BF2S Forums Official Mass Shooting & Suicide Bomber thread

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

latin america is far more 'violent' than africa. is that racial too?

There's a fairly large distortion in that people like you are/were prepared to pay almost any price to access illegal drugs from South America, never mind the social consequences.

Every line of coke should be delivered with a severed finger, every kilo with a severed head.
The average narcissist still wouldn't care.

so violence in south america is caused by economic forces/global trade,  legal policy, socioeconomic pressures ... your analysis is facile but at least its an analysis.

on the other hand, africa is violent 'because blacks'.

good to know.

The drug wars are a current gross distortion, factoring them out South Africa doesn't seem especially lawless.
Africa has been violent and uncivilised for a good while now.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Blacks are lazy and feckless because of the Scots? I think thats a bit of a stretch. Not that I'm arguing with you about the Scots.

Derpzique wrote:

it's to do with the breakdown of the bourgeois nuclear family unit – a thoroughly western idea if ever there was one. do you really think african american children are underperforming compared to their peers and dropping out of the accepted/expected norms because of the way tribes are organised in southern kenya? you truly are an idiot.

Culturally black Africans have never had a nuclear family unit, whereas Europeans have had them for centuries if not millennia.
They never had it so they can't have lost it. Aggressive and feckless behaviour is rooted in their genes.

Yes, the South was largely settled by people from pre-industrial Cumberland/Northumbria, Ulster and Scots. Virginia was largely settled by people from East Anglia, and New England was settled by people from Devon/Somerset/Dorset. When people emigrated here they tended to come in family groupings that reflected where they came from back in Europe. Entire towns relocated together.

After the Scottish highlands were enclosed after Culloden, the culture in Scotland changed. It became more Anglicized, industrial, and educated. Prior to this they were tribal smallholders that did the bare minimum to get by, stole, poached, and raided their neighbors. Honor was paramount and dueling and brawls were common. Hotheaded, lazy, willing to fight at the first sign of disrespect, uneducated, uninterested in business or improvement. This described both the Borderland/Scots, the transplanted Southern rednecks and their cultural kin in Northern urban ghettos. It's a direct cultural line. It really has nothing to do with Africa. Blacks were here for hundreds of years before they were released from slavery. They picked up their culture from the poor southern whites they lived and worked with.

Even "Ebonics" has been traced back directly to defunct British dialects. It really has nothing to do with a unique black culture rooted in slavery or whatever its promoters try to sell it as.

For all intents and purposes, black Americans are culturally pre-industrial British. They just have dark skin.

Last edited by Jay (2019-01-10 05:12:40)

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

There's a fairly large distortion in that people like you are/were prepared to pay almost any price to access illegal drugs from South America, never mind the social consequences.

Every line of coke should be delivered with a severed finger, every kilo with a severed head.
The average narcissist still wouldn't care.

so violence in south america is caused by economic forces/global trade,  legal policy, socioeconomic pressures ... your analysis is facile but at least its an analysis.

on the other hand, africa is violent 'because blacks'.

good to know.

The drug wars are a current gross distortion, factoring them out South Africa doesn't seem especially lawless.
Africa has been violent and uncivilised for a good while now.

the drug wars and hence level of violence are a current gross distortion? you're not very good with the history of south america, are you?

You're not understanding your own figures Ken. The proportions are fine, you're drawing conclusions which aren't there.
According to your own numbers 60% of the population is white, 60% of the population who commit mass murder is white too .
White people are perfectly represented in the figures, by default non-white minorities must also be perfectly represented. .
The only question is why men overwhelmingly commit murders and women generally don't. Your assertion about minorities is moot.

But you got me thinking, and I uncovered some amazing real world facts which are going to blow your mind:

Right-handed men make up 45% of the population but 90% of mass shooters

In terms of height the vast majority of mas shooters are within one quartile of the average

Jesus fucking christ man, if you learn that a man is white, right handed, around average height and owns a gun he's almost certain to be a mass shooter and you need to step in and stop that shit right there.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jesus fucking christ man, if you learn that a man is white, right handed, around average height and owns a gun he's almost certain to be a mass shooter and you need to step in and stop that shit right there.

If I see a young white kid acting nervous in public while dressed in all black and with a back pack, I make sure to be prepared to act.

Same thing if a group of black men are behind me late at night.

Dilbert_X wrote:

uziq wrote:

the drug wars and hence level of violence are a current gross distortion? you're not very good with the history of south america, are you?

Looks like a blip and distortion to me, factor out the drug-gang related killings and Mexico has European levels of murder.

But you enjoy your line of coke at your next publishing party.

where did i deny the drug wars were a problem? not here. my point is latin america has been violent for centuries. you’re saying it’s a blip, which is not correct. i can’t follow your line of reasoning that africa is a uniquely violent place and that’s because it’s full of violent blacks. the aztecs and mayans were pretty violent.

uziq wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Blacks are lazy and feckless because of the Scots? I think thats a bit of a stretch. Not that I'm arguing with you about the Scots.

Derpzique wrote:

it's to do with the breakdown of the bourgeois nuclear family unit – a thoroughly western idea if ever there was one. do you really think african american children are underperforming compared to their peers and dropping out of the accepted/expected norms because of the way tribes are organised in southern kenya? you truly are an idiot.

Culturally black Africans have never had a nuclear family unit, whereas Europeans have had them for centuries if not millennia.
They never had it so they can't have lost it. Aggressive and feckless behaviour is rooted in their genes.

yes but african americans culturally aren't 'black africans' are they? that's my entire point: anti-social and lawbreaking behaviour originates because of their conditions in the USA, not because of the fucking marital organisation of african tribes since time immemorial in mozambique. do you think they have some deep phylogenetic memory and hence predisposition to violence, or something? why aren't whites violent then, seeing as our ancestors were at one another's throats in ancient times, the dark ages, the middle ages and age of empire ... actually scratch that, right up until about 1945?

your weird genetic theories and racial essentialism is confusing, self-contradictory, and scientifically illiterate.

Lack of family values, law-breaking behaviour seem to be a black-african trait wherever in the world they are, and whether or not they've been exposed to Scottish values.
Without parenting, schooling and general socialising people revert to their instincts. Go to an animal shelter to see what a dog is like if it has grown up with no discipline or caring upbringing. Often they're not recoverable and have to be put down.
Black Africans seem to have somewhat different instincts to Northern Europeans, Chinese etc, thanks to millennia of different evolutionary inputs.

The experiment has its roots in an earlier one performed in Trinidad, where Mischel noticed that the different ethnic groups living on the island had contrasting stereotypes about one another, in terms of the other's perceived recklessness, self-control, and ability to have fun.[7] This study focused on male and female children aged seven to nine (35 Black and 18 East Indian) in a rural Trinidad school. The children were required to indicate a choice between receiving a 1¢ candy immediately, or having a 10¢ candy given to them in one week's time. Mischel reported a significant ethnic difference, with Indian children showing far more ability to delay gratification as compared to African students, as well as large age differences, and that "Comparison of the 'high' versus 'low' socioeconomic groups on the experimental choice did not yield a significant difference".[7] Absence of the father was prevalent in the African-descent group but occurred only once in the East Indian group, and this variable showed the strongest link to delay of gratification, with children from intact families showing superior ability to delay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_ … experiment

Is it absent father or ethnic difference?

Do blacks have poorer outcomes because the father is absent or are they both linked to black ethnicity and one doesn't cause the other?

Then its interesting that Africans have never really developed a strong democratic culture, and when they've had it forced on them eg through colonialism they revert as soon as the external forces are removed.

Personally I think culture and genetics are intertwined. You  can't have thousands of years of the most aggressive and feckless men being rewarded with multiple wives and multiple multiples of children without aggression and fecklessness being passed into the next generation.

Or maybe its the Scots all along? Maybe Maybe there are roving Scottish missionaries teaching lost tribes how to apply for dole and avoid child maintenance.

Having experienced civil society you'd think the populace wouldn't stand for a return to dictatorship.

Dilbert wrote:

Personally I think culture and genetics are intertwined

I am reading a NYT article about a junkie couple who lost their kid to Child Protective Services and is trying to get the kid back. In the meantime, they went and had another kid. These kids have no chance.

The parents are drug addicts and the inability to moderate drug use is a genetic disorder I have been told by junkies and their advocates. So these kids are going to grow up with a lot of behavioral issues and later substance abuse problems.

People who bitch about the TSA are the worst. People should be screened before getting on a giant missile.

...and who are abusive and invasive and generally incompetent.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

not by people making $14/hour who have repeatedly failed to catch what they are supposed to be screening during routine audits.

I'm sure the average person would love to pay more taxes.