|
fade5 posted:On the "here in America" front, the US just arrested six people who attempted to go join ISIL, so basically you can say that we're already successfully monitoring anything that could pop up: They aren't much of a threat to the US, and dude's mom was wrong, but this information is misleading. The Saudi coalition in Yemen has done well over half as many airstrikes in a month as the US has done in Iraq and Syria since October, it took a tremendous international effort to keep ISIS from overrunning Kobani, and they've been advancing elsewhere just as fast as they're being pushed back. They have the strongest presence in Damascus they've ever had, the preparation for the operation to take Mosul is just not happening, and they are moving on Ramadi right now. They're not "slowly dying." In fact, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
|
# ¿ Apr 21, 2015 10:10 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:44 |
|
its because Y% of white people deserve to have crimes done on them, so more black people have to commit crimes because there are a lot more whites and not very many minoritys per capital to stab them
|
# ¿ May 9, 2015 05:31 |
|
the knowledge has been pooled
|
# ¿ May 9, 2015 05:41 |
|
white people control the media, even BET, and so they make up the stories people follow. they only do stories on guys who its easy to argue against. like all they talk all about are guys who were shot when someone can just say "oh well he stole a candy bar and then was going to fight that cop" or "he was beating that man up, of course he shot a gun at him," and so those are the stories that white and black people talk about. the news dont talk about the people who didn't do anything to get shot though. the truth is that 93% of black people who get shot or killed are kids on the honor role who had their hands up and at their sides, and who didn't do something to get shot at by the man who also called them niggers four times first.
|
# ¿ May 9, 2015 06:01 |
|
There's obviously racial, geographic, and cultural differences that have pushed evolution down separate paths, but you can also see the socio-economic, political aspects that effect these types of things. For instance, in England, Soccer was a "white" sport, and whites dominated it there. But you look at South Africa, and there was a different balance, which was summed up by the old racist phrase "soccer is a gentlemans game played by hooligans, rugby is a hooligans game played by gentlemen." Soccer was the black game, and rugby was the white game. And even today, South African soccer is dominated by Kaizer Chiefs and Orlando Pirates, two teams that are almost exclusively black, as part of that legacy. And while Rugby is traditionally a white sport in SA and elsewhere, they get their asses handed to them regularly by New Zealand, who feature a lot of Maori players. That's not even looking at something like the CCCP hockey team, that absolutely dominated international hockey for decades based entirely on the communist systems dictatorial management of hockey programs in the Soviet Union, and who's success completely fell apart after its fall. Who's physical and mental attributes were completely irrelevant to their dominance. So it really is a diverse thing with a ton of variables. It's also pretty touchy because flirting with the idea of inherent differences between different groups of people is to flirt with racial superiority and stereotypes. "How many white dudes have won the slam dunk competition" and "black men are only capable of advancing through sports" are two really closely related viewpoints, but one is OK and the other is obviously racist poo poo. So you have to be careful about what you viewpoints you promote. But at the same time, people hate and fear what they don't understand, so it's important that we learn about each others differences and take pride in and celebrate them rather than just sweeping them under the carpet and pretending they don't exist, in the interest of preventing ignorance.
Volkerball fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Sep 8, 2015 |
# ¿ Sep 8, 2015 08:43 |
|
Cingulate posted:No. If all major Russian ethnicities had been extremely diminutive in stature, they would not have been able to form that team. (Some genes are not sufficient, but necessary conditions.) Larionov 5'9" 170 Makarov 5'11" 185 Krutov 5'9" 190 Kasatonov 6'1" 210 Fetisov 6'1" 210 Not an ethnicity on earth that couldn't provide substantial numbers of people in that size range to get flooded into Red Army hockey camps when they're 5. V. Illych L. posted:if such ideas are to be investigated they need to be investigated properly and carefully, with a massive critical eye towards any biases that may present themselves also this.
|
# ¿ Sep 8, 2015 15:09 |
|
Cingulate posted:They'd possibly be able to field one whole team of hockey players of that stature. They'd most likely not be able to find sufficiently many people at that stature who're also gifted with the countless other aspects one needs to play hockey. But the Soviet system wasn't based on their players being gifted. They'd pull out the best of the best when they were very little, take 5 of them, put them together when they were children, and then those 5 players would be on the same line for life. Canada had Gretzky, Lemieux, and all the all-world talents. But the Soviet lines had been playing with each other all their lives, and were able to just shred defenses with their passing.
|
# ¿ Sep 8, 2015 17:03 |
|
That talking point originated with southern whites back in the day. That they were doing slaves a service. It was accompanied with the belief that it was the best these simple negroes could ever aspire to achieve in life. There were more than a few people who were surprised when slaves rose up against them and all black regiments formed in the union army. Ungrateful bastards.
|
# ¿ Jun 19, 2017 09:26 |
|
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 21:44 |
|
It's always fun to watch gone with the wind while constantly reminding yourself this is a thing people actually believe.
|
# ¿ Jun 19, 2017 14:54 |