RGI Watch (1/27/18): An Interesting Screen Grab


I visited the blog of one of my favorite black racists on the blogosphere yesterday, and saw the following on his home page:

14blackpeoplekilledbycopsin2018-11

Can you see what I’ve highlighted? I added some visual aids to assist in that. The big, bold, red number 14 above the words: “unarmed Black people known so far to be killed by US police in 2018.

Yep. According to Abagond, the racist blogger from whose blog I made that screenshot, there were 14 unarmed black people known to have been killed by the police in 2018.

Those of you who care about actually understanding things: what can you tell me about that statistic? Well, here’re some things:

  • It’s a terrible tragedy. Any time anyone loses his life at the hands of law enforcement, it’s unambiguously awful.
  • It’s a perfectly meaningless statistic… unless, that is, we know the context behind those 14 killings.
  • For example: how many unarmed non-black people were killed by U.S. police in 2018? If there were, for instance, 2,500 killings of unarmed non-black Americans by U.S. law enforcement, then we’d look at that number 14, and wonder how black people have it so good.
  • Abagond links to a page that would, one would think, elaborate a bit on the completely context-less number that my screengrab shows. Here’s that link. It provides no elaboration beyond a vague suggestion that Abagond thinks the number is low.

That’s for starters.

For some much needed context, I was able to do a minimal amount of research (here) and found the following:

  • From 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2018 — four years — of 3,943 total deaths, there were 926 reported deaths of black persons at the hands of the police in the line of duty — or about 232 per year. (Important Note: 372 of the total reported deaths had no race reported. I didn’t know what to do with those, so for the purposes of this essay, I’ve ignored them. That means that any number I give should be seen to have about a 10% margin of error. Not a problem: we’re trying to get just a rough handle on the statistics.)
  • Of those 926, some 125 were either unarmed, or “undetermined.” That makes about 31 deaths per year of unarmed (or undetermined) black persons at the hands of law enforcement, on average, for the past four years.
  • Of those 125, there were 21 whose entry indicated that there were “signs of mental illness.”
  • During the same four-year period, there were 1,827 deaths of white persons at the hands of the police, or about 457 per year.
  • Of those 1,827 deaths, 162 were either unarmed or undetermined, or about 40 per year. Well. That’s interesting. At first glance, it appears as if white people who find themselves in an altercation with the law are more likely to be armed than black people.
  • Of those 162 deaths, 30 showed “signs of mental illness.”

Any conclusions we can draw? Sure:

  • In that four year period, unarmed black and white deaths (removing for “signs of mental illness”) at the hands of law enforcement were roughly the same number: 104 vs. 132. Yes, yes, yes, white deaths were “30%” or so higher, but with small numbers like that (compared to the populations in question) there’s practically no difference.
  • But: White Americans outnumber black Americans by a factor of about 5-1. The American population is roughly 65% white, and 13% black, with the rest being Hispanic, Asian and other.
  • Well. Seems as though cops are killing black Americans at a significantly higher rate — per capita — than white Americans, no? Yes. And no.

Let’s take a look at violent crime statistics for a moment. Why? Simple: Violent crimes are the circumstances most likely to result in the use of deadly force by law enforcement.

  • As it turns out, the FBI reports (here) that white Americans commit 59% of all violent crimes — less than their percentage of the population — while black Americans commit 38% of all violent crime, or nearly three times their proportion of the American population. (This is for the year 2016. Assuming that the proportions don’t change drastically from year-to-year, there’s no reason to think that this would be dramatically different for the years 2015, 2017 and 2018. Again, we’re trying to get just a rough indication of  what the statistics represent.)
  • That means: any given black person is, again on average, about three times more likely to commit a violent crime than any given white person.
  • By those numbers, the deaths of white Americans at the hands of law enforcement are significantly higher than they “ought to be.” Let’s issue the appropriate disclaimers: No one should die at the hands of law enforcement. Each such death is a waste of a human life, and a tragedy. However, it seems inescapable: Police seem a lot more ready and willing to kill unarmed white people than black people.

Abagond’s number — fourteen — with some much-needed context, indicts the Race Grievance Industry. It required a trivial effort to do the research required to add the necessary context to the number, showing that Abagond’s 14 should be about 30. And, that number, while still too high, is, let’s face it: tiny. Minuscule. Let’s call it 30 deaths of unarmed black men per year at the hands of law enforcement.

Let’s do a quick search now of how many black Americans are killed by other  black Americans in any given year, shall we?

This chart tells us that black Americans kill other black Americans at the rate of 2,100 to 3,100 per year, and have been doing so since the year 2001.

crime

That means that a black person has a 70 to 100 times greater chance of being killed by another black person, than by a cop. Let’s do a quick calculation: if we take the midpoint between 2,100 and 3,100, we get 2,600. Multiply that by 17 — the years between 2001 and 2018, excluding (’00 to ’01) we get 44,200. Give or take, that’s the number of black people killed by other black people in the years since this century started. That’s a horrible death toll.

To put it into perspective, let’s examine the white deaths, and postulate that the black deaths ought to be one-fifth of the white number.

Looking at the chart, we see that white-on-white killings per year appear to go from a tad above 2,400 to just below 3,200. Let’s say: 2,450 to 3,200 (rounding up a bit.) Find that midpoint — 2825 — multiply it by 17, to get: 48,025. Another tragically high number! However, since black people number about 20% of white people in the population as a whole, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that black-on-black killings ought to be about 20% of the white-on-white number. Again, in very rough numbers.

Black-on-black killings ought, therefore, to number around 9,600 for the time period since 2001. Instead the FBI reports that such deaths number around 44,000! More than 4 and a half times that number!

That’s the very definition of carnage.

While the average black American has almost no chance of ever being killed by a policeman, he’s in vastly great danger of being killed by another black person. Simple as that.

Tell me again, why Abagond has the number 14 prominently displayed on his blog? Oh, yes… so that he can bury his head in the sand about the real, serious, deadly problem in black America.

This is the crime of the Race Grievance Industry. While black Americans die in the thousands, they’re posting ridiculous numbers like… 14 on their blogs, and pretending that they’ve imparted serious, meaningful, important information.

By looking the other way, they’re complicit in the deaths of black Americans every year.

Want to know how complicit they are? Here’s a well-known leftist organization’s web site: The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The breathless headline to the piece under that link is: “White supremacists’ favorite myths about black crime rates take another hit from BJS study” (Editor’s Note: “BJS” is the “Bureau of Justice Statistics”)

The “article” then goes on to crow about how a favorite  “White Supremacist” theory has been debunked by the BJS study. The theory: That black people are guilty of more crime against white people than white people are.

But, here’s where the SPLC got it wrong. No one has been arguing that black people commit more crime against white people than white people do. No one’s ever that I’ve seen tried to make that case! Everyone knows that crime tends to stay within races. In other words: white people tend to commit crimes against other white people, while black people tend to commit crimes against other black people. It has long been that way, and no one is trying to make any other case. And I’ve never seen anyone try to make any other case.

So, in tackling a non-existent problem — the non-existent belief that there’s more black-on-white crime than white-on-white crime — the SPLC has made an important attempt to divert attention away from the real problem: black-on-black violence, which actually is a horrible problem in America.

In diverting attention from that problem, the SPLC contributes to hiding these deaths, and to preventing real, substantive ideas to prevent such deaths. The SPLC is complicit in black Americans’ violent deaths.

The SPLC is aware of the problem. However, as an important member of the Race Grievance Industry, it doesn’t fit their narrative that all major problems in the black community are the responsibility of white Americans. So, while black people die, they ignore it. Like Abagond. Like Brothawolf.

Black Americans are dying! By the thousands every year. The Left and the RGI are guilty of playing an important role in those deaths. The SPLC keeps a list of so-called “hate groups.” They’re fond of putting Conservative groups on that list. However, since the SPLC actually helps in the killing of black Americans,  I think they ought to be right at the top of their own list. Maybe right underneath it should be the Race Grievance Industry. And right under that should be the Democrat Party — all the leftist organizations that are actively helping to kill black Americans each year.

— xPraetorius

 

43 thoughts on “RGI Watch (1/27/18): An Interesting Screen Grab

  1. “…Any given black person is, again on average, about three times more likely to commit a violent crime than any given white person.”

    And yet, you call Abagond and me racists while you virtually repeat a white nationalist/white supremacist talking point regarding race and crime, AND took shots at the SPLC. I’m surprised you didn’t mention Charles Murray into the mix since you referred to him as a “nerdy guy” in that one post.

    In other words, if it quacks like a duck…

    I see you’re pushing for an agenda that subtly says that black people, as a whole, are INFERIOR. Arguing against blacks being killed by police and repeating the black-on-black crime myth reveals that a. you think black people, particularly those on the left or those you think are on the left, are delusional, and b.) black people are their own worst enemy and that this problem is prominent, if not isolated, to the black community.

    If not, why not address some of the possible reasons for black intraracial crime? Why not also address problem of white intraracial crime in the same vein? Why not also address the police killings of unarmed white people also in the same vein?

    You’re just giving out numbers and statistics with NO explanations other than possibly promoting a racist agenda. I seriously doubt it’s out of caring about welfare of black lives. But that’s just my opinion, mind you.

    1. You Said:
      “…Any given black person is, again on average, about three times more likely to commit a violent crime than any given white person.”
      And yet, you call Abagond and me racists while you virtually repeat a white nationalist/white supremacist talking point regarding race and crime, AND took shots at the SPLC. I’m surprised you didn’t mention Charles Murray into the mix since you referred to him as a “nerdy guy” in that one post.
      My Reply:
      “…Any given black person is, again on average, about three times more likely to commit a violent crime than any given white person.” This is a true statistic.

      Yes, I call you and Abagond racists… because you’re racists. Any truth — even if white nationalists says it — is still the truth. You know that I’m not a white nationalist, because I’ve made it very, very plain. So, you should stop saying moronic things. Oh, that’s right… you can’t. Because you choose not to. Or, because you’re a moron.

      Abagond is nerdy… therefore there’s nothing wrong with calling him nerdy. Duh. He’s also a bigoted bastard, like you.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      In other words, if it quacks like a duck…
      My Reply:
      Thanks for saying this… BrothaDuck.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      I see you’re pushing for an agenda that subtly says that black people, as a whole, are INFERIOR. Arguing against blacks being killed by police and repeating the black-on-black crime myth reveals that a. you think black people, particularly those on the left or those you think are on the left, are delusional, and b.) black people are their own worst enemy and that this problem is prominent, if not isolated, to the black community.
      My Reply:
      I’ve — obviously — never said that black people are inferior … Never even hinted at it. Stop being a moron It takes a true idiot to interpret any of my words to mean that black people are inferior. Black people are not inferior. Period. The black-on-black crime statistics are… truth. Reality. You constantly run from them, and in so doing you help to kill more black Americans. Black people on the Left are delusional… but not because they’re black, because they’re on the Left. Duh! And… black people aren’t their own worst enemies, black leftists are black people’s worst enemies. That’s pretty clear.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      If not, why not address some of the possible reasons for black intraracial crime? Why not also address problem of white intraracial crime in the same vein? Why not also address the police killings of unarmed white people also in the same vein?
      My Reply:
      That’s rich! You and I have had this debate, and it ended poorly for you. Every time I talk about creative solutions to black-on-black violent crime, you accuse me of being a “racist white man,” and you whine about how I should leave black people alone to solve their own problems. All while black Americans — my brothers and sisters — are dying. And you’re helping to kill them.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      You’re just giving out numbers and statistics with NO explanations other than possibly promoting a racist agenda. I seriously doubt it’s out of caring about welfare of black lives. But that’s just my opinion, mind you.
      My Reply:
      You and your non sequiturs. If it weren’t a serious topic, it’d be funny. Numbers and statistics don’t need explanations, dummy, they are explanations. Not the whole explanations, but evidence, explanations, information… data. They help to fill out the bigger picture.

      Furthermore, revealing crime numbers can’t possibly be racist. If, that is, I make no effort to hide any other numbers. And, of course, I make no such effort. If you have other numbers that contradict mine, I’m always open to them. You won’t find those numbers, though… they’re not out there.

      I care about the welfare of all Americans. I’m an American, not a bigoted bastard like you.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      1. Okay. Let me see…

        1. You call me and Abagond racists, because I am, and that’s it. No explanations given.

        I see your agenda; what I say is the truth. Plain and simple.

        2. I was referring to you calling Charles Murray a “nerdy guy”, not Abagond. So, while you scream to the heavens at my lack of proofreading, you may need a refresher course in reading altogether.

        3. Are the names “moron” and “bigoted bastard” the only names you know of to call me? Why not something else like ‘meatheaded dullard’ or ‘bumbling imbecile’ Something a little smart as well as immature.

        4. Maybe, just maybe it takes an observer to see how someone constantly accuses someone of contributing to black-on-black crime may be delusional him/herself. Also, maybe – and again, just maybe – someone knows that saying “Black people aren’t their own worst enemies, black leftists are black people’s worst enemies.” makes no sense. Black leftists, as you call them, are black people too. And lastly, thinking that black people are delusional and constantly bringing up black-on-black crime alludes that – for the third time – maybe, just maybe you see something, more or less, is wrong with black people, and providing no detailed, reasonable explanation as to why, you’re just saying that black people are delusional either for no reason or have an underhanded agenda. Therefore, there’s no other conclusion to draw except that black people are inferior in some way, shape or form.

        Was that too hard to understand? Want me to type it again slowly?

        5. I don’t remember you providing ANY creative solutions to crime in black communities. Would you be so kind as to list them again, or would you prefer me to search for myself like you want me to find the videos you mentioned but won’t upload?

        6. Numbers don’t need explanations, eh? Okay. I guess there’s no need to ask why 3 x 3 = 9. As for stats, I guess there’s no need to wonder why most mass murderers in this nation are committed by white males.

        OH WAIT! I’m sorry. What I just said was racist, wasn’t it, because I mentioned ‘white males’ and ‘mass murderers’. My bad.

        7. You’re not open to contradictions to your views. You’re so in love with the right, you won’t even use your left hand to help you push and pull doors LOL.

        1. You Said:
          1. You call me and Abagond racists, because I am, and that’s it. No explanations given.
          My Reply:
          Nope. I call Abagond and you racists, because Abagond and you are racists. I’ve been over why many times.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          I see your agenda; what I say is the truth. Plain and simple.
          My Reply:
          Nope. What I say is truth. What you say is stupid and bigoted.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          2. I was referring to you calling Charles Murray a “nerdy guy”, not Abagond. So, while you scream to the heavens at my lack of proofreading, you may need a refresher course in reading altogether.
          My Reply:
          The context of what you wrote made it seem as if you were referring to Abagond. Charles Murray is, indeed, a nerdy guy. Not at all a bigoted bastard like you, a strong researcher, a decent writer, and an outstanding social scientist, whose has written and said many interesting things.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          3. Are the names “moron” and “bigoted bastard” the only names you know of to call me? Why not something else like ‘meatheaded dullard’ or ‘bumbling imbecile’ Something a little smart as well as immature.
          My Reply:
          I’m content with how I’ve expressed things, and the wording that I’ve used.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          4. Maybe, just maybe it takes an observer to see how someone constantly accuses someone of contributing to black-on-black crime may be delusional him/herself. Also, maybe – and again, just maybe – someone knows that saying “Black people aren’t their own worst enemies, black leftists are black people’s worst enemies.” makes no sense. Black leftists, as you call them, are black people too. And lastly, thinking that black people are delusional and constantly bringing up black-on-black crime alludes that – for the third time – maybe, just maybe you see something, more or less, is wrong with black people, and providing no detailed, reasonable explanation as to why, you’re just saying that black people are delusional either for no reason or have an underhanded agenda. Therefore, there’s no other conclusion to draw except that black people are inferior in some way, shape or form.
          My Reply:
          Wrong on all levels. How long, and how many times, did people have to say that slavery was wrong before someone finally took them seriously? Dude: black Americans are dying. Don’t you get it?
          • Black leftists are black Americans’ worst enemies because they’re leftists, not because they’re black. I’ve mentioned this many times before. Duh!
          • I never said that black people are delusional. Never even hinted at it. If you ever were to stop putting words into my mouth, or trying to read my mind, you wouldn’t have anything to write at all. Black leftists are delusional. Because they’re leftists, not because they’re black. Duh! Man, are you stupid! I’ve said this many times before too.
          • Since I never suggested that black people are delusional, then obviously there can’t possibly be any kind of agenda behind something I never said or even hinted at. Obviously, also, I’ve never suggested that black people are inferior. Let’s put this one to bed once and for all: black people are not in any way inferior to anyone. Don’t make the same moronic mistake again.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          Was that too hard to understand? Want me to type it again slowly?
          My Reply:
          You shouldn’t try snark; you can barely write straight prose.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          5. I don’t remember you providing ANY creative solutions to crime in black communities. Would you be so kind as to list them again, or would you prefer me to search for myself like you want me to find the videos you mentioned but won’t upload?
          My Reply:
          That’s because, as usual, you weren’t paying attention. I told you what black Americans should do, and as it turns out, more and more people, including prominent black Americans, are saying it too: ditch the tyrannical, Socialist, American Left, and embrace the Conservative, patriotic, pro-American, pro-work, pro-achievement, pro-family, pro-freedom values that have liberated and enriched more people than anything else in human history. I can give you detailed programs, but you have to embrace the concepts at least in the abstract before getting more concrete. I’m afraid, though, you’re too stupid to do that.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          6. Numbers don’t need explanations, eh? Okay. I guess there’s no need to ask why 3 x 3 = 9. As for stats, I guess there’s no need to wonder why most mass murderers in this nation are committed by white males.
          My Reply:
          Again, in bullet points:
          • It is, indeed, important to question why 3 x 3 = 9. However, that’s a discussion for philosophers and mathematicians. At this point, you and I are discussing social science.
          • Since mass murders represent an insignificant portion of all murders — way less than one percent — they’re irrelevant to this discussion. You neglected to mention also that most murders are committed by white men. (I mentioned it, by the way) The rub is that a vastly disproportionate percentage of murders are committed by black men. As I mentioned in the piece that you’re so moronically filibustering.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          OH WAIT! I’m sorry. What I just said was racist, wasn’t it, because I mentioned ‘white males’ and ‘mass murderers’. My bad.
          My Reply:
          No, what you said was not racist. Irrelevant, but not racist. The truth is never racist. You’re a racist, but the truth never is. White men have in recent history committed the most mass murders. It’s true, but irrelevant.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          7. You’re not open to contradictions to your views. You’re so in love with the right, you won’t even use your left hand to help you push and pull doors LOL.
          My Reply:
          I’m wide open to rational, intelligent contradictions to my views. You should try to produce one or two. All you ever did was snivel and whine about how you didn’t like my tone. You’ve never yet managed to produce a rational or intelligent argument.
          – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
          Best,

          — x

          1. 1. You’ve explain why many times? One more time. You shouldn’t mind since repeating yourself is your thing.

            2. (a.) You really sound like a cult member and (b.,) I assume you’ve been red pilled.

            3. You’re praising Charles Murray who literally wrote the book on modern “scientific” racism, and yet, you call me racist. Yeah, you’re all about the truth. (Sarcasm in case you didn’t get it.)

            4. (a.) Who said anything about slavery??? (b.) I know black people are dying and so are whites, Asians, Latinx, etc. (c.) I never argued against your ‘leftist’ claim about black Americans. I simply stated that black leftists are people as well. (d.) Again, black leftists ARE black people, and YOU said black leftists are delusional. Also, it’s you trying to twist words here. (e.) If you admire Charles Murray who pretty much said and written that black people are inferior based on pseudo-science, then you’re essentially cosigning with the black inferiority myth.

            5. None of that is innovative let alone true in the least.

            6. (a.) You think it’s important to seriously question why 3 x 3 = 9??? (b.) Let me get this straight. You said a large number of murders of committed by white men and then you say that a large percentage of murders are committed by black men. I’m no expert on stats, and I’m guessing you’re not either. But you sound like you’re saying one thing and saying another thing and think both are true when they really can’t be true at the same time.

            Oh yeah, stating that most murders are committed by black men is a white supremacist/white nationalist talking point. You may think it’s empirical and factual information, but a rose by any other name.

            7. I never mentioned once about your tone since I came back. And I don’t think you have the capability to engage in intelligent and rational arguments without sounding like you’re throwing a Bill O’Reilly-like temper tantrum on the other side of the computer arguing in circles with someone you don’t like and chose not to ignore.

            Are we finished here, sir or madam or would you prefer to be gender neutral?

          2. You Said:
            1. You’ve explain why many times? One more time. You shouldn’t mind since repeating yourself is your thing.
            My Reply:
            Again, quote directly the passage you’re responding to, so that the readers don’t have to jump around to follow the thread. In this case, I don’t need to repeat something that I’ve said bunches of times before.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            2. (a.) You really sound like a cult member and (b.,) I assume you’ve been red pilled.
            My Reply:
            “Cult member.” — An idiot might come to this conclusion, so I’m not surprised that you did. “Red pilled” — means nothing, so no need to respond.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            3. You’re praising Charles Murray who literally wrote the book on modern “scientific” racism, and yet, you call me racist. Yeah, you’re all about the truth. (Sarcasm in case you didn’t get it.)
            My Reply:
            First: I’ve never praised Charles Murray. I simply stated factually what he did. Something you were unable to do, due to your ignorance.

            To what book of Murray’s are you referring? And, have you even read it? I’m talking, of course, about the book “The Bell Curve” — which is, presumably, “the book” you’re referring to.

            If you’re calling that book “the book on modern ‘scientific’ racism,” then you’re simply proving that you never read it. If you were to read it, you’d see there’s no racism in it whatsoever. Murray stated only an obvious truth; one with which no one on earth disagrees: Any two populations on earth will have a different average IQ. That’s it. There’s no racism whatsoever in that ringingly obvious truth.

            Where you might find racism — as you do on the Left — is in the policy prescriptions that one might propose in reaction to that obvious truth.

            Murray’s book proposed no policy prescriptions whatsoever. There is, obviously, no racism in just measuring things. Your racism is inherent in your making a statement like “Murray literally wrote the book on modern “scientific” racism” from your position of ignorance. All racism is, inherently, ignorant, and you expose your own ignorance constantly as whenever you post.

            The irony of that of course, is that you used to like to crow that one day you were going to trip me up on some racist assertion or other… which you then proceded to do to yourself hundreds of times. Why? Simple: I’m not a racist, and you are.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            4. (a.) Who said anything about slavery??? (b.) I know black people are dying and so are whites, Asians, Latinx, etc. (c.) I never argued against your ‘leftist’ claim about black Americans. I simply stated that black leftists are people as well. (d.) Again, black leftists ARE black people, and YOU said black leftists are delusional. Also, it’s you trying to twist words here. (e.) If you admire Charles Murray who pretty much said and written that black people are inferior based on pseudo-science, then you’re essentially cosigning with the black inferiority myth.
            My Reply:
            • (a) Again, you’re not referring to something that I can respond to.
            • (b) Black people are the only group dying in numbers vastly disproportionate to their percentage of the population. If you’re troo dumb to understand this, then you’re too dumb to be producing a blog on the web.
            • (c) Black leftists are, indeed, people too. Stupid, misguided, often evil, always racist people… but because they’re leftists, not because they’re black.
            • (d) Correct: black leftists are delusional… because they’re leftists, not because they’re black.
            • (e) At no point in his published works has Charles Murray ever said that black people are inferior, so since you’re basic premise is false, then obviously your conclusion that I “cosign” with some black inferiority myth — that no one believes, by the way — is delusional. But, then, you’re a black leftist, so you’re delusional and stupid and… a racist. Nota bene: there is no pseudo-science in Murray’s published works. All he did was produce a scholarly work based on real measurements. The fact that you say a bunch of hooey based on your own ignorance — let’s face it: you’ve never read the book — proves that you’re the easily-led sheep I’ve been alleging you to be. Additional note: I never said that I admire Charles Murray. I do however, have a problem with idiots, charlatans and liars like you misrepresenting what he’s written. This is a recurring problem with you, BrothaBigotedBastard: you don’t like what someone says, so rather than countering what he says, you try to impugn his character. It’s the modus operandi of the fool and the idiot. In your case, as a bigoted bastard, you happen to be both.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            6. (a.) You think it’s important to seriously question why 3 x 3 = 9??? (b.) Let me get this straight. You said a large number of murders of committed by white men and then you say that a large percentage of murders are committed by black men. I’m no expert on stats, and I’m guessing you’re not either. But you sound like you’re saying one thing and saying another thing and think both are true when they really can’t be true at the same time.
            My Reply:
            Dude: 3 x 3 = 9 in base 10. I assume you were talking about Base 10, our common base when talking about numbers. However, I do a lot of work in binary and in Hex. In binary, the concepts of “three-ness” and “nine-ness” don’t even exist, and the equation would be written 11 x 11 = 1001. In base 5, for example, the equation would be 3 x 3 = 14, in octal the equation is: 3 x 3 = 11. Whereas in hex the equation is quite recognizable as 3 x 3 = 9, while 3 x 5 = E.

            So, yes, it’s valid to try to come to a fundamental understanding of why we can say with such confidence that 3 x 3 = 9, and be sure that we’re saying one thing, and, just as importantly, our listener is understanding the same thing. Presumably if you’re having a discussion with someone about whether 3 x 3 = 9, you’re having a discussion on this level. It’s called “Number Theory,” in case you’re interested in knowing more. Oh, there’s a reason it’s called “Number Theory” and not “Number Facts.” It’s because real mathematicians recognize that the notion that 3 x 3 = 9 is a… theory. We have sufficient confidence in the notion that we build entire civilizations around that equation, as well as all other related equations, but it’s still just… theory.
            This is, I’m sure, beyond your ability to understand it.

            Dude: what in the concept of disproportionality do you not understand? Yes, most murders — in total numbers — are committed by white men — about 59% — while white people represent around 65% of the population. However: 38% of murders are committed by black men, while black people represent only 13% of the population. Again, if you don’t understand the problem that represents, then you’re an idiot. It’s simple: a black man is three times more likely to commit murder than a white man. Obviously. Honestly, BrothaBigotedBastard, if you’re having trouble understanding this, then I understand why you’re such a failure in your life. These are not difficult things to understand.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            Oh yeah, stating that most murders are committed by black men is a white supremacist/white nationalist talking point. You may think it’s empirical and factual information, but a rose by any other name.
            My Reply:
            You’ll note that I never said that most murders are committed by black men. So, oh yeah, stating that I said something that I’ve never said is a typical black supremacist/black nationalist, racist tactic, used by morons and bigoted bastards.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            7. I never mentioned once about your tone since I came back. And I don’t think you have the capability to engage in intelligent and rational arguments without sounding like you’re throwing a Bill O’Reilly-like temper tantrum on the other side of the computer arguing in circles with someone you don’t like and chose not to ignore.
            My Reply:
            I know. By taking a more aggressive tone with you, I cured you of that whininess. You’re welcome.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            Best,

            — x

          3. You’re a self-confessed troll, which means that none of your responses can be trusted to be anything but dishonest, unserious, ill-informed, ignorant, trolling crap… as is the above.

          4. 2. Am I wrong though. Are you a cult member? You never said you weren’t. As usual, you called me an idiot.

            3. I really don’t think you read the book either. I KNOW I haven’t. I NEVER plan to. But I ADMIT IT. I can only go by reviews and analyses. After all, why should I read a book that tells me that I’m inferior because of my “race”?

            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

            At this point, all you’re doing is saying that I’m wrong. I’m a bigoted bastard. I’m racist. and NOTHING to show for it. Not only are you running on empty, but you’re getting defensive…and offensive.

            4. See number 3.

            5. There’s no number 5.

            6. WHAT??? We’re talking about simple multiplication, NOT EVERYTHING ELSE!

            7. Your aggressive tone did NOTHING to stop my “whininess”. So, your ego needs to be checked. Like I did, I did it on my own, or do you NOT think that black people are capable of doing things for themselves?

          5. You Said:
            2. Am I wrong though. Are you a cult member? You never said you weren’t. As usual, you called me an idiot.
            My Reply:
            Am I wrong, though? Are you a child molester? You never said you weren’t. As usual, you’re an idiot.
            By your “‘logic” anyone who doesn’t deny that he’s anything, is all things. Please stop being an idiot.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            3. I really don’t think you read the book either. I KNOW I haven’t. I NEVER plan to. But I ADMIT IT. I can only go by reviews and analyses. After all, why should I read a book that tells me that I’m inferior because of my “race”?
            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/
            At this point, all you’re doing is saying that I’m wrong. I’m a bigoted bastard. I’m racist. and NOTHING to show for it. Not only are you running on empty, but you’re getting defensive…and offensive.
            My Reply:
            Yes, I’ve read it. You should stop pretending you can know what you cannot know. It stains your thinking. It’s what a racist does. The book never tells you that you’re inferior because of your race. Your linked feature even admits that. This is why I don’t do dueling links. Let’s now state an obvious fact: I can find any number of articles in scholarly and pseudo-scholarly (like Scientific American) publications that show even more concretely than Eric Siegel that the book is not racist. Easily.
            Here’s what this Siegel moron says “proves” Murray’s racism: it’s “an indisputable — albeit encoded — endorsement of prejudice.”
            Yep. encoded. These things are always encoded, and you always have to have the secret decoder ring that only Race Grievance hucksters have to see it. But, wait, there’s more! The Siegel doofus says also:
            “The Bell Curve” endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities.

            There it is again! What Murray didn’t say proves he a racist! Who could ask for better proof than that?!?!?

            Then Siegel says, immediately afterward: “Even if we assume the presented data trends are sound, the book leaves the reader on his or her own to deduce how to best put these insights to use. The net effect is to tacitly condone the prejudgment of individuals based on race.
            Well! We can’t have people coming to their own conclusions, now can we? Especially if we give them, you know… data. Ooooooo… how racist!!! What do you know? That racist bastard Murray didn’t tell anyone what to think! The bastard!

            So, anyway, did you even bother to read this schlock feature? It doesn’t competently make the case that The Bell Curve is racist, or even a work by a racist. What it does is reveal the same magical thinking that you always do. He pretends to know what Murray’s thinking and whether he’s a racist by what Murray doesn’t say and doesn’t do.
            That’s crap. And it’s racist, leftist crap. It’s for idiots. And it’s why I don’t play dueling links, doofus.
            This is what the new racists are reduced to: “Codes,” mind-reading, seeing things that no one else can see, seeing things that require the special insights of… those who fabricate things that require their special insights to see. Fabrications and… crap.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            4. See number 3.
            My Reply:
            Again, you’re makinng the readers jump around. Cut it out. Reproduce the quote to which you’re responding and then respond. Duh!
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            5. There’s no number 5.
            My Reply:
            Whatever.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            6. WHAT??? We’re talking about simple multiplication, NOT EVERYTHING ELSE!
            My Reply:
            Ooooohhhh… now you provide some context! Without context, I was, of course, free to speculate as to what that context was. Duh!
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            7. Your aggressive tone did NOTHING to stop my “whininess”. So, your ego needs to be checked. Like I did, I did it on my own, or do you NOT think that black people are capable of doing things for themselves?
            My Reply:
            Lol! Okay. More strawmen, BBB (BrothaBigotedBastard). Obviously I never even hinted that black people are not capable of doing things for themselves. Moron. Black Conservatives are some of the finest, most courageous, independent thinkers in the world today. Black Leftists are… sheep. (apologies to sheep)
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            Best,

            — x

          6. 2. Okay. I’ll take it as a yes since a simple yes or no is too hard for you.

            3. I’m just going to widdle it down to one simple question. If someone believes and writes about how race is a biological factor as opposed to the reality that it’s s social construct, what else would you call that person? A RACIST sounds like an appropriate title. And it’s worse when that same person argues that certain people are predisposed to succeed and fail based on fake science that people in every generation believed despite it being debunked over and over again. In the end, such people WANT to feel superior, and authors like Murray and phony “intellectuals” want to keep the campaign going for their own ends.

            4. I’m NOT going to rewrite the quotes. You are capable of looking for them. But now that I think of it, you can’t upload a simple video to prove your point. Soooo…yeah.

            5. Whatever indeed.

            6. Moving on…

            7. In other words, blacks are ONLY conservatives if they follow right wing ideology, agree with what angry white men say about the world, and say “yes” to everything you write. But on the other hand, we’re sheep. We’re stupid. We’re ignorant, if we choose not to kiss any right wing ass.

            I don’t know how you could not see how racist that kind of thinking is. You basically want a people to submit to ideals and not think for themselves or have their own mode of thinking. You call that leftist or liberal thinking. And even now, you’re thinking that I’m trying to read your mind just by drawing such conclusions.

            Here’s the truth. If you don’t want people to guess or know what you’re thinking, DON’T PUT IT OUT THERE.

            Easy.

            But seriously, why can’t black people think for themselves, neither right nor left, without being judged one way or the other?

          7. You’re a self-confessed troll, which means that none of your responses can be trusted to be anything but dishonest, unserious, ill-informed, ignorant, trolling crap… as is the above.

          8. You Said:
            2. Okay. I’ll take it as a yes since a simple yes or no is too hard for you.
            My Reply:
            Again, you refer to something for which no one has a point of reference. Moron. Even if I were to respond, no one would get anything out of it. Idiot.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            3. I’m just going to widdle it down to one simple question. If someone believes and writes about how race is a biological factor as opposed to the reality that it’s s social construct, what else would you call that person? A RACIST sounds like an appropriate title. And it’s worse when that same person argues that certain people are predisposed to succeed and fail based on fake science that people in every generation believed despite it being debunked over and over again. In the end, such people WANT to feel superior, and authors like Murray and phony “intellectuals” want to keep the campaign going for their own ends.
            My Reply:
            Let’s respond in bullet form:
            • “Widdle?” Not a word… at least not in American English. In British English: to urinate. Are you trying to urinate figuratively? What are you trying to say. If you’re going to try to use snark, at least, please, make it comprehensible. Did you mean “whittle?” If so, probably the wrong verb. Did you mean “little?” If so… not a verb. At least not a word in use as a verb in most of the English-speaking world.
            You said:If someone believes and writes about how race is a biological factor as opposed to the reality that it’s s social construct, what else would you call that person?
            My reaction: I don’t know. However, if “race is a biological factor” then I guess I’d call that person a… “truth-teller.” Dude: the truth is the truth is the truth is the truth is the truth… no matter who says it. Here’s the direct response to your question: If the assertion that race is a biological factor is false, then simply provide some persuasive evidence to show that the dude is wrong. You on the Left have a problem with doing the work necessary to persuade people that the dude is actually wrong. Oh, well… do it!
            This shouldn’t be controversial. If you can’t do that simple thing, then you have to face the possibility that (1) you’re wrong, and/or (2) you’re part of the problem.p>
            I did notice that no one ever attempted to simply counter what he said!. You know… provide persuasive evidence that he was wrong?
            • How is race a “social construct?” I mean, I’m willing to believe it, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that there are other people with different color skin. I’d love to assert that race doesn’t really exist — in fact I’ve made close to that argument for years — but you all on the Left, and in the Race Grievance Industry, keep throwing it back in everyone’s faces.
            • The study of relative IQ levels is not fake science. Science consists principally of measuring stuff and reporting the measurements. It would be fake science if Murray were reporting falsely what he found, but no one’s ever tried to make the point that Murray’s findings were erroneous or dishonestly reported. In fact, the source you used yourself never even made the slightest attempt to contest Murray’s findings. That moron accused Murray of being a racist for the mere act of collecting the measurements themselves. In other words, your source conceded that Murray was engaged in actual science, but alleged that in doing that particular science that made him a racist. What a bunch of flapdoodle! In focusing on the act of doing the measuring, while conceding the accuracy of the measurements themselves, your source proved himself wrong. After all, the very essence of science is… measuring stuff.
            • The argument that “certain people are predisposed to succeed or fail” is perfectly innocent… and accurate. Because Murray never tries to suggest that people are predisposed to succeed or fail based on race, but rather based on IQ. That, however, is the simple truth. There are three characteristics in a person that can be used to assess a person’s chances of prospering in America. Those three characteristics are: (1) competence at something, (2) conscientiousness and (3)… IQ.
            The rock-solid correlation between these three characteristics and success in American society has been scientifically established beyond reasonable objection.

            In other words: if you’re reasonably intelligent, learn a skill, work hard and reliably, the odds are greater than 99% that you’ll do just fine in America. You’re fond of pretending that I don’t offer “any proof” for what I say, but several times I gave you an iron-clad statistic that you simply ignored. A statistic that blows your assertion that America is racist right out of the water. Here’s that statistic: If you (1) finish high school and (2) have no children out-of-wedlock, your chances of leading at least a middle class life in America are at 85%, regardless of race, religion, sex, or any other such characteristic..

            In other words, in the population of all black Americans who (1) finish high school, and (2) have no children out-of-wedlock, at least 85% will attain at least to the middle class. Again, regardless of race (or anything else).

            I knew that, and I paraphrased it, and took it just a bit further. I said that if you are a black person, and (1) you speak well, (2) you get an education, (3) you work hard, (4) you get along well with others, (5) you present yourself more or less normally, then there will be no more obstacles in your path to success than there are for anyone else. You could say that if you follow those simple guidelines — which are certainly expected of all non-black Americans as well — then your chances of prospering in America are in excess of 99%. Regardless of race. More to the point, and to repeat myself: More than 99% of all black Americans who follow my simply-stated guidelines above… prosper in America.

            Go ahead, find me some persuasive evidence to counter that… fact. That statistic. And, if you can’t counter that fact then you just conceded my entire argument: America is not a country that harbors racial animosity toward black Americans. More to the point: Racism against black Americans has been entirely and utterly defeated. Oh, it still exists, in the minds and hearts of some, but they dare not say or do anything that might betray their secret feelings in order that they not be socially, economically or politically ostracized.

            Now, the only argument is: when did the utter defeat of racial animosity toward black people occur? I assert that it happened in the 1960’s when we had a real “national conversation” about race, when white people recognized and admitted out loud that they had woefully mistreated black Americans in the past, and when those same white people embarked on a massive effort to (1) cut it out, and (2) reverse it.

            White Americans succeeded wildly in #1, but implemented a whole bunch of counter-productive policies that made #2 largely a failure. It should be pointed out that nowhere else in the world or in the history of the world, has any group of people done, or tried to do, both those things. Only white western people — mainly men (feminism, after all) — throughout all of history.
            You Said:
            4. I’m NOT going to rewrite the quotes. You are capable of looking for them. But now that I think of it, you can’t upload a simple video to prove your point. Soooo…yeah.
            My Reply:
            Dude: no one asked you to re-write anything. Copy-paste. Dude this is the 21st Century. Learn to use the computer on which you’re blogging. I don’t respond to your posts in the post itself, I take your text over to an editor, and I respond paragraph-by-paragraph. So, no, I can’t look it up right away. From now on, reproduce the text to which you’re responding. If you don’t then it’s not a response. Moron.
            As to the video, you don’t “upload videos,” you idiot, you provide a link. Which I did. Moron.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            5. Whatever indeed.

            6. Moving on…
            My Reply:
            Again, since you’ve provided no reference, you’ve made it impossible (1) for me to respond, and (2) for anyone else reading this to know what on earth you’re talking about.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            7. In other words, blacks are ONLY conservatives if they follow right wing ideology, agree with what angry white men say about the world, and say “yes” to everything you write. But on the other hand, we’re sheep. We’re stupid. We’re ignorant, if we choose not to kiss any right wing a$$.
            My Reply:
            –     You said: “In other words, blacks are ONLY conservatives if they follow right wing ideology…
            –     My reaction: Uhhhh… Yeah! And black people are leftists only if they follow left-wing ideology. Duh! Yes, Conservatives are considered to be “right-wingers,” while leftists are considered to be… “left-wingers.” Also: “In other words, whites are ONLY conservatives if they follow right wing ideology…” also!

            The adjective “angry” is not valid. You have no way of reading white people’s minds. Or anyone else’s minds for that matter. Furthermore, the phrase “angry white men” is invalid. Some of the most powerful Conservative voices out there are black women. Yes, you leftists are sheep. Because you’re blind followers. You don’t think. However, you might be forgiven for that, since you’ve never shown any (1) desire to think for yourself, or (2) the ability to think for yourself. That was another thing I had to reconcile myself to, BBB: You’re a moron. It’s like me: I always wanted to be 7′ tall, but I had to settle for 6’4″. I gather you want to be intelligent, but you’re just not.

            Finally, I never want anyone to “kiss my a$$” to use your colorful turn of phrase, I just want you to think for yourself. If you have that ability, that is. I’m becoming convinced that you lack the intellectual capacity. Certainly 100% of your output on our pages has been idiotic. It’s possible that the best you can do is attain to idiocy, and that at that point you’re out of intellectual ammunition. After all, you’ve certainly never addressed my statistic above.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            I don’t know how you could not see how racist that kind of thinking is. You basically want a people to submit to ideals and not think for themselves or have their own mode of thinking. You call that leftist or liberal thinking. And even now, you’re thinking that I’m trying to read your mind just by drawing such conclusions.
            My Reply:
            Correct: you don’t know. That’s one of the truest things you’ve said. The problem, I fear, is that you can’t know. I hope I’m wrong.

            I shouldn’t have to tell you why “wanting a people to submit to ideals” is exactly what all societies do. The “ideals” are called “laws,”‘ and “rules,” and “regulations,” and “policies,” and we all agree to follow them so that we can have something called “society.” When you suggest that I want people to “submit to ideals,” of course that’s true, just as you want me to submit to what you consider your ideals. It frustrates the living heck out of you that I refuse to knuckle under to your bullying, your insults, your appeals to the rest of your herd-thought, and the like.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            Here’s the truth. If you don’t want people to guess or know what you’re thinking, DON’T PUT IT OUT THERE.
            My Reply:
            I don’t want people to guess at the irrelevant. I put things out there precisely to give others the opportunity to read other points of view. Points of view that I either don’t see at all, or rarely see. If you have to guess at my meaning, then either (1) I’ve expressed myself poorly (wouldn’t be the first time), or (2) you’re insufficiently intelligent to understand what I’ve written.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            But seriously, why can’t black people think for themselves, neither right nor left, without being judged one way or the other?
            My Reply:
            Black people can think for themselves. You (singular) simply choose not to.

            And, if you’ll notice, I have always had a rule: I judge the thought or the post, not the person. You’re the first person to make me break that rule, and I have judged you according to the standards that you yourself set. You’re an idiot. You’re an admitted racist. You’ve somehow decided that your racism is okay, but the racism that you think resides in the hearts of others is not. That’s an idiot’s conclusion. You can prove me wrong, though, you simply choose not to. You could simply stop being a racist. However, you’ve told me that you’re okay with continuing to be a racist. That was your admission that you’re an idiot. Don’t want to be judged a racist idiot? Don’t put racist, idiotic stuff on your blog. Or at least be man enough to admit it when you’re shown persuasively to be wrong.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            Best,

            — x

          9. Man, the more i talk to you, the more it sounds like you’re aging backwards. If this is your way of convincing me of joining your side, you’re failing spectacularly.

          10. What do you care? Besides, you’re a self-confessed troll whose responses can’t be trusted to represent what you really think, so you’re likely just trolling now.

            Best,

            — x

          11. UM, YOU DON’T SEEM TO TRUST ANYTHING THAT’S PROVEN OR OBVIOUS. YOU NEVER TRUST ANYTHING I SAID BEFORE THAT ADMISSION EVEN WHEN IT’S ABOUT ME EXPLAINING MYSELF. SO WHAT’S THE DAMN DIFFERENCE???

          12. The difference is that before you admitted that you’re a liar and a troll, I thought that you sincerely believed the codswallop you wrote.

            But now that I know you were lying all along — according to your own admission — I know that nothing that you write can be trusted again.

            Dude: you get to be wrong in your beliefs. You don’t get to lie about your beliefs, and then pretend that you have any credibility.

            You like to call me a troll, yet I can say perfectly honestly that everything that I have ever written in these pages I sincerely believe to be true.

            Unless, that is, I was writing satire or something like that. We have a “Satire” category that has a few posts. However, when I write those things, I admit it openly in the piece.

            You, on the other hand, are a bigoted bastard, as well as a self-admitted liar and troll.

            Best,

            — x

          13. You really only read what you want to read and interpret how you think it reads, don’t you?

            You NEVER trusted ANYTHING i said prior to this even when I explained myself. You proceeded to tell me who i am regardless and reduced me to labels without an once of brain power to think in complex terms that maybe imI more than what I am.

            Or is this too hard to understand?

          14. Read what? The Bell Curve?

            Lol! Now, I know you’re lying, and trolling. Your other direct quote was that you were never going to read it because you assumed that it said that black people are inferior. Which, by the way, it does not say.

            So, now that means that there’s literally nothing that you say that I should take seriously.

            Moron.

            Best,

            — x

          15. Your best, most substantive, most intelligent post yet! It’s a personal best for you!

            I grade your posts on a scale of -10 to 10. This one was a zero, which is the highest score you’ve ever attained!

            Congratulations!

            Best,

            — x

          16. Okay. You said there’s no such thing as proof, and yet, you constantly ask for some from those who disagree with you. You CANNOT have it both ways. And you constantly contradicting yourself while sounding like an obnoxious teenager only makes you look more and more desperate to where it is not about right or wrong with. It’s about winning arguments with me and owning people you consider are leftists or liberals.

            Okay smart guy. You want evidence? You want proof? Where should I go? What books should I read? What people should I talk to? What papers should I reference? What institutions should I visit? Give me the exact names of each to prove to your delusional mind that racism IS a major problem in this country?

            If not, when did it suddenly became less major? What date was it? What time? What place?

            And see if you can respond without sounding like a prick, please.

            But if you give a piss poor response as you did with the video situation, it just shows you’re just a liar, and a delusional and overall sad excuse for a human being.

          17. You Said:
            Okay. You said there’s no such thing as proof, and yet, you constantly ask for some from those who disagree with you. You CANNOT have it both ways. And you constantly contradicting yourself while sounding like an obnoxious teenager only makes you look more and more desperate to where it is not about right or wrong with. It’s about winning arguments with me and owning people you consider are leftists or liberals.
            My Reply
            Correct: There’s no such thing as perfect proof. You have a point… I’ve asked for proof before, and that is imprecise language. So, now I ask for only persuasive evidence. You ought to be able to come up with that.
            People who are convinced of something generally require “proof.” There is, however, persuasive, convincing, compelling evidence. However, even when I asked for proof, you never made even the slightest effort to provide some kind of convincing evidence. Your Scientific American link was just one example. The idiot who wrote that essay suggested that Charles Murray is a racist because Murray recommended no policies in response to his measurements. But it’s emphatically not the job of scientists to provide policy prescriptions. It never has been. It’s the job of scientists to do science, and to report the results of their efforts honestly and accurately; it’s the job of politicians to make policy. The idiot who wrote the Scientific American essay makes a demand of a scientist that he give justification for doing… science. No scientist ever needs to justify measuring things, to justify doing science. Obviously.

            I don’t care how you think I appear, and it’s always been about what’s right and wrong. It’s not about winning arguments with you, I do that routinely. It’s easy. It’s easy to “own leftists,” because they don’t have any actual arguments on their side. Just like you and your friends, the very first resort of the Left is to go to insults and the like: The very first thing out of all your readers’ pens was: “Racist!” and “Liar!” and “Crazy!” and all the tiresome rest.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            Okay smart guy. You want evidence? You want proof? Where should I go? What books should I read? What people should I talk to? What papers should I reference? What institutions should I visit? Give me the exact names of each to prove to your delusional mind that racism IS a major problem in this country?
            My Reply
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            Lol! I don’t need to tell you where to find your own evidence. I did all the legwork to stop being someone like what I was years ago, all so that I could be someone better. I hope I am better. The “evidence” you’re looking for is all crap. I can’t help you find evidence that America’s a racist country, because it isn’t. I can’t help you find evidence that you’re not a racist, because you are. I can’t help you find evidence of all the crap that you say that’s hogwash… because it’s hogwash. I can’t find you evidence that racism is a major probem in this country, because it’s not.
            You Said:
            If not, when did it suddenly became less major? What date was it? What time? What place?
            My Reply
            It was becoming “less major” generations ago. It started to become “less major” with the arrival of Jesus. His followers started the thought process on the part of people to be better people. There’s no good reason to be cruel to anyone. Racism, pettiness, immaturity, silliness, impulse, snobbery, elitism, you name it, all are equally stupid reasons to be cruel to anyone. Like how you are. When it “stopped” being major, like when it “crossed the line,” who knows? No one can know. It’s like one of those things you wake up and look around you and say, “Hey! When did that happen!?!” When did your son get so tall? When did your daughter get so wise? When did your son become such as fine young man? When did your daughter become such an impressive young woman? It had been happening all along, but since we live in the midst of it, we don’t see it until one day we wake up and realize it’s been that way for a long time. In the case of racism, I’ve been working on it all my life, and I realized a long time ago that it was defeated. Not non-existent, but utterly defeated. When did it happen in my estimation? Well, I know racism was in full, headlong retreat in the mid-sixties. It was definitely routed by the time the seventies rolled around. So, I’d say that it hasn’t been a major problem in the country since the sixties.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            And see if you can respond without sounding like a prick, please.
            My Reply
            I appreciate the “please,” but you forfeited the right to ask for politeness and civility a long time ago.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            But if you give a p### poor response as you did with the video situation, it just shows you’re just a liar, and a delusional and overall sad excuse for a human being.
            My Reply
            I gather this is just more of your now exposed trolling. You need to answer a serious question; what coiuld possibly make it difficult for you to do a YouTube search? I gave you the seach string three times! Do you have some impediment preventing you from using YouTube? Seriously… this is easy stuff.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            Best,

            — x

          18. Just as I thought, another lame response…

            You’re not looking for persuasive evidence to refute your views, because simply, you don’t want to be wrong. You really don’t. But wanting to be right is not the same as being right. You already made up your mind about what racism is. So, anything presented against your definition is automatically shot down.

            Yet you still ask for evidence nevertheless. Only to shoot it down.

            As I said before in the past, this is nothing new. Other people dealt with this same dishonest tactic. No matter what you think it is, it’s a bogus countermove when that person, in which case is you, claims he or she wants an open conversation or commands to learn more about racism, both of which you have done out of bad faith.

            Lastly, you think you own liberals everyone, but that’s strictly based on what you think winning arguments are based on. What I’ve seen, you don’t know how to properly debate, because you’re not looking for an honest and civil debate or conversation. That’s the truth that’s obvious to anyone liberal or conservative. The way I see it, you’re just a troll with a blog.

          19. You Said:
            Just as I thought, another lame response…
            My Reply:
            Whatever.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            You’re not looking for persuasive evidence to refute your views, because simply, you don’t want to be wrong. You really don’t. But wanting to be right is not the same as being right. You already made up your mind about what racism is. So, anything presented against your definition is automatically shot down.
            My Reply:
            No one wants to be wrong, moron. But I’m man enough to admit it. You’re not. I made up my mind about persuasive evidence. I made up my mind about recognized, authoritative, reputable sources. I made up my mind about real facts, not invented crap, like some moron in a magazine deciding that someone else is a racist because of… wait for it, because it’s really stupid: what he didn’t say. And you fell for that crap. You are an idiot. You got the last sentence wrong: Anything presented against the definition is shot down… because it’s wrong. Look, moron, just call things what they are. “Ism’s” are belief systems (in most cases), whereas acts can be products of belief systems, but they themselves are not belief systems. You have real trouble distinguishing between the two.
            Oh, I forgot, you’re just trolling here. You’re an idiot and a troll, and a bigoted bastard. I forgot that I was wrong to take you seriously.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            Yet you still ask for evidence nevertheless. Only to shoot it down.
            My Reply:
            Of course I ask for evidence. Duh! As for what you produced, here it is again:

            A passage from yhour link:
            “The Bell Curve” endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities. Even if we assume the presented data trends are sound, the book leaves the reader on his or her own to deduce how to best put these insights to use. The net effect is to tacitly condone the prejudgment of individuals based on race.
            See what I mean? “The Bell Curve endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say?!?!?!?” Are you freakin’ kidding me?!?!?!? My this idiot’s logic, I’m a Buddhist monk, because I never said I wasn’t. By this moron’t logic, you, BBB, are a white dude trying to make black people look stupid by writing the idiotic crap you do. Because you never said you weren’t. But, even that’s not the point. The moron goes on to say: “Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ.” What a positively brain-dead, idiotic, numb-skulled thing to say! No sscientist needs to tell anyone why he measures anything! Duh!!!!!!

            Then, the idiot who wrote the hit piece goes on to say, “Even if we assume the presented data trends are sound, the book leaves the reader on his or her own to deduce how to best put these insights to use.
            Well! We can’t have people thinking for themselves, can we? The idiot from the Scientific American is telling Charles Murray that Murray needs to tell us what to think! Murray, being the one doing the measuring, perfectly correctly refuses to do so, and allows the reader to draw his own conclusions. The half-wit from the Scientific American even admits it! Murray treats his readers as adults, and the nitwit from the magazine calls him a racist for it. What a doofus!

            Oh, that’s right, I forgot — you’re just trolling. You have to be, because no one can be as slack-jawed dumb as you make yourself out to be.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            As I said before in the past, this is nothing new. Other people dealt with this same dishonest tactic. No matter what you think it is, it’s a bogus countermove when that person, in which case is you, claims he or she wants an open conversation or commands to learn more about racism, both of which you have done out of bad faith.
            My Reply:
            Ah, yes… that “dishonest tactic” of mopping up the floor with your sad self, because you’re too much of a moron to know when you’ve been trounced.
            This is obviously just another trolling response. Since I can’t take you seriously, and that is a particularly moronic paragraph, then it must just be you trolling again.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            Lastly, you think you own liberals everyone, but that’s strictly based on what you think winning arguments are based on. What I’ve seen, you don’t know how to properly debate, because you’re not looking for an honest and civil debate or conversation. That’s the truth that’s obvious to anyone liberal or conservative. The way I see it, you’re just a troll with a blog.
            My Reply:
            Some of this is correct anyway… I own leftists because they’re generally idiots. I’m no longer looking for a civil debate or conversationn with you, because you’re incapable of it. I’m, obviously, not trolling, because I told you outright that I was no longer looking for a civil debate or conversation with you. I never troll, because I don’t have to. You, on the other hand, admitted that you had stooped to it as a tactic to derail the conversation.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            Best,

            — x

          20. You hardly EVER admit you’re wrong even when it’s obvious and there’s no way around it to twist it to your favor. And you never took my seriously prior to the admission that I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. All in all, YOU HAVEN’T SHOWN ME THAT I COULD TRUST ANYTHING YOU SAY REGARDING RACE. So in a way, we’re at an impasse. You never trusted me and I never trust you. Point blank.

            Do you even know the difference between facts and beliefs, because you sure don’t respond as if you do. I never said that isms and actions are one-and-the-same. What I was trying to say is that actions come from belief systems, like you said. But again, you try to twist what I’m saying and call me names to boot. It’s a wonder why I don’t return the favor after the many stupid things you’ve said over the years and believing they’re logical and high-level thinking. But anyway…

            “A passage from yhour link”

            WHO NEEDS TO LEARN TO PROOFREAD NOW?????

            “Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities.”

            HOW IN THE HELL IS THIS CONSIDERED STUPID TO YOU??? DOES ASKING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT A BOOK THAT PRACTICALLY ENDORSES SCIENTIFIC RACISM STUPID? Maybe to someone devoted to anti-intellectualism and afraid of digging deeper into an issue, it would be. But it should be obvious to anyone living in reality that not explaining the purpose of bringing up racial I.Q. differences must mean that such is a positive indicator that some races are presumably “smarter” than others, a campaign, as I call it, to promote black inferiority that has been ongoing since the 1800’s and brought back in recent times with the help of the publication of The Bell Curve.

            All I did was do a little quick research into the history of scientific racism, and this book was mentioned in most websites. You, on the other hand, couldn’t explain intelligently enough why you think questioning the book’s findings are, as you call them, stupid. Educators would laugh their butts off if you wrote a paper on something and see the word ‘stupid’ numerous times with no intelligent explanation as to why. But you seem way too deluded to understand that simple fact. But anyway…

            You constantly bring up how you’re not looking to win arguments. Yet, in this response, you gloat as if you can defeat me, or as your kind of people would say, “own the libs”. That’s another example of your endless contradictions and your self-deluded conviction that you’re the undisputed champion of arguments which would be a high accomplish for someone who seemingly doesn’t have much of a life going. But I guess you’re too lost in fantasy to realize that or anything else.

            Anyway…

            That’s always your conclusion with people not of the right. They’re idiots. Nuff said. It’s amazing how this is not just simple-minded thinking, but the kind of response you’d hear from grade school students.

            xPraetorius, whether you say so or not, YOU WERE TROLLING AND ARE A TROLL. You may not think so, but it’s gone past the point of relying on what you think, because you’ve based your blog on thinking and beliefs (erroneous thinking and beliefs) and not facts and truths. I admitted that I did troll ONCE, and only ONCE. I’m not anymore. But since you’re so stuck on yourself, you think you know me better than I know myself, and you allow your online portrait of having a huge ego, insane narcissism and overconfidence to make you look like what you always call me, an idiot.

            You blast me for mind-reading. What about you assuming you know me more than I know me? Let me guess. Somehow that’s not the same, because excuses.

            You’re only defense at this point is “I’M NOT AN IDIOT! YOU ARE!” That’s not a winning tactic. It’s a sign that you got NOTHING else to throw at me. So, if this is about winning arguments, YOU HAVEN’T WON WITH ME, AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE YOU’RE WAY TOO STUPID TO SEE THAT.

            Want me to elaborate?

          21. Remember my little idea? I’m going to try it out here. Every time you say something that (1) I never said, or (2) I’ve covered many times before, I’m just going to reply: “You’re a moron.” That’ll mean that (1) you’re a moron, and/or (2) I never said what you’re alleging that I said, and/or (3) I’ve covered that many times before.

            You said:
            You hardly EVER admit you’re wrong even when it’s obvious and there’s no way around it to twist it to your favor. And you never took my seriously prior to the admission that I was giving you a taste of your own medicine. All in all, YOU HAVEN’T SHOWN ME THAT I COULD TRUST ANYTHING YOU SAY REGARDING RACE. So in a way, we’re at an impasse. You never trusted me and I never trust you. Point blank.
            My Reply:
            Nope. You do trust me. I don’t admit I’m wrong when I’m not. I do when I am. Your “reasoning” is stupid, infantile, immature, racist and toxic. That’s why it’s easy to be right most of the time with you.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            Do you even know the difference between facts and beliefs, because you sure don’t respond as if you do. I never said that isms and actions are one-and-the-same. What I was trying to say is that actions come from belief systems, like you said. But again, you try to twist what I’m saying and call me names to boot. It’s a wonder why I don’t return the favor after the many stupid things you’ve said over the years and believing they’re logical and high-level thinking. But anyway…
            My Reply:
            Yep. You said it. You gave a definition of racism that had a whole bunch of hogwash in it about who (you think) has power and who (you think) doesn’t. A whole bunch of hogwash that had nothing to do with actual racism.
            It wouldn’t bother me if you were to return to your name-calling ways. It didn’t bother me before.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            “A passage from yhour link”
            WHO NEEDS TO LEARN TO PROOFREAD NOW?????
            My Reply:
            I do. You do. We all do. Probably none more than you, though.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            “Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities.”

            HOW IN THE HELL IS THIS CONSIDERED STUPID TO YOU??? DOES ASKING IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT A BOOK THAT PRACTICALLY ENDORSES SCIENTIFIC RACISM STUPID? Maybe to someone devoted to anti-intellectualism and afraid of digging deeper into an issue, it would be. But it should be obvious to anyone living in reality that not explaining the purpose of bringing up racial I.Q. differences must mean that such is a positive indicator that some races are presumably “smarter” than others, a campaign, as I call it, to promote black inferiority that has been ongoing since the 1800’s and brought back in recent times with the help of the publication of The Bell Curve.
            My Reply:
            No scientist is ever required to tell anyone why he’s investigating anything. Duh! The Scientific American essayist again calls Murray a racist for something he never said. This is so crashingly stupid as to defy belief. Demanding that a scientist explain why he’s doing… science is… stupid. It’s not an “important question.” It’s deeply stupid. Concluding that someone is a racist for something he did not say is deranged, and really, really stupid. Neither you, nor the Scientific America wacko, nor anyone else ever, ever, ever, ever gets to pretend that you can see into someone’s heart and motives based on something he didn’t say. That’s what’s wrong with morons like you. You really do think you have magical abilities. You’re a moron. The rest of what you said is… tripe of the stupidest variety. Your last two sentences go against all the progress that black Americans have made in America. If there had been a concerted effort to keep black Americans down, and to promote “black innferiority,” then guess what: black Americans would have been kept down, and there would be a widespread belief in America that black people are inferior. Neither of these things is true, and no one on earth has been pretending that they are. You, on the other hand… you’re a moron.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            All I did was do a little quick research into the history of scientific racism, and this book was mentioned in most websites. You, on the other hand, couldn’t explain intelligently enough why you think questioning the book’s findings are, as you call them, stupid. Educators would laugh their butts off if you wrote a paper on something and see the word ‘stupid’ numerous times with no intelligent explanation as to why. But you seem way too deluded to understand that simple fact. But anyway…
            My Reply:
            Since there’s no such thing as “scientific racism,” you’re lying. There might be pseudo-scientific racism, but there’s no scientific racism. And, more to the point, anyone can mention any book they want, but read this well, moron: if what is contained in the book is true, then it’s not a racist book. Period. Moron. If you have a problem with the book, read this well, too: prove it freakin’ wrong!!! That’s all you have to do. Should be easy, if it’s wrong. However, if the findings in the book are right, then… you lose. But, you don;t know… you’ve never even read the book. So you’re an ignorant moron too.
            And chew on this one too, you moron: By definition, the average IQ’s of two different populations will always be different. One population will have a higher average IQ, and the other will have a lower average IQ. By definition. Duh! Is it racist for anyone to point that out? Obviously not. Is it racist to want to check into that more deeply? Obviously not. If it were racist just to make such inquiries, then all science is racist. All science is not racist. That’s all that science is. Moron.
            Oh, and I’ve seen your “research.” Research it isn’t.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            You constantly bring up how you’re not looking to win arguments. Yet, in this response, you gloat as if you can defeat me, or as your kind of people would say, “own the libs”. That’s another example of your endless contradictions and your self-deluded conviction that you’re the undisputed champion of arguments which would be a high accomplish for someone who seemingly doesn’t have much of a life going. But I guess you’re too lost in fantasy to realize that or anything else.
            My Reply:
            You’re a moron.

            To say “your kind of people” is racist. Bigoted bastard.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            That’s always your conclusion with people not of the right. They’re idiots. Nuff said. It’s amazing how this is not just simple-minded thinking, but the kind of response you’d hear from grade school students.
            My Reply:
            Idiots are idiots, and yes, the vast majority of them are on the Left. If that’s what you hear from grade school students, well then… they’re right. Good for them!
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            xPraetorius, whether you say so or not, YOU WERE TROLLING AND ARE A TROLL. You may not think so, but it’s gone past the point of relying on what you think, because you’ve based your blog on thinking and beliefs (erroneous thinking and beliefs) and not facts and truths. I admitted that I did troll ONCE, and only ONCE. I’m not anymore. But since you’re so stuck on yourself, you think you know me better than I know myself, and you allow your online portrait of having a huge ego, insane narcissism and overconfidence to make you look like what you always call me, an idiot.
            My Reply:
            You’re a moron.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            You’re only defense at this point is “I’M NOT AN IDIOT! YOU ARE!” That’s not a winning tactic. It’s a sign that you got NOTHING else to throw at me. So, if this is about winning arguments, YOU HAVEN’T WON WITH ME, AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE YOU’RE WAY TOO STUPID TO SEE THAT.
            My Reply:
            You’re a moron.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:
            Want me to elaborate?
            My Reply:
            Sure.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            Best,

            — x

          22. “I don’t admit I’m wrong when I’m not. I do when I am.”

            But what if someone else says you’re wrong? I can see that you’re so proud and egotistical not to humble yourself and consider that you may be wrong. Just because you say you’re not wrong doesn’t mean that you’re not wrong.

            “Yep. You said it. You gave a definition of racism that had a whole bunch of hogwash in it about who (you think) has power and who (you think) doesn’t. A whole bunch of hogwash that had nothing to do with actual racism.”

            And you’ve shown, yet again, that you don’t know what racism is and have no interest to learn. You’ve just admitted that you’re willing to stay ignorant. Good luck with that.

            “If there had been a concerted effort to keep black Americans down, and to promote “black innferiority,” then guess what: black Americans would have been kept down, and there would be a widespread belief in America that black people are inferior. Neither of these things is true, and no one on earth has been pretending that they are.”

            So, to you, ALL black Americans must be kept down socially, economically and politically in order for you to believe in the existence of anti-black racism.

            Here’s the deal. Absolutes don’t dismiss or minimize a problem. And simplifying a problem to a basic elementary school definition only helps the problem remain and even get worse. But you’ve made it clear that the 3rd grade definition is the one you’ve chosen as the best and only one. So, you pretty much rejected intellectualism for stupidity.

            “…you’ve never even read the book. So you’re an ignorant moron too.”

            Very smart answer. Any teacher would be taken aback at such a genius conclusion.

            “To say “your kind of people” is racist.”

            I meant conservatives and those on the right. Neither of those are races.

            “Idiots are idiots, and yes, the vast majority of them are on the Left. If that’s what you hear from grade school students, well then… they’re right. Good for them!”

            So, you endorse lesser intelligence.

            “You’re a moron.”

            If I had a dollar for everytime you call me that, I’d have more money than Bill Gates.

            “You’re a moron.”

            CHA-CHING!

            “Want me to elaborate?”

            Sure. YOU’RE A MORON!

          23. You Said:
            “I don’t admit I’m wrong when I’m not. I do when I am.”

            But what if someone else says you’re wrong? I can see that you’re so proud and egotistical not to humble yourself and consider that you may be wrong. Just because you say you’re not wrong doesn’t mean that you’re not wrong.
            My Reply:
            I don’t care if someone else says I’m wrong. If, however, they back it up, now that’s a different story! That’d make me take stock! You should try it sometime! You’ve never done the work necessary to find credible, substantive, convincing evidence that I’ve ever said anything wrong.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            “Yep. You said it. You gave a definition of racism that had a whole bunch of hogwash in it about who (you think) has power and who (you think) doesn’t. A whole bunch of hogwash that had nothing to do with actual racism.”

            And you’ve shown, yet again, that you don’t know what racism is and have no interest to learn. You’ve just admitted that you’re willing to stay ignorant. Good luck with that.
            My Reply:
            Dude: apparently you can’t read a dictionary. Your fabricated definition of racism means nothing. I could say that racism means “people who stand on their heads and sing Happy Birthday,” and when you say you disagree, say that you don’t know what racism is. You need to use words on whose meaning people agree. Just because you say something means something, that doesn’t make it true. the definition you use for racism is hogwash. And it’s stupid.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            “If there had been a concerted effort to keep black Americans down, and to promote “black innferiority,” then guess what: black Americans would have been kept down, and there would be a widespread belief in America that black people are inferior. Neither of these things is true, and no one on earth has been pretending that they are.”

            So, to you, ALL black Americans must be kept down socially, economically and politically in order for you to believe in the existence of anti-black racism.
            My Reply:
            Nope. Stupid question… again. I’ve never said that anti-black racism doesn’t exist. Moron. Seriously, you’re an idiot.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            Here’s the deal. Absolutes don’t dismiss or minimize a problem. And simplifying a problem to a basic elementary school definition only helps the problem remain and even get worse. But you’ve made it clear that the 3rd grade definition is the one you’ve chosen as the best and only one. So, you pretty much rejected intellectualism for stupidity.
            My Reply:
            This was incoherent. About the definition of racism: are you trying to tell me that Merriam-Webster came up with only a third-grace definition of racism? Well… You’d better contact them, because that makes you the greatest language genius ever! I’m sure that they got a bunch of other definitions wrong too! Go ahead, BBB — call ’em up! They’d be really embarrassed to find out that you consider the dictionary itself a “third-grade” level book.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            “…you’ve never even read the book. So you’re an ignorant moron too.”

            Very smart answer. Any teacher would be taken aback at such a genius conclusion.

            My Reply:
            WEllllll… you do keep telling me all about a book that… you’ve never read. And you tell me that I’ve “rejected intellectualism for stupidity.” Lolololollll!
            Moron.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            “To say “your kind of people” is racist.”

            I meant conservatives and those on the right. Neither of those are races.

            My Reply:
            “Your kind of people” is code for racism. More dog whistling. You’re just a bigoted bastard. You demonstrate it in everything you say.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            “Idiots are idiots, and yes, the vast majority of them are on the Left. If that’s what you hear from grade school students, well then… they’re right. Good for them!”

            So, you endorse lesser intelligence.
            My Reply:
            Dude: Third-graders aren’t prevented from saying intelligent things! It’s great when they do!
            Moron.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            “You’re a moron.”

            If I had a dollar for everytime you call me that, I’d have more money than Bill Gates.

            My Reply:
            You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron. You’re a moron.

            There. There’s 74 bucks… go out and buy yourself something nice somewhere… and don’t say I never gave you anything.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You Said:
            “Want me to elaborate?”

            Sure. YOU’RE A MORON!
            My Reply:
            Can’t even come up with your own snark?
            Moron.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            Best,

            — x

          24. “I don’t care if someone else says I’m wrong. If, however, they back it up, now that’s a different story! That’d make me take stock!”

            [Deleted: Irrelevant.]

            I told you what I meant by “your kind of people”, and yet you have the nerve to tell me what I meant??? And yet, you don’t see what’s wrong with it. You’re truly screwed up in the head, or at least you act like it online.

          25. Dude: look it up. merriam-webster.com.

            Serious question: what is this weird aversion you have to doing some things for yourself?!?!?

            Now you’re just trolling again, so since you’re not being serious, I guess I don’t have to be.

            Best,

            — x

          26. [Deleted: No relevant content.]

            I haven’t read your other comments yet, but I asked you what would qualify as adequate source for you to even consider that I’m not so full of it as you think I am, and as of this typing, you haven’t responded with any.

          27. I did copy and paste the definition. What are you in a place where you can’t get to merriam-webster.com for some reason?

            You’d simply use the same sources that I’ve used… the U.S. gov’t, the FBI, prominent newspapers. I always make it a point to use left-wing sources, so lefties can’t whine about them. Therefore, you should make a point of using right-wing sources.

            For example, I used the FBI database of police shootings. The numbers in that rang true to me, so I considered it reliable. A commenter in Scientific American who questions why a scientist does, you know, science, would not be credible. You have to read the content too. Don’t use anything that’s so easy to pick apart like that.

            Unless you can use unimpeachable sources, as I do, then there’s no use in playing dueling sources. Besides all the sources I use and you use are going to support my point of view, because I’m right. They’ll all have to do what your Scientific American source did, which was to flail on about “things Charles Murray didn’t say,” and demanding that Murray justify why he, as a social scientist, would measure things in society. The problem with those sources, is that they work for me and not for you. That’s why you need to find unimpeachable sources. Since, however, the leftist state of mind is wrong, there are no such sources. Leastaways none I’ve ever seen. It’s why I’m a right-winger. For example, here’s a video in which a brilliant young black woman debunks the myth that cops are out there gunning for black men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq76NLThY4k

            I don’t, however, expect you to admit that the source — one right-winger (Charlie Kirk), one centrist (Candace Owens), and one leftist (Dave Rubin) — is a valid source.

            So, again, there’s no point in playing dueling sources.

            Best,

            — x

          28. “I did copy and paste the definition. What are you in a place where you can’t get to merriam-webster.com for some reason?”

            I see that, and I responded. I said this before I found out. So, I apologize for that.

            “For example, here’s a video in which a brilliant young black woman debunks the myth that cops are out there gunning for black men…”

            [Deleted: No relevant content.]

            [Deleted: No relevant content.]

            For the record, to your comment, police are not out gunning for black men. That’s true. BUT that’s NOT refuting that police view black men are more threatening or that they are more likely to shoot black men than white men. That also DOESN’T mean that white men are not shot by police at a high rate, but it DOES say that there are a fraction of people sworn to serve and protect people are assaulting and killing the ones who largely posed no danger to them or anyone.

            [Deleted: No relevant content.]

          29. Too bad… This is not a horrible post like almost all the rest of yours.

            Literally this is the one in 300 or so of your posts that’re worth some consideration. Because 1 in 300 is about the ratio of your posts that are not horribly stupid, I’ve concluded that you didn’t write them… or this last one.

            After all, you’ve confessed that your entire oeuvre is suspect, since you have four types of post #1: whining about my tone, #2: Irrelevant speculation about me as a person, $3; trolling, and #4: the extremely rare post that’s not pathetic.

            What a shame that the 1 in 300 posts that you post, that aren’t pathetic, aren’t even written by you!

            Since this wasn’t even written by you, I’m not going to address something written by a faker.

            Tell the one who wrote this to comment on his own.

            Best,

            — x

          30. Oh, and “your kind of people”‘ is racist. If I were to say it, you’d never accept my protestations that I meant leftists. Not ever. So, don’t give me any more of your crap about that.

            And, you allow yourself to say things that you’d never allow me to say in a million year without jumping down my throat. You know what that is, don’t you? Yep: privilege.

            You’re a privileged bigoted bastard.

            Best,

            — x

          31. You Said:
            Maybe I would. You’d never know. Instead, you just assume, pretending you know me.
            My Reply:
            Again, since you don’t cite what you’re referring to, this means nothing. Maybe you would what? People don’t act hostile to me. Generally they’re extemely nice to me. Only bigoted bastards, and people like that, act hostile to me, because I’m challenging their views. But, then, they’re bigoted batards, so I expect hostility from them.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            You Said:
            No. Privilege is entering a blog not established to coddle the feelings of white people or white-minded people, and proceed to leave a steaming, stinking comment that wasn’t asked for loaded with all sort of wrong and won’t concede that fact when told.
            My Reply:
            Nope. First, that’s not privilege, because if you make a blog open to the entire world, then you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that people from the world have visited it and reacted to it. Real privilege is saying a bunch of ignorant, racist, hateful, stupid twaddle out in public and epecting that no one will disagree with it just because you have black or brown skin. If there’s “privilege” in America, there’s a whole heckuva lot more black privilege than there is white privilege, and you just demonstrated it with that last moronic stinker! Wow! That last paragraph of yours is one of the most spoiled, coddled… privileged bunches of twaddle I’ve ever read! Congratulations!
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            You Said:
            Privilege is pretending to know a subject you know nothing about and despite people trying to tell you and correct you, you double down, continue to think you know better while continuing to sound like a pretentious jerk and wonder why people act so hostile to you.
            My Reply:
            Real privilege is pretending you know what someone else knows, and expecting that people won’t call you on your arrogance and your stupidity, just because you have black or brown skin.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            You Said:
            Privilege is to continue to assert yourself in conversations not meant to you to leave your two cents that no one asked for, and think you’re “teaching” others something they know more than you.
            My Reply:
            Real privilege is pretending that you’re an authority on anything, merely because of the color of your skin. It’s exactly what you accuse white people of doing, and then you pretend that you don’t have privilege.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            You Said:
            Privilege is coming apart when you’re put in your place by a person you think so lowly of, because your bloated ego and delusional mind can’t handle being wrong and go on the attack making the person feel low, small and insulted.
            My Reply:
            Remember: you told me that you weren’t insulted, so this accusation means nothing. In fact, it was only when I finally took off the gloves that you stopped whining about being insulted. Nope. This is just more of your trolling.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            You Said:
            All of these describe you, and all you’re doing is continuing to prove my points and show why blogs like mine are needed.
            My Reply:
            Lol! Well, I guess I just blew that silliness out of the water.
            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
            Best,

            — x

          32. “First, that’s not privilege, because if you make a blog open to the entire world, then you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that people from the world have visited it and reacted to it.”

            BUT just because it’s open for the world to see doesn’t mean that visitors can come in and stir up trouble for the thread like YOU DID when YOU CAME TO MY BLOG, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. And since it was MY BLOG PAGE, I had the right to ban such people from it like a club owner or home owner kicking people out of their property.

            “Real privilege is saying a bunch of ignorant, racist, hateful, stupid twaddle out in public and epecting that no one will disagree with it just because you have black or brown skin. If there’s “privilege” in America, there’s a whole heckuva lot more black privilege than there is white privilege, and you just demonstrated it with that last moronic stinker! Wow! That last paragraph of yours is one of the most spoiled, coddled… privileged bunches of twaddle I’ve ever read! Congratulations!”

            Your wanton ignorance is staggering. After I told you what I meant by that comment, you still insist that what I said was different. That’s “whitesplaining” to me what I said.

            I know. I know. You’ll argue how you’re not a white person, but a black woman. At this point, I don’t care that you probably don’t even know what you are. To me, you’re just one person that color and gender switch as a lame attempt to win arguments from a computer. But the bottom line is, I know what I meant what I said, and just you constantly argue how I’m trying to read your mind, you constantly beat me down over what YOU THINK I said. But each time, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

            “Privilege is to continue to assert yourself in conversations not meant to you to leave your two cents that no one asked for, and think you’re “teaching” others something they know more than you.”

            And yet, I’M STILL HERE! YOU’RE ALLOWING ME TO DROP MY TWO CENTS ON YOUR BLOG!

            Also, using my own words against me is a good move, but still falls short by…a lot.

            “Real privilege is pretending that you’re an authority on anything, merely because of the color of your skin. It’s exactly what you accuse white people of doing, and then you pretend that you don’t have privilege.”

            BECAUSE IT’S WHAT SOME WHITE PEOPLE DO, A-HOLE! IF YOU WOULD JUST LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO DON’T KISS YOUR ASS, MAYBE YOU WOULD LEARN THAT IT HAPPENS, BUT YOU’VE SHOWN THAT THAT’S NOT A PRIORITY FOR YOU AND YOU ACT AS IF YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THEY! HOW DELUDED ARE YOU?? AM YOU USING A COMPUTER FROM AN ASYLUM?

            “Remember: you told me that you weren’t insulted, so this accusation means nothing. In fact, it was only when I finally took off the gloves that you stopped whining about being insulted. Nope. This is just more of your trolling.”

            Yeah, you took your gloves off a long time ago, because attacking certain people from behind a computer is soooooo much braver and nobler than doing it in person.

          33. You obviously have no idea what privilege is.

            Yes, I’m still allowing you to drop your two cents on our blog. That’s credit to me. I didn’t promise it would be easy to do that, but thank you for recognizing it anyway.

            I’ve covered the rest of the slop in your post many times already.

            Best,

            — x

          34. You said: “BUT just because it’s open for the world to see doesn’t mean that visitors can come in and stir up trouble for the thread like YOU DID when YOU CAME TO MY BLOG, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. And since it was MY BLOG PAGE, I had the right to ban such people from it like a club owner or home owner kicking people out of their property.

            My reply: Sure, you can do that, but you can’t then pretend that you run an honest blog. You don’t. You’re a fraud, and a fascistic fraud at that.

            The solution is simple: Either run an honest blog, or close off those areas where you don’t want participation from those who might disagree with you. The solution is emphatically not to adopt Nazi tactics. Duh!

            Your idea is that you want to be able to spew hatred of white people, for all the world to see, but you don’t then want any of those white people to push back at you.

            If I were a cussin’ person, I’d respond to that with a loud, “well F##K YOU, YOU NAZI MORON, A$$-WIPE!!!

            However, I’m not a cussin’ person, so I won’t.

            Best,

            — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s