DaveC
Blue Crack Addict
tourists of all colours are way louder than any local black people here.
Last edited:
And I know I'll get blasted for all of this and some will take offense at even bringing up the idea of genetic aptitude when it comes to IQ, but tell me this, how many members of Asian countries were running in track and field at the last Olympics compared to black runners? If blacks are the best at basketball or track, does that make you racist for saying so? Or thereby implying that other groups are genetically terrible at such sports, etc? Likewise, if you can see the idiocy in trying to say that there's no genetic differences between human beings in terms of athletic success, then you can't just shut down a discussion on cultural reasons when it comes to other outcomes.
It makes you wrong for saying it. It doesn't necessarily make you racist, but it makes you vastly uneducated on the issue at hand, and when backed up with other statements, yea, probably makes you racist.
You are right that there are generic differences in human beings, and it's these genetic differences that make great athletes. There's no doubt about that, and it's scientific fact.
What makes you probably at best uneducated at worst racist is your insistence that it's racial and/or based on one's skin color, which is simply false. It's a gross oversimplification.
Even an oversimplification such as "Jamaicans are great sprinters" or "Kenyans make great distance runners" would be false, even though it's a much lesser oversimplification than simply using the word "black" as your description.
The overwhelming majority of elite sprinters are Jamaican or of Jamaican descent. This is undeniable. But the overwhelming majority of the overwhelming majority come from the same region in Jamaica. Most even from the same town. They're descendents of a warrior tribe in nnorthwestern Jamaica. It is not race, It's not even nationality, and it sure as hell isn't skin color. It's simply DNA. Jamaicans who are not descendants of the same tribe do not become world class sprinters. Period.
People of West African descent have the greatest variety of DNA because they've been around longer than anyone else. Much longer than boring ass Anglo Saxon white dudes. So to lump blacks in together, and to say that one is more likely to behave a certain way because of their skin color? Yea, that's pretty fucking racist, and just plain inaccurate. It might be "unintentional" racism, but alas... there it is.
You've said that you were mugged by two black men. You don't think that might have a little bit of an effect on your thought process? And hey, I can't blame you for that. Our thought process is shapes by our experiences. But you might want to rethink some of your theories and get more educated on them. Try The Sports Gene for a read... it'll change your thinking. Or not. But at least it'll educate you a little more on reality.
tourists of all colours are way louder than any local black people here.
Just an example to fit this stereotype that I was referring to...listening to music on public transit without headphones. As in, a young black person listening to rap on their iPod at an alarming volume and annoying everyone on BART or Muni. I've probably had this happen about a dozen times since moving back to the Bay Area and about ten of the incidents where a young black person. It's a cultural thing or whatever you want to call it, but that's an example of someone being needlessly loud, and again, blacks make up only 6% of San Francisco's population.
I do think the black community in general can be louder, but I don't see that as a racial thing but rather a social one. They tend to have much larger social networks, talk twice as much on Twitter, etc. Just in the same way you would consider teenage girls to be more sociable than your average teenage boy, etc. And I've never in my life been in close contact with men outside of a sporting event that were as excitable and loud as a group of young women going to the club or a concert, etc.
I think there's a lot of people outside the bubble although some can relate...it's just a different world in the inner cities of America and a lot of it is mind blowing in a bad way. I mean, you think watching a lot of shiftless males walk around your building at work for drugs or prostitutes can be soul draining, wait until you see a black guy in a wheelchair doing the same by pushing himself backwards with his feet. Yes, literally a down-on-their luck and barely mobile individual choosing to be outside at 3 in the morning in order to live the street life. That to me is an example of this sort of mentality through whatever confluence of society, culture and genetics that makes someone seemingly beyond redemption.
And I've never in my life been in close contact with men outside of a sporting event that were as excitable and loud as a group of young women going to the club or a concert, etc.
I mean, you think watching a lot of shiftless males walk around your building at work for drugs or prostitutes can be soul draining, wait until you see a black guy in a wheelchair doing the same by pushing himself backwards with his feet. Yes, literally a down-on-their luck and barely mobile individual choosing to be outside at 3 in the morning in order to live the street life.
I don't know what concerts you've been to, but there's been quite a few loud men at the concerts I've been to. Loud and incredibly drunk. And I know many other people who would say the same.
Edited to add: Wasn't it groups of young men who caused the biggest chaos at the Woodstock '99 festival, if I recall rightly? Burning things and knocking stuff over and assaulting people?
I go through the heart of Chicago every single day, often on public transit, and I can tell you that the type of derelict or perceived anti-social behavior you describe is distributed pretty damn evenly among races, ages, sexes, and basically any other demographic out there. It is absolutely not gravitational to any specific demographic.
What generalizations do you have for the white community?
For fucks sake the majority of Bernie suppoeters were white, the main reason why he couldn't beat Hillary was because the only people voting for him were white, and he might be from the whitest state in the country.Intolerant of upstart Democrats such as Barack or Bernie, so they vote for Hillary in the primaries.
Intolerant of upstart Democrats such as Barack or Bernie, so they vote for Hillary in the primaries.
Look, you're stuck on this idea that what you see at night occurs because if somebody's skin color. That's just racist thinking. Period.
Whatever decent points you have are all clouded by that fact, and prevents this from being anymore than a session of banging ones head against a brick wall. But I suppose that's par for the course.
Or maybe there is something cultural about 3% of the local population causing virtually all of the crime that I've personally witnessed?
Chicago's 500 Homicides: How We Got Here
"Some Chicagoans partly blame the violence on economic struggles and lack of jobs. However, Chicago's unemployment rate fell from 6.1% in 2015 to 5.5% in 2016."
Again, the violence has more to do with a cultural thing than it does with a lack of opportunity. Being poor doesn't just make someone pick up a gun and shoot somebody else. Media aimed at the black community glorifies violence and so does street culture. Couple that with a country as gun loving as ours and you get such a predictable result.