65 dead per hour.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...us/6434141002/

Teeth falling out.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1868234...eeth-fall-out/

https://www.businessinsider.com/make...itions-2020-11

You're right, of course. I'm over generalizing. It was done unfairly in the early-mid 20th century by many countries under the guise of Eugenics. The "Scientific" work on Eugenics before WW2 was pretty heavily pro-eugenics, leading to Hitler's solution of pruning the human family tree

I should have phrased that differently.

SCOTUS has actually ruled on "hate speech" throughout the 20th century (whether the 20th century is "modern day" depends on your POV I guess - for some people the 1960s is still "modern" but for others its "a long time ago"). Brandenburg v Ohio (395 US 444) in 1969 established a test for 'hate speech' falling out of 1A protection if it seeks to cause "imminent lawless action." Additionally, Times v Sullivan (376 US 254) established the "actual malice" burden for public figures when considering 1A protections - speech is only unprotected when "actual malice" can be proven (at least for public figures (this has a specific legal meaning), for private citizens the burden is lower afaik). Both of these cases have their roots in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.

The tl;dr is that you and michaelk are probably both right - your example of being assaulted for expressing religious views is likely right (and in that case you'd probably have additional protections because its about religious discrimination, so could technically become a 'hate crime' as well), but the 1A does not protect speech that directly incites harm or damage(s) to a party ("imminent lawless action"). This goes from 'obvious' to 'blurry' fairly quickly from my understanding - so the 'obvious' side is for example hiring a hitman - that's obviously un-protected speech and illegal on many fronts, but the 'blurry' side is something more nebulous like 'inciting a race war' (e.g. Charles Manson).

There's three fundamental problems with this:
1) The implicit assumption that 'IQ tests' are objective or accurate, and somehow free of observer and confirmation biases (which they are not).
2) That IQ is a simple, heritable trait (it is not believed to be).
3) That some class/group of people need to be 'fixed' by some other class/group of their 'betters.'

Isn't it fascinating that some here think their available news is mostly dominated by Conservatives while others consider most new sources "The Liberal Media" Despite the various algorithms that feed us ever more of what we apparently visit or like, it is possible to view a variety of sources of differing, even opposing, POV if one actually bothers to seek them out.

I do not follow you. What does IQ have to do with race? And then again, a high IQ does not qualify one for more influence.

To treat people in any patronising way is, in my view, a mistake.

Nothing, just one of those ideologies/alternate realities that have been shoved on the country. Everyone is a victim. No one is responsible for themselves.

You can't demand or encourage the lesser achieving to do better. It's wrong for kids to play baseball and for 1 team to win. That would damage the fragile little psyche of the loosing team. Hence, kindergarten style safe spaces in the nations universities.

Sophomores in college studying what once was learned in 4th-5th grade. And a gradual decline in IQ among students. In fact, the students were scoring so poorly on the psat and sat tests, and we looked so bad compared to the other nations, we dumbed down the test so that students would score better. That happened in the 1980's. Scores seem to have rebounded since then.

The reason that IQ tests were dropped in the US is that some groups did poorer than other groups. No matter how much taxpayer money was thrown at it, the scores stayed lower. Hence, they are racist.

Actually covid itself raises a very good example of this kind of question. Everyone knows that black and south Asian people are more likely to die of covid than white people. Does this mean that they really have a higher susceptibility to covid for genetic reasons? Or is it a reflection of racism in society? For example, it's often pointed out that BAME people are more likely to be poor, to have a poor diet, live in crowded housing and do jobs like driving buses and hospital portering that put them at higher risk. In other words, covid isn't racist (perish the thought!); society is racist.

But it's not so simple. For example recent research shows that black (Afro-Caribbean) people are more likely to catch covid than white people but no more likely to die of it when that is allowed for, whereas South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) are more likely to catch it as well as more likely to develop complications. Indians mostly have good jobs and a high standard of living but they also have a tradition of working in the medical sector, which puts them at greater risk. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are more likely to be poor. Black and South Asian people are all highly likely to live in multi-generational households, which puts them at greater risk of infection, but that is a matter of cultural choice for them and not the outcome of racism.

All these groups also have high levels of type 2 diabetes, which is another well-known risk factor for dying of covid. This may be due to poverty and therefore, perhaps, to racism; a diabetogenic diet is cheaper! But again, that doesn't explain the high rates of diabetes among Indians, who earn more on average than white people do.

It's simply too easy to write off discrepancies of this kind as a proof of racism.

As a qualified medical doctor I can assure you that doctors know there is a difference between people with DNA of different origin (I carefully don't use the 'R' word because it triggers people). For instance, betablockers work way less with people that have a lot of DNA from late African descend and I usually prescribe calcium antagonists with better results. People originating from Indonesia should react the same to betablockers as people originating from Germany but I can assure you that in reality it is different. And there are more examples of course.

Discrepancies exist and there always will be. If everyone would not take those discrepancies a step further, life would be SO much easier for everyone.

The latter is certainly true for e.g. the Divided States of North America.
Which doesn't necessarily contradict the former.

BTW, according to your definition I am not Everybody...

Personally, I think you're into what Churchill called "Lies, Damned Lies, & Statistics" where this is headed. I don't regard Churchill as any paragon of virtue either, btw.

In the Excited States the amount of refined food eaten by poorer folks is alarming, and they suffer as a result. Ethnic stores have much less fresh food generally. The amount of GMO food eaten is staggering. It's banned in Europe. What's baffling me is that people don't die like flies 100% of the time over there.

Eh? Not sure of the relevance of Churchill for that quote.

Given the phrase appeared to grow in popularity around the 1880-1890s it is potentially possible it ultimately originated from a young Churchill (born 1874), but there is zero evidence to even suggest that in those two sources, so it's very likely not the case.

Personally, I don't believe the young Churchill was quotable. Some myopic dweeb quoted him, and I mentioned that attribution. Thanks for the correction.

My point was that the race thing was in danger of becoming a battle of statistics, and they are boring.

As Socrates once lamented, "That Churchill bloke is another famous figure who 99% of the time didn't say what people said he did, just like me."


I'm not sure if I see where you're coming from though - I don't see stats in any of the past few posts?

No - you'll have to go back to #69 and before for that. I have no objections to what was said, but differing opinions are better expressed without mentioning specific racial groups. Especially as regards the Excited States.

Here's a particularly disgusting bit of news. Those of you who live in the UK will be familiar with the idea that in Tier 2 locations, pubs can only serve alcoholic drinks on site if they provide food with them; in Tier 3 they can't serve them at all except as takeaways. I suppose the rationale is that people who are allowed to drink without eating are more likely to get drunk and form crowds on the street. But apparently some people are just throwing the meal away!

We have a galloping hunger crisis here! A lot of families can no longer feed their children because of rising unemployment, and food banks are hardly able to cope with the demand. And these selfish pigs are throwing good food away. I hope they all get covid and get it really badly!