So apparently JonTron is a racist

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Snip

He may be from there, but I've encountered conversations sharing the same template all over YouTube for years and I have no frame of reference for your typical Stormfront conversation (and don't feel like finding out). Even in videos that cannot possibly be construed as having anything to do with race politics. Or even politics at all. It comes up on friggin' cat videos.

 

[SimpleFool]

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

Dogs have been selectively bred by humans though... big difference there.

Are you saying humans do not selectively reproduce themselves, but instead reproduce indiscriminately?

In fact using your logic, all it does is make white people look bad because what do African-Americans generally have in common? They're the descendants of slaves. Of course I don't think African-Americans were selectively bred to be aggressive but if your argument is that aggression is hereditary and you use domesticated dogs as an example then we're talking about roughly the same timescale.

I'm sorry; I've read your "response" twice now, and I'm not seeing a clear answer to my question - are you denying aggression may possibly be a heritable trait? Yes, or no, if you please.

 

[SimpleFool]

Yes, I suppose some may feel that way about my diction. I find it revealing when, rather than addressing the content of my questions, my interlocutors begin faulting their style.

It indicates that I'm talking to those for whom truth is not a high priority, but instead hold winning to be the goal. Winning, unfortunately, has not often got anything to do with truth.

 

[Leg End]

Sadly yes, and its because of idiots like this that everyone is scared to do or say anything that might offend.

I've had friends mention a black person and apologise for being racist, to which I've had to laugh and say it wasn't.

Basically, idiots and real racists ruin the fun for everyone else.

That's insane and why we need to throw shit at the idiots and actual racists and spread the word that mentioning ethnicity is not goddamn racism.

Fuck people man.

 

[Dizchu]

Are you saying humans do not selectively reproduce themselves, but instead reproduce indiscriminately?

People reproduce with people that they find sexually attractive. It's not a conscious effort to breed the ideal humans. Well unless we're talking about royal families but I think most of us aren't in favour of inbreeding.

I'm sorry; I've read your "response" twice now, and I'm not seeing a clear answer to my question - are you denying aggression may possibly be a heritable trait? Yes, or no, if you please.

If you mean genetically then no. If you mean in terms of environment then absolutely.

 

[SimpleFool]

Are you saying humans do not selectively reproduce themselves, but instead reproduce indiscriminately?

People reproduce with people that they find sexually attractive. It's not a conscious effort to breed the ideal humans. Well unless we're talking about royal families but I think most of us aren't in favour of inbreeding.

So, in other words, "yes, humans breed selectively."

I'm sorry; I've read your "response" twice now, and I'm not seeing a clear answer to my question - are you denying aggression may possibly be a heritable trait? Yes, or no, if you please.

If you mean genetically then no. If you mean in terms of environment then absolutely.

So, it's the dog-breeding environment, and not the ancestry of the dogs, that possibly leads to the outcome that certain breeds appear much more aggressive than others. Do I understand you correctly?

And, a follow up: is it your position behavioral traits, generally speaking, are not heritable? Or is it just not the ones deemed "negative" from a social standpoint?

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Just to make sure this doesn't fly under the radar - I apologize for using big words where diminutive ones would perhaps have sufficed. However, I cannot be held responsible for the education or literacy of my readers.

Had you read the link, you'd realize my response was sarcastic. You are making claims, rather horrible ones, and are hiding them behind a very thin facade of framing them as rhetorical questions. No one here is under the illusion you're here for a discussion or have any intent to engage with what is provided. You wear what you think on your sleeve.

Speaking like an educated plantation owner doesn't make your opinions any more valid or your conversations contain any more substance. Using big words to appear smart doesn't make others think you are smart, it typically has the opposite effect. If you want a fancy term, that's called Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness.]

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Not exactly sure it's right to call him a racist, a fucking idiot seems more applicable. But the bar has been set so low by those that came before him, screaming the same noise that he's got no choice but to lower his own game. Then again, he always sounded like a fucking idiot. And fine, being an idiot makes people feel comfortable about their own intellect and it sells. Case in point, PewDiePie ... just don't pretend to the rest of us that can't stomach the drivel.

People should approach this by calling him an idiot and getting on with their lives. Then all they have to do is point to his 5 hour long rant video with other known fucking idiots like Sargon, and the conversation can just end there.

No need to criticise racism if it's just populist stupidity.

 

[Story]

Not gonna lie, I'm just sitting here lurking but I'm getting creeped out with the analogy of a group's perceived genetic aggressiveness with the breeding of dogs. Very, very creepy and demeaning if I'm going to be quite honest.

 

[SimpleFool]

Just to make sure this doesn't fly under the radar - I apologize for using big words where diminutive ones would perhaps have sufficed. However, I cannot be held responsible for the education or literacy of my readers.

Had you read the link, you'd realize my response was sarcastic.

Mine wasn't.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I don't care even if he is. The guy makes me laugh. Need that these days.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Mine wasn't.

We know you're not being sarcastic.

 

[Dizchu]

So, in other words, "yes, humans breed selectively."

That is in no way comparable to the breeding of domesticated animals lmfao.

That's like saying that ejaculating inside a woman is genetic engineering.

So, it's the dog-breeding environment, and not the ancestry of the dogs, that possibly leads to the outcome that certain breeds appear much more aggressive than others. Do I understand you correctly?

No? Do you think pugs and chihuahuas came about because they chose to breed that way?

And, a follow up: is it your position behavioral traits, generally speaking, are not heritable? Or is it just the ones deemed "negative" from a social standpoint?

If Stephen Hawking had a kid and abandoned him in an orphanage I don't think he'd have an inclination towards astrophysics. It applies to the "positive" stuff too.

Just to make sure this doesn't fly under the radar - I apologize for using big words where diminutive ones would perhaps have sufficed. However, I cannot be held responsible for the education or literacy of my readers.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

 

[SimpleFool]

Not gonna lie, I'm just sitting here lurking but I'm getting creeped out with the analogy of a group's perceived genetic aggressiveness with the breeding of dogs. Very, very creepy and demeaning if I'm going to be quite honest.

It's an analogy I haven't made.

It's a simple question: are behavioral traits heritable? If traits show up in differing environments with the same breed of dog, is it fair to say it is at least possible that the trait is inherent in the breed of the dog, and cannot be credibly reduced solely to the environment? If the answer to this question is "yes," then the next question is: are human behavioral traits possibly heritable?

If the answer to that question is "yes," then we may ask: ought noticing, and even stating, that some human behavioral traits may possibly be heritable be considered reprehensible, censurable, or punishable, and if so, why?

And if not, most of the loudest here seem to have some explaining to do.

 

[pulse2]

Snip.

I thought that we were talking about the disproportionate amount of crime committed by minority groups (specifically African Americans). If you are talking about that issue, then your insinuations more closely regard incarceration rates (which are also disproportionate but can be more easily skewed by discrimination, admittedly). Raw statistics on crimes committed, however, can not be attributed to provocation by the police or the lack of trust of the law of those who commit crimes.

Which boils right back down to the points being made here in the first place, where you are brought up, how you are brought up and the things you experience in your surroundings.

For you or anyone else for that matter to be able to imply that crime is essentially only a "black thing", you'd have to attribute that to all black males, status and class. As of now, there's little to no proof of crime being higher amongst blacks with a higher degree of education or success. Blacks who have escaped ghettos to put it simply. Crime IN ghettos shouldn't be a surprise. If you've lived a day in a ghetto or understand the psychology and hierarchy of ghettos (not rough / poor areas / trailer parks, I'm talking about GHETTOS, where everyday living is a challenge in itself), you soon begin to understand how easy it is for youth to fall into a life of crime. Which is why police adding to crime doesn't help, it fans the flames. People in ghettos don't call the police, they deal with things themselves which inadvertently creates more crime, rather than lessening it.

It's a sad cycle.

What we do have is a disproportionate "incarceration" rate, specifically pointing out that blacks are MORE LIKELY to go to jail or be arrested for something that a white male would be given the pass for.

Which led me on to the point that this isn't new, this "research" didn't need to be done for blacks to know that.

I've always known that white society expects me to behave twice as well as my white peers, to do twice as much work as my white peers to attain the same things, everything is TWICE as much and I'll still be considered "aggressive", "lazy", "feeding off the state", "a criminal". Why?

Hatred and distrust towards law enforcement has connection to crime rates as mentioned above, but hatred and distrust doesn't = crime. You don't have to or want to commit a crime to hate or distrust US law enforcement. They've done an excellent job of not being respect-worthy over the years and I'm looking at yet another video of a black man in the US (Ohio to be exact) being tackled to the ground violently and unnecessarily as I write this. I guess he committed a crime too, just like all the other videos like this I saw this week. We are apparently a violent crime committing people after all. /sarcasm

 

[Story]

Not gonna lie, I'm just sitting here lurking but I'm getting creeped out with the analogy of a group's perceived genetic aggressiveness with the breeding of dogs. Very, very creepy and demeaning if I'm going to be quite honest.

It's an analogy I haven't made.

It's a simple question: are behavioral traits heritable? If traits show up in differing environments with the same breed of dog, is it fair to say it is at least possible that the trait is inherent in the breed of the dog, and cannot be credibly reduced to the environment? If the answer to this question is "yes," then the next question is: are human behavioral traits possibly heritable?

If the answer to that question is "yes," then we may ask: ought noticing, and even stating, that some human behavioral traits may possibly be heritable be considered reprehensible, censurable, or punishable, and if so, why?

And if not, most of the loudest here seem to have some explaining to do.

Sure if you say so. Can't say your arguement convinced me though.

And okay great. I'll wait for "the loudest" to answer that question for you.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

It's an analogy I haven't made.

It's a simple question: are behavioral traits heritable? If traits show up in differing environments with the same breed of dog, is it fair to say it is at least possible that the trait is inherent in the breed of the dog, and cannot be credibly reduced to the environment? If the answer to this question is "yes," then the next question is: are human behavioral traits possibly heritable?

No ... human behaviour is not inheritable. Social tuning, early childhood socialisation, and active "habitas" (Barbalet, etc) of relevant biopsychosocial connections to interweave in the suitable emotional 'reward' for direct praxis in maintaining self-created worlds of interpersonal relations os far more influential than genetics will be. Even womb conditions have been shown to be a bigger aspect of human sexuality and identity than genetics. Some human behaviours might be 'inheritable' (will to survive, certain psychological conditions, etc) but just like sexuality ... it's so much more than simply genetics, and at the very least far outweighed by all other environmental aspects.

Only the stupid and uninformed pretend as if things can be boiled down to genetics and call it a day ... particularly when they rely on so much more, and how the built environment and condition of relative humanity to other has changed so much over the ages.

It's scientific fact socialisation is important. Expose children to hardship and criminality, and they are more likely to express antisocial behaviours. Particularly when the economics and non-instrumental affectivities of wealth reinforce the class stratum of the haves and the have nots.

 

[pulse2]

Not gonna lie, I'm just sitting here lurking but I'm getting creeped out with the analogy of a group's perceived genetic aggressiveness with the breeding of dogs. Very, very creepy and demeaning if I'm going to be quite honest.

It's an analogy I haven't made.

It's a simple question: are behavioral traits heritable? If traits show up in differing environments with the same breed of dog, is it fair to say it is at least possible that the trait is inherent in the breed of the dog, and cannot be credibly reduced solely to the environment? If the answer to this question is "yes," then the next question is: are human behavioral traits possibly heritable?

If the answer to that question is "yes," then we may ask: ought noticing, and even stating, that some human behavioral traits may possibly be heritable be considered reprehensible, censurable, or punishable, and if so, why?

And if not, most of the loudest here seem to have some explaining to do.

You know, you really don't have to dance around the topic.

You want your kids to be pure white and you "think" (because there is no proof to state otherwise) blacks are more aggressive.

Though feel free to provide evidence that I as a black male have inherited more aggressive traits than you.

 

[pulse2]

It's an analogy I haven't made.

It's a simple question: are behavioral traits heritable? If traits show up in differing environments with the same breed of dog, is it fair to say it is at least possible that the trait is inherent in the breed of the dog, and cannot be credibly reduced to the environment? If the answer to this question is "yes," then the next question is: are human behavioral traits possibly heritable?

No ... human behaviour is not inheritable. Social tuning, early childhood socialisation, and active "habitas" (Barbalet, etc) of relevant biopsychosocial connections to interweave in the suitable emotional 'reward' for direct praxis in maintaining self-created worlds of interpersonal relations. Some human behaviours might be 'inheritable', but just like sexuality ... it's so much more than nature, and at the very least far outweighed by all environmental aspects.

Only the stupid and uninformed pretend as if things can be boiled down to genetics and call it a day ... particularly when they rely on so much more, and how the built environment and condition of relative humanity to other has changed so much over the ages.

And since nobody's responsible for their genetics, and also nobody's responsible for the environment they were born into - right? - and since there is no third category of human behavioral causation... or, wait, is there a third category of human behavioral causation, aside from genetics or environment?

If not, then I will leave you glorified rocks to continue in your ritual bashing and ostracization of JonTron, for there would be no human agents present to talk to.

Why is this such a fall back white argument?

Whenever backed into a corner, the argument becomes "genetics", "evolution", as though you're making a point here.

Yet, there is plenty of evidence to shut down that argument and downright contradict it.