- While riding my bike the other day, I saw a line snaking around a shoe store. Sure enough, the line was full of NAMs. What were they waiting for? Probably some new Jordan sneakers. While whites protest outside, NAMs wait in line outside to buy overpriced sneakers. Caveat emptor. I wonder how many of them are on welfare. This is value transference. By selling NAMs overpriced sneakers, Nike is being an oppressive racist evil corporation. They should start an affirmative action shoe selling program, where NAMs pay less than whites for the same shoes. I guess when you are poor and want to show off your status, you buy Jordan basketball shoes since you can't afford SWPL.
- White people eating salad with chopsticks. SWPL is real.
- I see a bunch of stereotypical black youths gangsta walking around the mall. Before I can become an angry racist, I crimestop and tell myself, "they are just a bunch of upstanding young men". When I walk out the mall, I spot them again. This time one of them is gyrating like only a black person can whooping and pissing on a car while the other two chuckle and hoot. Crimestop failed. Damn.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Looking around
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Yelp and Demographics
http://www.quantcast.com/yelp.com
The average Yelp user is a female SWPL.
At 9%, African Americans are underrepresented on Yelp but not to the extent that I expected them to be. Blacks on Yelp are probably more SWPL than ghetto. It's hard to count on Yelp in the ghetto because there are so few reviews. I've tried it before and the only review on "Wong's Ghetto Chinese Food" goes something like "Dat some good shit this here kung pao chicken be. MmmmMMmmm."
At 15%, Asians are over-represented by a magnitude of 3. This is not surprising given that Yelp is software developed in Asian America. Asians love things that go beep. This plus Asians genetic tendency to food review and take pictures of the food leads to Asian over-representation.
Yelp is a liberal forum. Any conservative opinions are closely monitored and for the most part not tolerated. Don't even think of voicing an opinion about immigration as Yelpers are dedicated towards a lenient policy so that "ethnic food" options will increase.
Yelpers hate non-hip chain restaurants and will bash them every chance they get. The positive is that Yelpers have much better taste buds than boring old white middle America who prefer Orange Chicken over Ethiopian raw beef.
Unfortunately, I was banned from Yelp for repetitive violation of the code of conduct, even though I had written numerous popular reviews and was part of the Yelp Elite. It sure is funny how 20 people can find a review "funny" and then all of a sudden it will be flagged by someone who is offended by my writing and then taken down by the administration. Is it really that offensive to note that the Asian fusion restaurant that everyone is in love with is full of a certain type of white person when the same offended will go on to write a review about how "authentic" a restaurant was because all the other patrons were ethnic? Campaigns against SWPLs are not taken kindly by SWPLs.
I suppose I also did cross the invisible line when I slammed the clientele at AYCE buffets for being too fucking fat. But I think people deserve to know the truth. Eating huge portions of disgusting food is made worse when you are surrounded by disgusting people engorging themselves without a care in the world.
The average Yelp user is a female SWPL.
At 9%, African Americans are underrepresented on Yelp but not to the extent that I expected them to be. Blacks on Yelp are probably more SWPL than ghetto. It's hard to count on Yelp in the ghetto because there are so few reviews. I've tried it before and the only review on "Wong's Ghetto Chinese Food" goes something like "Dat some good shit this here kung pao chicken be. MmmmMMmmm."
At 15%, Asians are over-represented by a magnitude of 3. This is not surprising given that Yelp is software developed in Asian America. Asians love things that go beep. This plus Asians genetic tendency to food review and take pictures of the food leads to Asian over-representation.
Yelp is a liberal forum. Any conservative opinions are closely monitored and for the most part not tolerated. Don't even think of voicing an opinion about immigration as Yelpers are dedicated towards a lenient policy so that "ethnic food" options will increase.
Yelpers hate non-hip chain restaurants and will bash them every chance they get. The positive is that Yelpers have much better taste buds than boring old white middle America who prefer Orange Chicken over Ethiopian raw beef.
Unfortunately, I was banned from Yelp for repetitive violation of the code of conduct, even though I had written numerous popular reviews and was part of the Yelp Elite. It sure is funny how 20 people can find a review "funny" and then all of a sudden it will be flagged by someone who is offended by my writing and then taken down by the administration. Is it really that offensive to note that the Asian fusion restaurant that everyone is in love with is full of a certain type of white person when the same offended will go on to write a review about how "authentic" a restaurant was because all the other patrons were ethnic? Campaigns against SWPLs are not taken kindly by SWPLs.
I suppose I also did cross the invisible line when I slammed the clientele at AYCE buffets for being too fucking fat. But I think people deserve to know the truth. Eating huge portions of disgusting food is made worse when you are surrounded by disgusting people engorging themselves without a care in the world.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Books in College
I estimate that only 1 out of 10 students actually completes the assigned reading in college. At stupid schools, the number is probably closer to 1 out of 20 (stupid people aren't interested in reading books, and if they do read, it's not on the post-modern analysis of revolutionary France ). You have to possess an unnatural amount of intellectual curiosity to even attempt completing the large amount of reading in a typical upper-division humanities course at a respectable university. The average undergraduate does not have the time nor the patience to do this. And yet, due to grade inflation, they will still likely leave the class with a C at worst and more likely a B or perhaps even an A. I've never met anyone who failed a humanities course.
Being an overachiever, I foolishly spent hours upon hours pouring over books while my classmates were out having fun. I thought assigned reading meant assigned reading, but it really means "suggested", and most people just ignore the reading since it does not interest them nor does the act of reading actually improve grade point average in any significant way. In one of my history classes last year, I was disheartened to find over 12 books of varying lengths on the syllabus. Last semester I read over 40 books. I read one a week for the semester even though half of the books bored me to tears--and I was actually interested in the subject. My hard work did pay off though--I was able to demonstrate my mastery of the subject on the exam--something that people who did not read struggled with. If you don't read, you don't have much to write about.
Funny story involving racism. One my classmates who did not do so well inquired about my grade under the theory that the professor was prejudiced against Orientals and would not award us A's. Bubble burst.
I think the dearth of reading can be attributed to the economics of grade inflation. I have the impression that most professors do not expect the students to complete all the reading and issue grades based on this knowledge. If you can have a shot at an A- without reading, then the marginal cost of reading everything (huge amounts of time) is much higher than the marginal benefit (a small increase in grade point average) and it is simply not worth it for many to do the reading. Of course professors hope that students are actually passionate about the subject and read to satisfy intellectual curiosity (another benefit), but this is very rare.
A high school honor student I am mentoring recently gloated to me about how she received an A+ on a paper that was about a book she never read. I laughed and congratulated her on the "accomplishment" but was silently fuming inside. Maybe it is my Calvinistic sense of compunction, but I would never have considered such a thing, and I often wonder how people could do this. Of course, if Madoff can be Madoff, then not reading a book is a trifle in comparison. But the slippery slope is there. The harsh reality of life is that some of those who cheat will eventually learn their lesson. But others will go on cheating and prospering until they die a rich death in the expensive coffin. And then there are those who live their lives honestly but still end up falling on hard times.
I find a poor existence devoid of guilt much preferable to a lavish life built on compounded wrongs. But I honestly find myself questioning the universality of guilt in the human race. Are there those who steal without looking over their shoulder? My heart wants to my say no, but experience tells me, yes, yes and yes. Is this a progressing trend in human affairs? With the death of God and the emergence of a chaotic and uncertain world, perhaps it is.
This scenario also highlights the pathetic state of the American education system. America. Where you can receive and A+ in an AP English course without ever reading. This was not the first time that a student I mentored did this. More than a few of the high school dumb jock types would just moan about hating reading and brag about how they never read books, but they were in the stupid classes, so it was to be expected.
Being an overachiever, I foolishly spent hours upon hours pouring over books while my classmates were out having fun. I thought assigned reading meant assigned reading, but it really means "suggested", and most people just ignore the reading since it does not interest them nor does the act of reading actually improve grade point average in any significant way. In one of my history classes last year, I was disheartened to find over 12 books of varying lengths on the syllabus. Last semester I read over 40 books. I read one a week for the semester even though half of the books bored me to tears--and I was actually interested in the subject. My hard work did pay off though--I was able to demonstrate my mastery of the subject on the exam--something that people who did not read struggled with. If you don't read, you don't have much to write about.
Funny story involving racism. One my classmates who did not do so well inquired about my grade under the theory that the professor was prejudiced against Orientals and would not award us A's. Bubble burst.
I think the dearth of reading can be attributed to the economics of grade inflation. I have the impression that most professors do not expect the students to complete all the reading and issue grades based on this knowledge. If you can have a shot at an A- without reading, then the marginal cost of reading everything (huge amounts of time) is much higher than the marginal benefit (a small increase in grade point average) and it is simply not worth it for many to do the reading. Of course professors hope that students are actually passionate about the subject and read to satisfy intellectual curiosity (another benefit), but this is very rare.
A high school honor student I am mentoring recently gloated to me about how she received an A+ on a paper that was about a book she never read. I laughed and congratulated her on the "accomplishment" but was silently fuming inside. Maybe it is my Calvinistic sense of compunction, but I would never have considered such a thing, and I often wonder how people could do this. Of course, if Madoff can be Madoff, then not reading a book is a trifle in comparison. But the slippery slope is there. The harsh reality of life is that some of those who cheat will eventually learn their lesson. But others will go on cheating and prospering until they die a rich death in the expensive coffin. And then there are those who live their lives honestly but still end up falling on hard times.
I find a poor existence devoid of guilt much preferable to a lavish life built on compounded wrongs. But I honestly find myself questioning the universality of guilt in the human race. Are there those who steal without looking over their shoulder? My heart wants to my say no, but experience tells me, yes, yes and yes. Is this a progressing trend in human affairs? With the death of God and the emergence of a chaotic and uncertain world, perhaps it is.
This scenario also highlights the pathetic state of the American education system. America. Where you can receive and A+ in an AP English course without ever reading. This was not the first time that a student I mentored did this. More than a few of the high school dumb jock types would just moan about hating reading and brag about how they never read books, but they were in the stupid classes, so it was to be expected.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
EQ BABY!
Dali:
This is an example of a low-EQ HBDer being a bad person. How could you give up on someone who has an IQ of 70? Have you ever thought of how that individual came to have an IQ of 70? If Albert Einstein grew up in terrible conditions in Africa without access to good sanitation and education, he would also have an IQ of 70. An IQ of 70 is NOT a limit when it comes to understanding pure mathematics because IQ is highly malleable and therefore cannot be a limit. By providing the correct stimulating environment, we can raise that IQ by more than 55 points and allow that individual to have a chance at understanding pure mathematics. Anyone with enough EQ should be able to see this. EQ, baby, EQ! We are talking about humans here, not superheroes!!! There is no evidence that genetic limits exist. There is no evidence that we cannot turn someone with an base of IQ of 70 into a genius. It has been done and will be done again. After all, all babies start at IQ=0. It is a matter of education, not genes.
I don’t think HBDers actually believe in limits (to an extent) or question an individual’s capabilities, as most of their evidence is purely statistical. Genius black people and athletic Asian people exist, but they are many standard deviations from the norm. However, having an IQ of 70 is definitely a limit when it comes to understanding pure mathematics.
This is an example of a low-EQ HBDer being a bad person. How could you give up on someone who has an IQ of 70? Have you ever thought of how that individual came to have an IQ of 70? If Albert Einstein grew up in terrible conditions in Africa without access to good sanitation and education, he would also have an IQ of 70. An IQ of 70 is NOT a limit when it comes to understanding pure mathematics because IQ is highly malleable and therefore cannot be a limit. By providing the correct stimulating environment, we can raise that IQ by more than 55 points and allow that individual to have a chance at understanding pure mathematics. Anyone with enough EQ should be able to see this. EQ, baby, EQ! We are talking about humans here, not superheroes!!! There is no evidence that genetic limits exist. There is no evidence that we cannot turn someone with an base of IQ of 70 into a genius. It has been done and will be done again. After all, all babies start at IQ=0. It is a matter of education, not genes.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
A Critical Error
James Watson:
At least I think BigWowo is responding to James Watson. I have never argued this before and I am not exactly sure what his point is here. He seems to now agree with me that equality would be a highly unlikely outcome in any event. I have been pointing this out to him over and over again and he would shoot back with the idea that equality is the most desirable outcome and therefore should the burden of proof should be placed on those who claim inequality. No one has suggested that anyone is afraid to test--Africans have been tested and their IQs have been found to be significantly lower in Africa. Yeah, it's a strawman, and this is probably the first time I've seen someone fail to destroy their own strawman.
there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.Big Wowo:
“Well, if we tested people across different populations, I really doubt you’d get equal results! You’re just afraid to test!”
Indeed, it’s impossible to test across different populations fairly, as one would have to compare populations of equal wealth, education, etc. But even if it were possible…few people think that the results would be equal. If I compared population heights, vertical jumps, IQ, bowling scores, head sizes, or whatever, it’s highly unlikely that I’d get the exact same results. It’s a strawman
At least I think BigWowo is responding to James Watson. I have never argued this before and I am not exactly sure what his point is here. He seems to now agree with me that equality would be a highly unlikely outcome in any event. I have been pointing this out to him over and over again and he would shoot back with the idea that equality is the most desirable outcome and therefore should the burden of proof should be placed on those who claim inequality. No one has suggested that anyone is afraid to test--Africans have been tested and their IQs have been found to be significantly lower in Africa. Yeah, it's a strawman, and this is probably the first time I've seen someone fail to destroy their own strawman.
.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
A Statistics Problem
A: East Asians are on average much smarter than blacks.
B: You are wrong and here is why. Thomas Sowell is a very smart man and he is black. If East Asians were in fact much smarter than blacks, then Thomas Sowell would be Asian, not black. He looks very black to me. The fact that Thomas Sowell is smart and black conclusively disproves the racist notion that East Asians are on average much smarter than blacks.
A: East Asians are on average less athletic than blacks. (In my mind, a controversial statement, it depends on how we define athletic, but let's suppose athleticism equates to success in 100m and 110m hurdles, and even this is problematic, I don't know of any evidence suggesting the greater average athleticism of blacks, only their much higher propensity for being on the far right of the 100m/110h bell curve).
B: Liu Xiang is a very 110m hurdler and he is Chinese. If you were right, then Liu Xiang would have to be black. He doesn't look black to me.
B: You are wrong and here is why. Thomas Sowell is a very smart man and he is black. If East Asians were in fact much smarter than blacks, then Thomas Sowell would be Asian, not black. He looks very black to me. The fact that Thomas Sowell is smart and black conclusively disproves the racist notion that East Asians are on average much smarter than blacks.
A: East Asians are on average less athletic than blacks. (In my mind, a controversial statement, it depends on how we define athletic, but let's suppose athleticism equates to success in 100m and 110m hurdles, and even this is problematic, I don't know of any evidence suggesting the greater average athleticism of blacks, only their much higher propensity for being on the far right of the 100m/110h bell curve).
B: Liu Xiang is a very 110m hurdler and he is Chinese. If you were right, then Liu Xiang would have to be black. He doesn't look black to me.
Genetic Limitations
There is no evidence that people have genetic limitations.
A man who believes that he has no genetic limitations and can fly like a bird then proceeds to jump off a cliff is a dead man. We all, at present, have a final limitation, and that is death. The universality of death is evidence of genetic limitations. Unless that is of course you believe in the whole heaven narrative.
This is assuming that science does not progress to the point where we can in fact fly or perpetually avoid death.
A man who believes that he has no genetic limitations and can fly like a bird then proceeds to jump off a cliff is a dead man. We all, at present, have a final limitation, and that is death. The universality of death is evidence of genetic limitations. Unless that is of course you believe in the whole heaven narrative.
This is assuming that science does not progress to the point where we can in fact fly or perpetually avoid death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)