nhchris

Unpaywalled: http://archive.is/vGZXG

Police and prosecutors can and do make mistakes, inadvertently or sometimes prejudiciously.

That's one of the reasons murder is used. Hard to fudge the statistics on it, immune to overpolicing, most of it is intra-racial, and it's hard to misidentify a perpetrator so bad that they go from white to black.

But for non-murder, there is the National Crime Victimization Survey, that does not involve the police, and acts as a check on their data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Victimization_S...

US homicide rate: 6.5, Black population: 12.1%, homicide rate/Black %: 0.54

UK homicide rate: 1.1, Black population: 3.15%, homicide rate/Black %: 0.35 (0.65x that of the US)

So gun control seems to have helped, but not as much as 1500 vs 50,000. It would be interesting to see the homicide rate for UK Blacks specifically, but I could only find data about homicide victims by race, not perpetrators. Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingd...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...

Are all immigrant populations interchangeable?

did you even read the article?

I did. It's using a lot of words to obfuscate its central thesis: That even if you select against a trait, that trait won't diminish. It may as well be arguing that antibiotic resistance cannot develop, or that corn can't be selectively bred to increase yield.

It's sad that even 163 years after On the Origin of Species, people are still trying to deny it.

Early twin studies of adult individuals have found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%, with some recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80% - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Are you staring aghast at the latest cluster of immigrants in this country, are you fretting that they're breeding like rabbits? That generation of children will be the people your kids grow up with, go to school with, date, and marry. It may take a while, but eventually, your line will merge with theirs.

Please don't spread the great replacement conspiracy theory.

There are no grounds to argue that there are distinct subpopulations of people with different potentials for intelligence. Genes flow fluidly

I don't see why we need to talk about "distinct subpopulations" at all, when individuals suffice. Besides, if you think "gene flow" means intelligence is immune to evolution, doesn't that apply to every other trait as well? What you're arguing is that evolution doesn't happen.

A movie was filmed to answer your question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

A comedy, but based in fact - e.g. educational attainment is inversely correlated with fertility. For a less individual view, you can visit Wikipedia's list of countries by fertility rate, and sort them by said rate.

I've been told all my life

The younger generations are the target audience, who will believe these lies about your education. As old times slip from living memory, they are rewritten into a caricature of themselves to serve the current zeitgeist.

This is not an isolated case, e.g. this article [1] about appropriating babywearing fashion that tried to gaslight us into thinking Europeans simply had no way of carrying their children prior to strollers, and so we should feel appropriately guilty over using modern baby carriers based on "indigenous knowledge".

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29150086

It's really depressing how we totally fail to permanently learn our lessons. [..] It's so bizarre that people will campaign for and champion the rollback of regulations that negatively affect them directly.

From my exposure to the political right, they've been preoccupied with CRT, drag queen story hour, and censorship. Occasionally immigration pops up, but politicians even on the right prefer to ignore that (as any graph of immigration to the US vs. which party is in power will show).

I haven't seen even a hint of a grassroots campaign against child labor restrictions - or any kind of campaign at all, just bills suddenly appearing out of the blue. This is strictly a top-down push, not even from the politicians, but their puppet-masters. They're banking on voters' loyalty and lack of alternatives to not lose any votes.

If there's a lesson we forgot, it's how to limit corruption in politics, not that maybe child labor is OK.

As people such as Martinez fill Stanford and rise through its ranks, each subsequent president becomes more likely to endorse such actions, instead of demanding apologies for them.

Surely we can agree that a protest out on the streets, or inside a lecture hall, differ. And for outdoors, "loud and disruptive" is the norm. There the line is usually drawn at violence.

The objection is one can't effectively lecture while heckled, not that they can't "handle" it. Disrupting class, in other words.

Though FIRE also calls that heckling "unlawful", which, unless I'm missing something, I disagree with - I don't see which laws the hecklers broke, since as far as protesting goes, they were tame, if allegedly uncivil and in the wrong venue.

I saw the video of him calmly saying "you are an appalling idiot" twice to a student after the student said what he's doing is disgusting (thrice) [1]. Is there a video of him shouting it?

[1] https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1634791941350064128

In that video he calmly replies "You're an appalling idiot" to the person calling him* "disgusting". I was more interested in the alleged shouting at civil questions.

*Correction: The student is calling what he's doing disgusting, not the man himself.

Your typical Stanford student, assuming they're not a legacy, is extremely hard-working and bright. Top of their class. Whereas your typical judge is a mediocre lawyer who happened to be a known commodity among oily politicians.

The typical judge, perhaps, but Duncan [0] graduated summa cum laude [1] from Louisiana State University, which seems to be well regarded, and earned a Master of Laws from Columbia Law School, which is "widely regarded as one of the most prestigious law schools in the world and has always ranked in the top five schools in the United States" [2].

But more pertinent is engineer_22's comment [3] that he was invited to speak by some of those students you think so highly of.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyle_Duncan_(judge)

[1] meaning "with highest praise", typically awarded to graduates in the top 1%, 2%, or 5% of their class - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_honors#Distinctions

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Law_School

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35121972

The administrator kept asking “is the juice worth the squeeze?” Well no, not at all.

If you answer 'no', then they move on to the next thing, and ask again.

shouting down students who raised questions with civility

Sounds awful. Is there video?

"The law was originally approved as a temporary cabinet resolution during the second intifada, but was extended every year since. In 2021, then-Foreign Minister Yair Lapid said it is 'one of the tools aimed at ensuring a Jewish majority in Israel'"

Previous reports on this law: Israel's Knesset passes law barring Palestinian spouses

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-knesset-pa...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/11/israels-knesset-pas...

I see. So despite the sources saying that "these subject peoples were then exploited for cheap labor", and, presumably, were also used for the documented human sacrifice, we know that they otherwise treated their slaves relatively well? How do we know this?

You also say "enslaving each other", but from what was written so far it seems to have been mostly Buganda enslaving its neighbors - they didn't take turns.

The event that led to the slow demise of Arabian slavery, the Zanj rebellion, occurred a thousand years before transatlantic slavery even existed.

Slow indeed:

It is estimated that, in the 17th and 18th centuries, 1.4 million slaves were compelled to make the trek through the Sahara [..] 1.2 million slaves are estimated to have been sent through the Sahara in the 19th century. In the 1830s, a period when slave trade flourished, Ghadames was handling 2,500 slaves a year. Even though the slave trade was officially abolished in Tripoli in 1853, in practice it continued until the 1890s. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_slave_trade

Robert Davis estimates that slave traders from Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli enslaved 1 million to 1.25 million Europeans in North Africa, from the beginning of the 16th century to the middle of the 18th (these numbers do not include the European people who were enslaved by Morocco and by other raiders and traders of the Mediterranean Sea coast). - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_slave_trade

Then HN is an exception, because I never come across it otherwise. Which is not surprising, given the complete absence of those instances of slavery and imperialism from pop culture.

Sorry, near complete - I'm sure if you really try, you can dig up some movie showing it, and claim it has equal weight to the torrent of movies about US's slavery.

The Arab slave trade took even more slaves than that - mostly Black, but some 2 million Europeans too. How come they didn't benefit so much from it?

In fact, almost every region in the world practiced slavery at some point or another [1]. So how come the relatively small fraction of slaves (e.g. the US is only 12% Black) had such outsized economic benefits for the US and Europe, that didn't manifest in any other instance of slavery?

And the US also waged an expensive and bloody war to end slavery. Did we take into account how the lack of such a war would have helped their economy? Or are we only tallying the economic benefits of slavery, and ignoring its costs?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#History

Does that only count "slave trade" as exporting slaves? I.e. it does not count local slavery, such as that of their subjugated neighbors.

It's strange how, despite the widespread consensus during and after the 2008 crisis, that the banks were "too big to fail", no action was taken to break them up or somehow reduce their size.

What about a society where everything you see, read, and write, is logged in some central database, to be used, or not, for purposes unknown to you? The Stasi spies were such a great idea that we want to keep them, but much, much more powerful?

You raise an interesting and well-reasoned argument. I'll need some time to think about it.

I don't know what you're talking about

Sure, I'll try to be clearer. You wrote "I'm making a simple positive argument about the clearly stated goal of the founders."

Which goal, and where was it stated?

Americans are Americans because we believe (or should. Do you?) in the Constitution and the rule of law.

I'm not American. But that's not the citizenship condition your founding fathers passed. It's not even the citizenship condition today.

And which "minority" are you talking about?

It doesn't matter - all of them living in the US (or any other country) will be subject to the same sub-replacement conditions I argue are harmful to a nation, in the sense that a nation is not just the legal and ideological system, but also people.

"White" isn't an ethnicity or a separate grouping. Rather it's just a specific genetic adaptation to colder climates in the amount of melanin in the skin.

You're saying human groups were separate long enough to develop different adaptations to the climate.. but no other adaptations? Despite your claim about how similar we all are, genetic tests easily determine geographic ancestry, as a PCA plot of genetic diversity shows [1]. The claim that we are more similar rests on single-gene variation, which is a meaningless test, since nearly all traits are polygenic. Even your claim about Neanderthal genes is wrong - sub-Saharan Africans don't have them. And Scientific American has admitted to putting political goals ahead of science [2], so their credibility in this area is nil.

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3D_PCA_plot_of_Xavan...

[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-must-not-...

I've sourced my claims, so could you likewise show me this clearly stated goal? You mention Federalist 52 in your other comment, but wikipedia's summary says nothing about racial egalitarianism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._52

From the other post: That's 29.4% of LA that's white [1], down from 70+% in the 60s [2]. I guess we have to somehow force whites not to flee from diversifying neighborhoods. Cutting funds to schools that are too white was a good start [3], but more is needed.

Of course, the article doesn't state what % of the air pollution affecting people of color is caused by the white people driven from their old neighborhoods, it only gives an (unscaled) picture showing that commuters in non-white neighborhoods tend to be whiter, than the other way around.

But I'm sure the article wouldn't have such a bold title unless 50+% of the pollution was caused by whites, despite them being 29.4% of the population.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Los_Angeles

[2] https://image.slidesharecdn.com/asianamericansinlosangelesfu...

[3] NoHo school budget cuts due to high white student percentage sparks outrage - https://abc7.com/racist-school-anti-white-race-based-funding...

I've got the founders on my side of this argument.

The limit citizenship to "free White persons of good character" founding fathers [1]? Or Thomas Jefferson, who considered that, when freed, Blacks should be "removed beyond the reach of mixture" [2]? James Madison, who wrote "To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U. S. the freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population." [3]? Or Benjamin Franklin, writing "the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small [..] I could wish their Numbers were increased [..] But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind." [4]?

As an American you were probably exposed to much propaganda about how the US is a "nation founded on an idea", or similar nonsense. But as a foreign observer, let me assure you nothing could be further from the truth. Did you never ask yourself, if the founders were such racial egalitarians, how is it that, aside from the descendants of Black slaves (10%), the US was nearly entirely white (87.5%) until 1950? That leaves just 2.5% for immigration from the entire rest of the world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/what-je...

[3] https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s65...

[4] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-00...