic, who advocates scientific and humanitarian policies to serve not only America's policies, but also the world.
  3. 3. If John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were stolen from 1787 and brought to the future in 2017, and then given an intensive social and political history of the US from their time to the present to keep them up to date, what do you think the majority (that is, 3 of the 5 men) would approve of?

    • The role of president as an advocate for the Will of the People
    • Congressional grid lock
    • Relative equality among the races and genders
    • The % of people not of English descent
    • Progressive Reform from Civil Rights Acts, to the Square Deal, New Deal, Great Society, Obamacare, etc.
    • The Tea Party
    • Sanders Democrats
    • Our hegemonic power over the globe
    • Drone warfare
    • Social media
    • Increased anti-intellectualism, and its influence in politics
    • Labor Unions
    • The power of the wealthiest 1%
    • The power of Wall Street
    • Technological innovations in American history
    • Child labor laws
    • Abraham Lincoln
    • FDR
    • Ronald Reagan
    • Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

On 14/3/2017 at 7:27 PM, vcczar said:

Sounds laughable, but I think if Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton were caught up to day, that they'd approve of it, even while they don't feel comfortable with it. Remember the 5 go through an intensive study of social and political history through the time they've missed. They'd be given visual proof of the equal talents, abilities, heroism, competencies of women and racial minorities. Adams and Hamilton were as close to abolitionists as you could get at the time. Adam's wife, Abigail Adams, was a feminist, upset that the rights of women weren't being discussed, and Adams, while not doing anything to push that along, sympathized with her. Jefferson tried to blame slavery on the King of England and banned the slave trade. Franklin, being extremely sensible, would probably approve of the course of history, even when it wasn't ideal, since he was an extreme moderate and wasn't one for idealism or puritanism. I think only Washington would be aghast at Civil Rights legislation. 

I know Thomas Jefferson was a member of the Colonial Society that wanted American blacks to colonise Africa.
He said that it would be very sad if the black and the white race inhabited the same space.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, koneke said:

He said that it would be very sad if the black and the white race inhabited the same space.

That sentiment was actually Malcolm X, though put much more vehemently and vitriolically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

That sentiment was actually Malcolm X, though put much more vehemently and vitriolically.

Abraham Lincoln (prior to becoming President) said the same thing.  People thought differently back then.  Such a policy, though I imagine seeming well-meaning at the time, would have been disastrous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

Abraham Lincoln (prior to becoming President) said the same thing.  People thought differently back then.  Such a policy, though I imagine seeming well-meaning at the time, would have been disastrous.

Look to Mugabe for an example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Patine said:

That sentiment was actually Malcolm X, though put much more vehemently and vitriolically.

All US presidents until John F Kennedy supported separation and held negative views about blacks.

Upon remembering his presidential tenure, what most griefed Dwight Eisenhower was sending in Federal Troops to force integration in Little Rock Arkansas.

Before John F Kennedy, racial egalitarianism was unthinkable.

In Massachusetts, the law against miscenegation (racemixing) was repealed in 1834 because it wasn't used. Massachusetteans thought it to be so disgusting that the law wouldn't even be necessary.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/american-racial-history-timeline-2/american-racial-history-timeline/

It is an informative read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Race_Question

The file attached is the pamphlet written by the UN one of the authors is the french jew Claude Lévi-Strauss (where is his loyalty?)

128291eo.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I've never found discussions of "what would the Founding Fathers say" to be all that helpful. They were politicians of an entirely different day and age with entirely different assumptions and attitudes informing how they viewed things. Obviously many of them would be considered unacceptably racist by today's standards. On the issue of the size and reach of government, they were reacting partly to their own experience of having been governed by an undemocratic constitutional monarchy separated by an ocean. The lack of mass communication made the sorts of federal initiatives and programs that we have today near-impossible. I mean, how would you implement a program like that in a world without telephones? And yet, in a way, some of them were probably the progressives of their era.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for ideology, I picked Sanders-style independent Democrat. The thing is, I've come to realize that my philosophy is probably more left-communitarian than left-liberal in some ways. The root of my politics is the notion that people who have a lot of advantages and privileges in any sphere should be willing to make some sacrifices for those who do not. If I lived in 1950s Canada, I might have been a CCF supporter, but the Red Tories might have been my second choice compared to the Liberals. My policy views are mostly social democratic, so I'm firmly in the "it's the neoliberalism, stupid" camp in the neverending debate over how the Democrats managed to lose last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, RI Democrat said:

As for ideology, I picked Sanders-style independent Democrat. The thing is, I've come to realize that my philosophy is probably more left-communitarian than left-liberal in some ways. The root of my politics is the notion that people who have a lot of advantages and privileges in any sphere should be willing to make some sacrifices for those who do not. If I lived in 1950s Canada, I might have been a CCF supporter, but the Red Tories might have been my second choice compared to the Liberals. My policy views are mostly social democratic, so I'm firmly in the "it's the neoliberalism, stupid" camp in the neverending debate over how the Democrats managed to lose last year.

A welfare state is very expensive, and a big military is very expensive.

The highest effective income taxation rate is 40%. So how'd you subsidise that?

The Nordic countries only has welfare states because they have a very limited military expenditure.

The Nordic countries are overwhelmingly Northern European racially which is a necessity because of the correlation between IQ and income.

Even by now the Nordic welfare states has beginning cracks because of the displacement of Northern Europeans with Arabs and Africans.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Denmark

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

http://www.gettyimages.dk/event/protest-against-plans-to-cut-welfare-spending-in-denmark-700048051#thousands-of-people-took-to-the-streets-of-copenhagen-on-10-may-to-picture-id681977446

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not necessarily talking about the Nordic model specifically. Anyway, obviously taxes would need to increase on some folks, though in some cases you'd be providing services through the government that people already spend money on as private citizens, so there'd be at least some offset in there. But this is part of why I identify as more communitarian than liberal - too much liberal rhetoric revolves around the idea of individual empowerment rather than that of the common good and shared responsibility. Yes, maybe I'd have to pay a little more in a society with universal health care than I do now. I'm OK with that if it's what's necessary to make sure people aren't priced out of needed treatments and to guarantee that I won't lose my own access to health care some day.

I don't see what the statistics about income and IQ have to do with anything. As for IQ differences by nation, there are a ton of factors likely informing those results. Liberia has an average IQ of 67 in your chart, but Liberia's literacy rate in 2010 according to Wikipedia was only 61%. I don't know if the testing sample included those who are illiterate, but even if it didn't, you're obviously looking at a society with a relatively weak educational culture if 39% of them can't read. That doesn't mean that Liberians who emigrate to wealthier countries can't make a decent living and contribute to the upkeep of the welfare states there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RI Democrat said:

I'm not necessarily talking about the Nordic model specifically. Anyway, obviously taxes would need to increase on some folks, though in some cases you'd be providing services through the government that people already spend money on as private citizens, so there'd be at least some offset in there. But this is part of why I identify as more communitarian than liberal - too much liberal rhetoric revolves around the idea of individual empowerment rather than that of the common good and shared responsibility. Yes, maybe I'd have to pay a little more in a society with universal health care than I do now. I'm OK with that if it's what's necessary to make sure people aren't priced out of needed treatments and to guarantee that I won't lose my own access to health care some day.

I don't see what the statistics about income and IQ have to do with anything. As for IQ differences by nation, there are a ton of factors likely informing those results. Liberia has an average IQ of 67 in your chart, but Liberia's literacy rate in 2010 according to Wikipedia was only 60%. I don't know if the testing sample included those who are illiterate, but even if it didn't, you're obviously looking at a society with a relatively weak educational culture if 40% of them can't read. That doesn't mean that Liberians who emigrate to wealthier countries can't make a decent living and contribute to the upkeep of the welfare states there.

koneke often makes several assumptions:

  1. IQ is a good metric. Anyone who's taken a basic psychology course knows it is not, and should only be used as a very basic measure of intelligence since it heavily skews towards people who are good at math or puzzles. A better metric would be the CHC theory, but even that's not perfect. In fact, pretty much every measure of intelligence has one flaw or another and should only be used to get a general idea of one's intelligence rather than making snap judgements about entire races of people as koneke often does.
  2. There is a causal link between race and IQ. Just no. I have only ever heard white supremacists argue this point. There are a multitude of other factors involved such as literacy. Illiterate people perform worse on IQ tests (obviously), so the higher the illiteracy rate the lower the average IQ score in that nation regardless of the racial makeup of that nation. This is another failing in IQ measurement; it only measures what some would call "book smarts" and completely ignores "street smarts." Literacy isn't the only factor, of course, but it's a much much much bigger one than race is.
  3. People from the "third world" are the root of all of the "developed world's" problems, "ruin" the "first world's" "culture," and just come to Europe or the US for free stuff. No, that's just rhetoric far-right parties use to sow fear and win elections. There is no actual evidence of this.

If you read enough of his posts you'll notice this pattern since almost all of them are related to the subject of race in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, President Garrett Walker said:

koneke often makes several assumptions:

  1. IQ is a good metric. Anyone who's taken a basic psychology course knows it is not, and should only be used as a very basic measure of intelligence since it heavily skews towards people who are good at math or puzzles. A better metric would be the CHC theory, but even that's not perfect. In fact, pretty much every measure of intelligence has one flaw or another and should only be used to get a general idea of one's intelligence rather than making snap judgements about entire races of people as koneke often does.
  2. There is a causal link between race and IQ. Just no. I have only ever heard white supremacists argue this point. There are a multitude of other factors involved such as literacy. Illiterate people perform worse on IQ tests (obviously), so the higher the illiteracy rate the lower the average IQ score in that nation regardless of the racial makeup of that nation. This is another failing in IQ measurement; it only measures what some would call "book smarts" and completely ignores "street smarts." Literacy isn't the only factor, of course, but it's a much much much bigger one than race is.
  3. People from the "third world" are the root of all of the "developed world's" problems, "ruin" the "first world's" "culture," and just come to Europe or the US for free stuff. No, that's just rhetoric far-right parties use to sow fear and win elections. There is no actual evidence of this.

If you read enough of his posts you'll notice this pattern since almost all of them are related to the subject of race in some way.

Although he has the right to say those things, I still haven't moved on when he called asians mongoloid. 

Mongoloid in my native language means someone who has down syndrome.

Edited by HomosexualSocialist
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HomosexualSocialist said:

Although he has the right to say those things, I still haven't moved on when he called asians mongoloid. 

Mongoloid in my native language means someone who has down syndrome.

It's also offensive in the US (it has the same meaning in American English as well), as is the other word he used ("negroid," which has extremely negative connotations due to its association with both scientific racism and the racial slur you get if you drop the -id).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, President Garrett Walker said:

koneke often makes several assumptions:

  1. IQ is a good metric. Anyone who's taken a basic psychology course knows it is not, and should only be used as a very basic measure of intelligence since it heavily skews towards people who are good at math or puzzles. A better metric would be the CHC theory, but even that's not perfect. In fact, pretty much every measure of intelligence has one flaw or another and should only be used to get a general idea of one's intelligence rather than making snap judgements about entire races of people as koneke often does.
  2. There is a causal link between race and IQ. Just no. I have only ever heard white supremacists argue this point. There are a multitude of other factors involved such as literacy. Illiterate people perform worse on IQ tests (obviously), so the higher the illiteracy rate the lower the average IQ score in that nation regardless of the racial makeup of that nation. This is another failing in IQ measurement; it only measures what some would call "book smarts" and completely ignores "street smarts." Literacy isn't the only factor, of course, but it's a much much much bigger one than race is.
  3. People from the "third world" are the root of all of the "developed world's" problems, "ruin" the "first world's" "culture," and just come to Europe or the US for free stuff. No, that's just rhetoric far-right parties use to sow fear and win elections. There is no actual evidence of this.

If you read enough of his posts you'll notice this pattern since almost all of them are related to the subject of race in some way.

1. IQ is a pretty good indicator for how much success a person has in his lifespan. After the age of 8 it is pretty stable.

The IQ testing of different races has been done in the US since the 1930's It shows the ancestors of slaves "negroes" has an average IQ of 85. The average black in the US has 20% White ancestry because of slavery (slavemaster, slave girl relationships)

An IQ of 85 is the sweet spot for crime and poverty. Half of US blacks has more than 85 in IQ and half has lower than 85 in IQ

Most of US blacks are literate, and the IQ is still not 100 which is the White average

3. The Dutch government released statistics on crime and immigration, and ethnicity.

This guy follows you through it all, so you can sit back and get the facts. (It is not Geert Wilders that makes this video, as it might seem on the thumbnail)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, koneke said:

 

Most of US blacks are literate, and the IQ is still not 100 which is the White average

 

how do you define literacy since 50% of U.S adults lack basic literacy skills and blacks only make up 13-14% of the population.

going by this (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/11/african-american-students-lagging-far-behind) literacy rates aren't exactly good universally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, koneke said:

1. IQ is a pretty good indicator for how much success a person has in his lifespan. After the age of 8 it is pretty stable.

The IQ testing of different races has been done in the US since the 1930's It shows the ancestors of slaves "negroes" has an average IQ of 85. The average black in the US has 20% White ancestry because of slavery (slavemaster, slave girl relationships)

An IQ of 85 is the sweet spot for crime and poverty. Half of US blacks has more than 85 in IQ and half has lower than 85 in IQ

Most of US blacks are literate, and the IQ is still not 100 which is the White average

3. The Dutch government released statistics on crime and immigration, and ethnicity.

This guy follows you through it all, so you can sit back and get the facts. (It is not Geert Wilders that makes this video, as it might seem on the thumbnail)

 

 

1. According to Medical Daily: "In the new millennium, is the IQ test still an effective means of measuring general intelligence? According to the general consensus, the answer is 'no.'" IQ is extremely general and ignores a ton of relevant information that is not entirely measurable, like street smarts.

I'd like to see where you're getting this information on IQ, its relations to race, and its relations to crime. The only places I can find this kind of stuff is from sources that would get me laughed out of a lab or classroom if I tried to cite them in serious academic research. Also, 85 is just one standard deviation from 100 when measuring IQ, and is thus not statistically significant; people over 130 and under 70 are considered outliers. Which anyone who takes either psychology or statistics in a classroom setting should know as IQ tests are used as an example in both classes, and studied in depth in psychology.

2. 100 is not the average IQ of white people (why do you capitalize the "w" in "white," it's not a proper noun) but the average of all humans. Which is one reason why IQ is flawed, it's taking the average from 7.4 billion human beings.

3a. I never said anything about the Netherlands or crime, or that immigrants never ever commit any crimes, I just said that not all your problems would go away if non white people also went away which seems to be what you're implying but not explicitly saying.

3b. Stefan Molyneux? Oh I know, bring in the scholarly source of InfoWars as well, why don't you. So we're even, I'll go cite The Young Turks and Huffington Post. 

36 minutes ago, republicaninnyc said:

how do you define literacy since 50% of U.S adults lack basic literacy skills and blacks only make up 13-14% of the population.

going by this (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/11/african-american-students-lagging-far-behind) literacy rates aren't exactly good universally.

This, the US technically has a high literacy rate on paper but this is usually calculated by how long an individual has been in school rather than their actual capabilities at reading. I personally don't know anyone who is openly illiterate, but they exist still.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding IQ and success, I'd argue first and foremost that correlation is not causation. The fact that people who are more financially successful are measured as having higher IQs does not necessarily mean that the higher IQs are the *cause* of their success. There could be other factors, such as parental educational level or receiving high-quality early childhood education, that tend to yield both higher IQs and greater financial success later in life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, President Garrett Walker said:

3b. Stefan Molyneux? Oh I know, bring in the scholarly source of InfoWars as well, why don't you. So we're even, I'll go cite The Young Turks and Huffington Post. 

Just don't quote any of the bad, terrible, dishonest lying media sources that are always being so unfair to poor Donald Trump. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RI Democrat said:

Just don't quote any of the bad, terrible, dishonest lying media sources that are always being so unfair to poor Donald Trump. :rolleyes:

i.e. anything to the left of Fox News. They're all terrible, failing, and treat our Dear Leader tremendously unfairly. SAD!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's up with the IQ argument? 

IQ is not an indicator of one's intellectual capabilities and it has nothing to do with someone's ethnicity/race/whatever. 

I mean, my older cousin took an iq test and he told me that it was all about math and puzzle and stuff. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, President Garrett Walker said:

It's also offensive in the US (it has the same meaning in American English as well), as is the other word he used ("negroid," which has extremely negative connotations due to its association with both scientific racism and the racial slur you get if you drop the -id).

Negro in my country is not offensive. We must be racist, hahaha. 

I think it has something to do with the fact that the spanish of black is negro. 

And some of our language has spanish roots. 

Whenever we see a black person here we'd casually refer to them as negro.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, koneke said:

1. IQ is a pretty good indicator for how much success a person has in his lifespan. After the age of 8 it is pretty stable.

The IQ testing of different races has been done in the US since the 1930's It shows the ancestors of slaves "negroes" has an average IQ of 85. The average black in the US has 20% White ancestry because of slavery (slavemaster, slave girl relationships)

An IQ of 85 is the sweet spot for crime and poverty. Half of US blacks has more than 85 in IQ and half has lower than 85 in IQ

Most of US blacks are literate, and the IQ is still not 100 which is the White average

3. The Dutch government released statistics on crime and immigration, and ethnicity.

This guy follows you through it all, so you can sit back and get the facts. (It is not Geert Wilders that makes this video, as it might seem on the thumbnail)

 

 

When I took the IQ test in my youth, I scored 121. Where the Hell is all my GUARANTEED wealth, success, and greatness in history you imply is all but promised by that score. At 41, I work in a social work office and most of the products of my "genius" just get spewed in rants on the Internet to an audience where half to two-thirds of the readers are unappreciative or lack the rationality to grasp what I'm saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

When I took the IQ test in my youth, I scored 121. Where the Hell is all my GUARANTEED wealth, success, and greatness in history you imply is all but promised by that score. At 41, I work in a social work office and most of the products of my "genius" just get spewed in rants on the Internet to an audience where half to two-thirds of the readers are unappreciative or lack the rationality to grasp what I'm saying.

your genius is on the forum

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, HomosexualSocialist said:

Negro in my country is not offensive. We must be racist, hahaha. 

I think it has something to do with the fact that the spanish of black is negro. 

And some of our language has spanish roots. 

Whenever we see a black person here we'd casually refer to them as negro.

It's definitely not because the Philippines is racist. It's offensive over here because of the US's extremely troubled history of race relations. From what I can gather, that word was used as a polite word originally when, ironically, "black" was offensive, but it fell out of favor here in the 50's and 60's, when civil rights leaders like Malcolm X prefered "black." It became an actual slur in the 70's, though apparently some older African-Americans do not find it offensive and still see "black" as offensive. I personally will use whatever is least offensive (obviously), though I have personally never met anyone who prefers that word over "black" or "African American."

13 minutes ago, Patine said:

When I took the IQ test in my youth, I scored 121. Where the Hell is all my GUARANTEED wealth, success, and greatness in history you imply is all but promised by that score. At 41, I work in a social work office and most of the products of my "genius" just get spewed in rants on the Internet to an audience where half to two-thirds of the readers are unappreciative or lack the rationality to grasp what I'm saying.

I took one last week and got 124. Guess winning the Presidency will be a cakewalk after all and is assured :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...