Woman calls cops another Black Jogger

Post Reply New Topic

There are three main races: blacks, asians, and whites. If you say that blacks and asians are ethnic groups yet you deny that whites are, then you are being anti-white. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge that whites are an ethnic group -- along with the other two -- then you are being fair and square.

Blacks and Asians are not “ethnic groups,” either.

There are many ethnic groups within both races, as there within the white “race.” Some of these ethnic groups are opposed to each other to the point where they are always in a state of war with each other.

Well, I won't be able to show the law against stealing from the grocery store either, I am just not that familiar with how to look up various laws. Somebody who is more familiar with this than me probably "would" be able to look it up.

But one thing I do know is that there are signs not to feed animals in the zoo. And also the dog is someone else's property. So thats how I can make a "good guess" that there must be a law that would say not to feed other people's dogs.



Well, first of all, I go to school in Albuquerque, not Berkeley. The reason I mentioned Berkeley is because my mom lives in Berkeley so I visit her every summer and winter break -- and I also moved to her when the instructions switched to the distant ones. So I am in Berkeley as of now -- although the girl I was talking about is in Albuquerque.

In any case, I thought that there is higher proportion of autistics in academia than elsewhere. I also read that, in general population, about 1% are autistic. So in academia it would be higher than 1%



The fact that they are selfish doesn't contradict the fact that they are left wing. So you are making an "assumption" that selfish people are right wing -- and that assumption might not be true. Southerners are known for hospitality, despite being right wing.



Well, the liberals are trying to make it sound like Whites (meaning European descent) are the most guilty ones. So what you just said where you mentioned Asians confirms my point that liberals are misrepresenting things. And by the way there are wars in Africa too. The reason they don't make it into news is perhaps because they are not as technologically advanced as Europeans and Asians to be able to cause as much trouble.



I don't think the success of ancestors would impact people this much. Jews were living in ghettos throughout middle ages all the way through 19-th century, yet look at how educated and successful they are. So blacks could have done the same thing -- particularly since there are programs designed to help blacks, such as affirmative action and so forth.



Actually the Jews were persecutted *at least* for two MILLENIA. I didn't even know that after the renaissance it got worse (I was actually suspecting it might have gotten somewhat better, although I might have been wrong). But in any case, the hatred of Jews was partly caused by Jews killing Jesus. If you look at Church Fathers you will find a lot of anti-Jewish rhetoric. For example look at "homilies against the Jews" by John Christomsone. Also there were a lot of the laws throughout the two millenia that forbade Jews from holding various jobs, marrying non-jews, holding non-jewish slaves, and probably there were laws that made Jews live in separate areas from non-jews as well. It culminated in Spanish Inquisition, where Jews were one of the primary targets of Spanish Inquisition. Like for example, during that same year as when Columbus discovered America, there was a decree in Spain that all the Jews are to either get baptized or get killed or leave the country. And such decrees were pretty much mainstream. If you look at how many times Jews were expelled from various countries througout two millenia you would get an average of about one expulsion in 20 years or something like that.

But even the two millenia is also an understatement. Back in the Old Testament days Jews were persecutted as well: by Egyptians, Persians, Babylonians, etc. So the death of Jesus was not the initial cause of this since they were persecutted even "before" they killed Jesus. Although its true that killing Jesus made that persecution a lot more systematic.



Well, I am aware that in India they might dislike blacks because they have what is called a "cast system", so lower casts tend to have darker skin. Since cast system applies only to Indians that doesn't necesserely imply they would dislike non-indian blacks. But I guess the fact that they dislike Indian blacks might carry over.

I am not sure why would people other than Indians dislike blacks though *unless* it is caused by the fact that blacks are oftentimes criminals. I mean -- if I take what "you" are saying, you just told me that every single tribe on every single continent hates blacks. If I were to take your word for it, why would this be the case unless there is a good reason for it? I mean, as a scientist, you know that everything has a reason.

In case of Jews I know some reasons. While right now Jews are more or less like everyone else, that wasn't the case in the past. Througout centuries Jews liked to keep to themselves because their religion taught them they are superior -- and that would be one thing that other people didn't like that much. But in case of blacks, what would be the reason? I mean I see "one" reason with blacks: namely, the fact that they tend to commit more crime and be more aggressive. If you don't agree thats the reason, then what other reasons would you suggest?



If you are talking about achievements, I am not sure what kind of obstacles they have. I thought its the opposite: affirmative action tends to favor them when it comes to admission into the universities.



My mom had me invite my classmates for my birthday back when I was ages 10, 11 and 12.

Back then I invented a card game where I put a bunch of cards in the pile and then do the following. On the first move, the cart at the top of the pile goes to the bottom of the plie. On the next move, the card at the top of the plie gets thrown out. On the next move the card at the top of the pile goes to the bottom of the pile. On the next move the card on the top of the plie gets thrown out, etc. Then whatever card is left, its "won".

I was fascinated with that game in general -- and it had nothing to do with my birthday. But my birthday was a good opportunity to play that game "yet again". This time I put the names of all the students in the class, on the cards, and played that game where -- instead of one card winning -- there were 5 cards winning (or however many students I wanted to invite to my birthday) and the "winning" cards got invited.

There was one year when an English teacher (well yes it was in Russia -- by English I mean it was a foreign language, which happened to be English) refused to teach any more because we were all so bad, but -- before she dust off her feet -- she had a class when she lectured us throughout the whole period just how "bad" we were. Now, during that class, she picked out three students that were "especially bad" and had them stand throughout the class, so that everyone else could see who they are (and no I wasn't one of them).

So then when when I played that card game for my birthday that coming year, I decided to exclude the three students that "were standing" from the game. Now, my mom agreed that two of those students were, in fact, bad. But the third student -- a girl named Marina -- my mom didn't think was bad. On the contrary long before she "was standing" both my mom and my grandma was pointing out how nice she was towards me and were encouraging me to be friends with her. So this year when I decided to exclude her from the card game because she "was standing", my mom had to convince me to include her. I really didn't want to because I wanted to stick to formal rules and "formally" she was standing. But finally I included her. Ironically, she ended up one of the people who "won", so she was invited to my birthday.

Incidentally, that particular year, everyone who "won" happened to be girls (just a coincidence) so my mom kept trying to persuade me to invite some boys, but she couldn't convince me to do it. I was like no no, those are the people that won, so these are the ones who are coming to my birthday.

On a different year, however, there were a bunch of boys who won. Now, as it happens my mom's parents were living in northeastern part of Moscow and my dad was living in southwestern end of Moscow. The school I was going to was in the northeastern end of Moscow, so I was living with my mom's parents throughout the week and was spending the weekends with my dad. Now, when I invited those boys for my birthday that particular year, I invited them to my dad's place. So I remember how one of these boys was telling his friend after my birthday how he went to the other end of Moscow to celebrate it -- and his friend never believed him. Actually it wasn't just him saying this, it was both of us saying it, and one of his friends (who also went) confirming it. But his friend was acting as if we all conspired to make up that story. That was pretty funny.

I also remember the following incident. So when I was doing that little card game for my birthday, I was actually *telling* the students thats what I was doing. So, shortly after I had that birthday where only girls won, some girl told me that she has a birthday, so she also played that game with the cards, and I won, so she wants me to come. I just automatically assumed that she was teasing me so I refused (even though she insisted -- which in my mind only confirmed that she was teasing me). I guess now that I am looking back I am wondering could it be that she did, in fact, invite me? I mean I doubt that she played that card game and I won, so that part might have been a joke. But whether or not she intended to invite me, is a really good quesiton actually. But in any case, I was teased and bullied a lot. Thats why I am leaning towards thinking she was teasing me. And no, my parents probably wouldn't have wanted me to come to her birthday anyway since they would have probably assumed the same thing.

There were a few times when kids invited me after school -- no not for the birthday -- and I simply assumed that they invited me to be bullied, and my grandma made that same assumption (my mom left to America by then). So neither me nor my grandma wanted me to go. I went simply because I had hard time saying no. I don't remember what we did there other than the fact that I desperately wanted to leave (sicne I was assuming I was being bullied) and I finally left. My grandma was also assuming I was being bullied too. My grandma even thanked one of the kids who overheard the conversation that I was going to go to their house and passed it to my grandma. I actually don't remember to what extend they were bullying me and to what extend I was assuming that they were, since I don't remember all the details that went on. I just remember I really didn't want to go and wanted to get away once I was there.

I also remember one guy (he was one of the three students that "were standing") was inviting me to walk home together since our homes were in the same direction from school (basically we both lived like two miles away, in the same direction, so he wanted me to walk these two miles together). Looking back, it doesn't look like he was bullying me duirng that walk home. Yes, he bullied me *at school* a lot, but not during the walk home. However -- due to the fact that he bullied me at school -- I just disliked his company altogether, so I was finding excuses not to go together with him. But I didn't have guts to outright say no, so what I would do is that -- when he does something with other guys -- I wouldn't wait for him and just walk home and then when I was asked the next day why I didn't wait for him I would just say "oh I just forgot". There was one time when I "was" waiting for him, and our teacher asked us about it and then she said to that guy "don't you see that he looks worried" and that guy asked me "are you worried" and I said "no I am not" (well, I was) so we ended up walking together that day. This teacher didn't exactly stop him but it was more like she told him to pay more attention to my reaction.

My reaction to him was perfectly justified though. Because, during the school day, he was acting pretty aggressive towards me. So I am not sure why he wasn't acting aggressively when we were walking home. Perhaps he just acted that way to impress other students that were watching.

There was another guy who liked to walk home with me -- and my grandma also considered him to be "bad" although no he was "not" standing (I think he was one of the students back at that fateful day -- he came to that school later). In any case, that was probalby one and only kid with whom I *liked* going home together. The reason is that back then I was fascinated with computers (it was early 90-s so computers were very unusual) so he had a computer at his home, and his home was somewhere on the way towards mine, so we would take me to his home and show me some video games on his computer. My grandma didn't like that at all, so when I told her thats what I was doing she would call his number and try to convince me to go back home, but I would ask for another half an hour so I could play on his computer. In any case, one thing he did that made my grandma dislike him is that he was telling me about sex and also teaching me profane songs. But I found it fascinating and kept telling my grandma things he told me just to get her reaction.

In any case, I don't think I had any "real" friends. The three or four kids that were interacting with me on the regular basis were the ones who liked to either threaten me or make fun of me. There "were" three boys that my mom and my grandma said were "good" and with whom they wanted me to be friends. Now, during the occasion when my mom was there, she would actively engage me with these boys and we would have a good time with both me and my mom involved. But when my mom wasn't around they didn't try to engage me that much, although I beleive their attitude towards me was positive. On the other hand, the "bad" boys kept trying to engage with me, thats why I ended up spending a lot more time with bad kids rather than the good ones, which my mom and my grandma didn't like, and I didn't like either by the way. I mean I would have much preferred the company of those three "good" boys myself: for one thing, they would never threaten me or make fun of me. But I didn't really feel like it was my choice whom I keep company with, I was just responding to whomever tries to interact with me (which was mostly the bad kids).



Are you saying they wouldn't listen to you anyway? If so, have you tried to look at the other platforms where people "might" listen?

Last edited by QFT on 06 Jun 2020, 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, you should acknowledge both races and ethnic groups. There is no contradiction there. Kind of like with animals, there are dogs, there are different "kids" of dogs, and there are different sub-kids, etc. Kinda like a fractal.

With humans its the same. There are three races: whites, blacks, and asians. Within White race there are subgroups. For example slavs and anglasaxons are both white. Then within them there are more subgroups. Like British and Germans are both anglasaxon although different from each other. Similarly, Russians, Ukrainians and Poles are all slavs although also different from each other.

The fact that there are wars within the race doesn't negate the reality of the race. Just like the fact that there is a war between Russia and Ukraine doesn't negate the fact that Russia and Ukraine has a lot in common, both in terms of language, history and mentality. In the same way the war within a given race doesn't negate the fact that people of that race have a lot in common, including both sides of that war.

I tend to feel I have more commonalities with black Americans than I do, say, with white Armenians.

Well, there are several variables in the equation. Race is one of them, culture is the other one. So in your case culture overweighs the race, but that doesn't justify denial of existence of the race as such.

Race is based purely on physical characteristics. I don’t believe one race is “better” than another race.

You don't have to say one ethnic group is "better" than the other in order to acknowledge the existence of ethnic groups as such. Similarly, you don't have to say that one race is "better" than the other either in order to acknowledge the existence of races as such.

I mean, you weren't saying that Americans are "better" than Armenians when you said you have more in common with the former than the latter. With races its the same concept.

I don’t deny the existence of races.

I don’t judge people solely upon what race they are.

Armenia has a rich history that goes back at least 1,500 years.

You did few hours ago, thats how we got off that tangent.

I don’t believe people should be judged solely by their race.

Race only exists because of physical characteristics. Otherwise, they don’t exist.

I didn't say that either. Go re-read the last two pages of this thread. This particular tangent started by you saying the races don't exist. Then I disagreed with you and said that they do. And then you say people shouldn't be *judged* by the race. But thats not the same question, is it? Do races exist is one question. Should people be judged by the race is another question. Why confuse the two?

And by the way neither of these two questions have to do with what was originally discussed on this thread. When I was looking at who acted worse, Amy or Christian, I weren't looking at their race. I only looking at what they did. The only reason I even brought up the race is because when I hear some incorrect statement -- even if it is off topic -- I feel like correcting it. So since you mentioned races don't exist, I felt a need to say that they do. But thats not relevant to how I assess Amy vs Christian situation.



There is a common personality traits that different races share. If you agree that there are common personality traits within ethnic groups, its only logical to say that there are common personality traits within races. Acknowledging it doesn't mean saying some are fundamentally better than others. Just like when you just said Armenians have rich cultural history you didn't say Armenians are "better" than everyone else.

Ethnic groups, yes. Races, no.

Ethnic groups are more specific than races.

Its the same kind of concept though. Just like there are a lot more interaction within the same ethnic group than between ethnic groups, in the same way there is more interaction within the race than between races. One is due to geographic separation between countries, the other is due to geographic separation between continents.

Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are different from each other. Yet they share some of the personality traits that Asians seem to have.

African tribes who live very near each other, many times, don’t “share” much at all. Their only common characteristic is their dark skin.

Back in Africa, they share things like climate, less technology, more wildlife, etc. etc etc. And then of course they have common history after coming to the US.