/edu/ - Education

>>8786
Not the guy who sent you the book, retard LOL. My memory of the book is rusty but I'm pretty sure Chapter 2 is what you want, learn to skim a book shithead
You know as well as I do you don't have better things to do, you're spending your friday night on an Albanian basket weaving forum arguing about why CIA are communists and why Faggotism is the way to go, even though you already got destroyed in this thread months prior. Go outside. Read a book. Have sex.

>>8786
>I. Can't. READ! SPOONFEED ME DADDY /leftypol/
>I just like being a retard, let m be a retard on a board made specifically for the opposite ofo that!
>N-no u!
KEK

thread summed up

>>6685
>finer details like economic policy or how to deal with the transition from our current society into our ideal society are to be handled.

Other finer details include, y'know, how to handle the lives of all the groups that don't fit into your fascist wet dream.

>>5601
the test should have been conducted more than once on the same farmers, because people giving an IQ test again, will score higher.
im assuming the test was conducted only once, because it says between 2010 and 2011, and it also says the farmers harvest the sugarcane once a year.

Vidrel talks about the holodomor, and how the narrative that it happened as target terror-famine/genocide is patently absurd, even if the soviet government wasn't without its flaws during the famine.

>>10155
targeted terror-famine/genocide against the ukrainians*

Is this book worth debunking on its own, or has it already been done? Should I just download resources from the google doc and counter with those facts right off the cuff without wasting time? If there's anything I can learn from this, I look forward to it.

>>10309
Does the book say anything other than "Molotov-Ribbentrop existed and was bad"?
If not, there's plenty of resources debunking/ contextualising the pact, such as pic related. Also worth mentioning that a non-aggression pact (undertaken when the USSR was surrounded by hostile nations) is significantly different from, say, an alliance, which books like that like to imply it was.

>>10310
The book implies nothing, the book explicitly says that they "stood side by side as allies" and makes every attempt to suggest(even if acknowledging both leaders had different goals) Horseshoe Theory "totalitarians are all the same" bullshit.

>>10394
The book's argument is that the Soviets and Reich were allies due to them doing several acts of collaboration in order to fight the Polish Army, such as sharing intelligence on the size of Polish ranks.

>>10397
By that metric the Poles and Soviets had been allies because the Polish Military specifically ordered the army to not engage the Red Army.
Also the book cites the fake "Nazi-Soviet Parade" nonsense every other "muh Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance" retard says.

Loose fit maybe, but this was posted in /ITG/ about why trying to discuss identity politics on the site is a problem.

Here's a list I've compiled of popular anticommunist authors (plus some others) admitting there was no such thing as the Holodomor. Feel free to copypaste it.

Anne Applebaum, Red Famine:
>"In practice, ‘genocide’, as defined by the UN documents, came to mean the physical elimination of an entire ethnic group, in a manner similar to the Holocaust. The Holodomor does not meet that criterion. The Ukrainian famine was not an attempt to eliminate every single living Ukrainian; it was also halted, in the summer of 1933, well before it could devastate the entire nation"
Stephane Courtois/Nicolas Werth, The Black Book of Communism:
>"Should one see this famine as a genocide of the Ukrainian people, as a number of Ukrainian historians and researchers do today? It is undeniable that the Ukrainian peasantry were the principal victims in the famine of 1932-33 (…) But proportionally the famine was just as severe in the Cossack territories of the Kuban and the Don and in Kazakhstan"
Orlando Figes, Revolutionary Russia 1891-1991:
>"No hard evidence has so far come to light of the regime's intention to kill millions through famine, let alone of a genocide campaign against the Ukrainians. Many parts of Ukraine were ethnically mixed. There is no data to suggest that there was a policy of taking more grain from Ukrainian villages than from the Russians or other ethnic groups in the famine area. And Ukraine was not the only region to suffer terribly from the famine, which was almost as bad in Kazakhstan."
Robert Service, Stalin - A Biography:
>"Although Stalin did not seek the extermination of all Ukrainians and Kazakhs, he certainly aimed to extirpate all opposition real and potential from among them. The ultimate objective, though, was to turn Ukraine and Kazakhstan into economically efficient Soviet republics. He therefore allowed both peoples to retain their culture…"
Stephen Kotkin, Stalin - Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941:
>This becomes “genocide” when the authors include the executions of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, poets, musicians, artists, church officials. They offer no evidence of intentional starvation or of ethnic targeting. They do not dwell on the ethnic Ukrainian agency in the alleged genocide against Ukrainians (in regions where lots of Russians lived and died). They do not include the Volga Valley, Kazakhstan, the Urals, Western Siberia, and other famine-wracked regions where Ukrainians did not form a large percentage of the population.
Alexander Solshenistyn:
>In 2008, he published an article on Izvestia calling the Holodomor a "provocatory cry about a 'genocide' that was started in the minds of Ukrainian chauvinists decades later" (Source: https://iz.ru/news/335020)
On Robert Conquest backpedaling:
>"In 2003, Dr. Conquest wrote to us explaining that he does not hold the view that Stalin purposely inflicted the 1933 famine. No. What I argue is that with resulting famine imminent, he could have prevented it, but put "Soviet interest" other than feeding the starving first thus consciously abetting it" (R.W. Davies & Stephen G. Wheatcroft. "Debate. Stalin and the Soviet Famine of 1932 - 33: A Reply to Ellman.")
>"In June 2006 a Ukrainian delegation of experts on the Holocaust and the Golodomor met Robert Conquest in Stanford University and enquired about his views, and were told directly by him that he preferred not to use the term genocide (Kul’chitskii (2007), 176)" (From R.W. Davies / Stephen Wheatcroft, The Years of Hunger - Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933)
Grover Furr on the reaction of other historians (From Blood Lies):
>"There is no evidence it was intentionally directed against Ukrainians," said Alexander Dallin of Stanford, the father of modern Sovietology. "That would be totally out of keeping with what we know — it makes no sense."
>"This is crap, rubbish," said Moshe Lewin of the University of Pennsylvania, whose 'Russian Peasants and Soviet Power' broke new ground in social history. "I am an anti-Stalinist, but I don't see how this [genocide] campaign adds to our knowledge. It's adding horrors, adding horrors, until it becomes a pathology.
>"I absolutely reject it," said Lynne Viola of SUNY-Binghamton, the first US historian to examine Moscow's Central State Archive on collectivization. "Why in god's name would this paranoid government consciously produce a famine when they were terrified of war [with Germany]?
>"He's terrible at doing research," said veteran Sovietologist Roberta Manning of Boston College. "He misuses sources, he twists everything."
>In a polite but firmly negative review of Conquest's book in the London Review of Books in 1987 American Soviet scholar J. Arch Getty wrote: Conquest's hypothesis, sources and evidence are not new. Indeed, he himself first put forward his view two years ago in a work sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute. The intentional famine story, however, has been an article of faith for Ukrainian émigrés in the West since the Cold War. Much of Conquest's most graphic description is taken from such period-pieces as The Golgoltha of the Ukraine (1953), The Black Deeds of the Kremlin (1953) and Communism the Enemy of Mankind (1955). Conquest's book will thus give a certain academic credibility to a theory which has not been generally accepted by non-partisan scholars outside the circles of exiled nationalities. In today's conservative political climate, with its 'evil empire' discourse, I am sure that the book will be very popular.
On the Russian release of archival documents:
>“In the archives of Russia, in the archives of the republics of the former USSR, millions of documents have been preserved [of] the famine in the USSR at the beginning of the 1930s of the last century in various regions of the large country. Not a single document has been found confirming the conception of a ‘Holodomor-genocide’ in Ukraine or even a hint in the documents about ethnic motives of what occurred, including in Ukraine.” (Source: V. P. Kozlov, Golod v SSSR 1930-1934; Famine in the USSR 1930­-1934 (2009)

>>10444
Man, that I recognize damn near every name on this copy-paste is a real indicator of just how long I've studied this topic.

>>10425
Excellent post though they deemphasize the impact of liberals and their fascist counter-parts. It's not just rationalizing, but its also a formation of golden calves (in the form of vague but generally accepted concepts so that disagreeing makes you appear to be a bad person) that they use to gaslight anyone that attempts to criticize idpol from an objective standpoint. For example the liberal slogan of black lives matter". On a base, superficial level, yeah there's nothing incorrect, but the problem is that
A) focusing on a specific identity in your rhetoric for ethics, immediately attracts the porky rhetoric about "muh privleg" and other identarian, divisive nonsense
B) it ignores the subversive and often rightist context of these phrases and concepts and their inherent use as a justification for dumb idpol shit promoted by rainbow-capitalist ideologues; a gateway for literal fed propaganda
It goes without saying that this also applies to rightoid slogans about stuff like "de jooz"

>>10444 (cheka'd)
>Robert Service
>tfw i inherited one of his books from my father

>>8763
Are you fucking retarded. In other words a society specifically designed to oppress me, many of my friends, and entire ethnic groups, sexual minorities, neurological minorities, etc. It's materially impossible for me to support your system because it results in my being destroyed. Which proves the psychopathy of you right wingers: that you think this is okay because you think I deserve to die.

>>10665

Why are you entertaining bait

>>10399

Can you provide a source?

>>6659
> The Nazis and killers were punished, but many were rehabilitated. It's a complex ethical and moral question which most people frankly do not want to go into because it is so much easier to say "fascists are subhumans to be killed" rather than to try and stop and save these deluded people.

Reading as I play Wolfenstein. It’s funny, because in this last level I’m trying to beat General Deathshead is trying to guilt B.J.Blaskowics over the families of the Nazis he has killed. Sardonically, it’s noted he must have killed thousands!

>>6659
Ok anon, but fact of the matter is, the resources and bandwidth needed to save and reform any of these people aren't available on the left, or will be in a very long time. For that reason, we can't let the humanity of these people interfere with our goals, even if recognize these things to be true. I am for crushing the fascist, while also recognizing their humanity. I do not shed any tears for them, but rather who they could've become. I hope for the day when the Left can reform reactionaries and the like. Until then, it's a struggle for power.

>>5578
>African Americans and Latinos report lower levels of trust, regardless of where they live.
but what are the reasons for this? is it because they are hated by nonblacks or nonhispanics? "regardless of where they live" includes homogenous societies with large majority black/latino?
>THE DIFFERENCE IN TRUST BETWEEN A 100% WHITE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND A 1% WHITE NEIGHBOURHOOD WHERE NEIGHBOURS SHARE THE SAME LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
you know "diversity" doesn't mean non-white?
>Economy is important in determining trust, materialists proved correct again
in a land of plenty there aren't things to kill over, or steal.

>>5589
>Blacks are genetically predisposed to commit more crimes.
an extension of their lower average IQ
>There is a genetic IQ gap between races.
genetic or not, there is a gap, and if it were entirely environmental, then when things became more equal, the gap should have closed, do you have data proving this? mlk jr got black voting rights in 1965, that's plenty of time.
>single motherhood is another factor which is stronger than race [as a predictor of criminality]
what does that mean, that the women are doing the crime, or the criminal was raised by a single mother? anyone who is a single mother made bad choices, and the partner was a bad choice if he is the kind of scum who leaves his partner, so are you surprised an improperly raised kid born of two lowlifes turns criminal? not to mention they are probably poorer too without a breadwinner.
>if we look at poor countries without any inequality or active conflicts we see that the homicide rate is ridiculously low… rates between 1-3
again, nothing to kill over. wtf does 1-3 mean? 1-3%? 0.1-0.3%?
>citing wikipedia
don't.

>>5601
>A persons IQ can fluctuate by 13 points in a few months thanks to wealth and poverty.
>researchers found stress hinders people's cognitive performance
no shit sherlock

I'm interested in what you leftists think of The Bell Curve by Hernstein and Murray. Mostly the focus isn't specifically on race, but pretty much every single bad thing like single motherhood, low income, low education, low SES, is negeatively correlated with high IQ. Specifically, you should find the section on b/w test bias, in ch13, and in affirmative action in education (where they discuss how the situation looks from the ground) ch19, p252 in this pdf, interesting.

>>6706
>nazi-crossdress.png
doubtful it's real. the nazis hated homos and similar degeneracies. here's some reasons why given by himmler:
they are cowards, delusional
they will have in-group preference which undermines a meritocracy
"our people will die out"
https://nseuropa.org/English/Heinrich%20Himmler%20speech%20-%2018.02.1937.pdf

>>7010
see attached please. they pissed the money away with bloated administration, an enforced black/white ratio (with expensive bussing), plenty of magnet schools. the funding was a strain on the area.

>>12146
>mlk jr got black voting rights in 1965, that's plenty of time.
political equality is not economic equality, this being the main thing liberals cannot get their head around
>the bell curve
lmao

>>12160
>political equality is not economic equality
I avoided referencing the bell curve there as I can see it's well challenged here. but picrel, they get what they work for.
>attached, gould
I've read a few criticisms of them, to find all of them misinterpreted the book, some so wildly you wonder if they had even read the book at all. so I'll read the section "CritiqueofTheBellCurve"
>slashing social programs canbe so abetted byan argument thatbeneficiaries cannotbeaided duetoinborn cognitivelimits ex-pressed as low1Q scores
the point of slashing the programs were to build community and to discourage the stupid from making rash decisions. H&M find it is mostly the low IQ who are on welfare and related
>Intelligence, in their formulation, mustbe depictable as asinglenumber, capableof rankingpeople in linearorder, geneticallybased, and effectively immutable. Ifany ofthese premises arefalse, theentire argument collapses.
There is no requirement of a genetic basis of intelligence to be true.
>Disingenuousness of content
H&M compared differences between groups, including race, but their main focus was intelligence. Unfortunately in almost every criticism there's screeching about race and no solid acknowledgement of anything else.
>the book gets validity from being big and intimidating!
jfc
>no justification for g
while g was mostly given as an assumption, there are sections, including the one he sites about the three schools, in bell curve which show
>tests of the varying in-telligences in his theory seem to be intercorrelated (p19)
Gould admits this himself before going completely offtopic, saying "it isn't indicative of the cause".
>Admittedly, factoranalysis isadifficult andmathematical sub-ject, butitcan beexplained tolayreaders witha geometrical formu-lation [which I used but admit didn't "suffice for adequate explanation"]
lol, lmao
>…so, althoughI offersome sketchyhints below,readers shouldnot question their ownIQ's ifthetopic stillseems arcane.
you don't understand, don't feel bad, it's my fault!
>Inanycase,onecan't graspthe issueatall withouta clear expositionof factoranalysis
>says it again, [proof required]
if he can't explain his evidence it means nothing
ironically, just earlier he accused the bell curve of appearing ofcusicated and the text looking complicated (it isn't).
>V-bias
TBC acknowledges affrimative action and you can see and picrel what they think of it. They dismiss racism as being prominent in denying opportunity to blacks in their time, and anyway, how does blacks being treated socially unfairly by society affect their reaction times when tested?
>they don't show the scatter plot
finally a good criticism
>muh correlationdoesnotimplycause
so propose a different mechanism!
>appendix 4 statement
also good argument, I will check those
Gould writes in a way that suggests TBC promotes "the cessation of Head Start" (TBC notes that Head Start may have other benefits but not increasing intelligence)
>WemustfightthedoctrineofTheBellCurvebothbecauseitiswrongandbecauseitwill,ifactivated,cutoffallpossibilityofpropernurturanceforeveryone'sintelligence.Ofcoursewecannotallberocketscientistsorbrainsurgeons(tousethetwocurrentslangsynecdochesforsmartestofthesmart),but
critiqueofTheBellCurvethosewhocan'tmightberockmusiciansorprofessionalathletes(andgainfarmoresocialprestigeandsalarythereby)—whileotherswillindeedservebystandingandwaiting
>conclusion
>useless irrelevant blurb about TBC suggested policies preventing people from becoming rockstars or athletes
>strawmans TBC as denying an environmental factor like childhood nutrition in intelligence

so the only criticisms worth investigating:
>g is contested
>they don't show a scatter plot and they don't use the conventional goodness of fit, and when they do, the relationships are tiny
big if true

>>12171
you're about 30 years behind on the literature in this debate m8

>>12179
What's the new lit then?

>three weeks
>no replies
>page 2
sure is slow around here.

Playboi Carti skeleton but its Communist




Whole lotta red, uh
Whole lotta red
One shot to the head (One shot to the head)
Bougie, you dead
I don't give a fuck 'bout a roader
Kill a piggie off red
Just bought a new K
That's a brand new leg
Got a brand new org
That's some brand new friends, huh
Got a brand new bag, hold up
And some brand new ends, hold up
Got a brand new troops, uh
That's a brand new cadre, huh
Got a brand new watch, uh
Skeleton, hold up (What?)

>>12258
Very nice!

>>5589
>A: There are two types of diversity
Making a hard distinction between race and culture is meaningless. A race creates a culture and the culture shapes the race. It's called gene-environment interaction. So by controlling for culture you also control for racial effects and vise versa.
>B: single motherhood is another factor which is stronger than race.
See A. There is no reason to assume that the genetic proclivity for single motherhood is the same for all races.
>The famous IQ map of the world I posted Is wrong.
Lynn's IQ map has been replicated. There is also no real reason to assume Africa has an average IQ equivalent with Europe or Asia considering their lack of historic achievements.
>Another famous IQ researcher Eysenck has had his papers retracted or accepting money from tobacco companies I think.
Grasping at straws.

>>12370
>See A. There is no reason to assume that the genetic proclivity for single motherhood is the same for all races.
Deboonked by the presence of sub-saharans who don't have this specific problem.
But sure, keep it up with the circular reasoning where everything is 100% inherent.
>Lynn's IQ map has been replicated
Did you forget the sentence below the one that you're responding to? Lynn's methodology was complete shit. On top of the fact that most non-Western figures were estimates and not based on tests, the few cases when it was the latter was sampled from unrepresentative subsets of a population.

>>12373
>Deboonked
Your position ultimatetly requires that humans living in Europe, Asia and Africa underwent the exact same selection pressures for thousands of years. The existance of divergent evolution practically guarantees that any trait frequency with a non-zero heritability differs between racial groups. Keep in mind that there was enough time for nature to create the racial variance in humans we see today so unless *somehow*, *for some reason* a trait like procilivity to single motherhood is immune to natural selection what you're saying is simply absurd.
>circular reasoning where everything is 100% inherent
Retard i literally said "and the culture shapes the race." Absolutetly fucking no one believes in your strawmen. Environment matters, just not as much as you'd like it to.
>Lynn's methodology was complete shit.
That's just a thing you say. Maybe it's true or maybe not, but either way it's still a fact of the matter that Lynn's numbers were replicated (https://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/12/overall-pisa-rankings-include-america.html).
>Inb4 "but that's not the same"
Every global metric you could think of that correlates with IQ also overlaps with Europe, Asia and Africa exactly in the way you'd expect if Lynn's IQ numbers were valid. You can take potshots at the methodology, but there is no practical reason to doubt the validity.

>>12370
Areas closer to the equator have higher parasite loads which lowers 'tism quotient if a person grows up in that area

Furthermore Iodine deficiency which is common in many regions of Africa and south America among other areas cause cretinism

>>12376
Your first paragraph misses the entire point, which is that the specific trait of single motherhood doesn't seem to be that genetically determined based on the fact that two genetically related groups have different rates of it.
Also, the highest rates of single parenthood are in the US, Russia and Western Europe. Are European-descended people genetically prone to single parenthood? No, because other European groups don't have that high of a rate.

>isteve
>.blogspot
Lol.

>>12378
>the specific trait of single motherhood doesn't seem to be that genetically determined based on the fact that two genetically related groups have different rates of it.
Do you even know how genetic predispositions even work?
<"An increased chance or likelihood of developing a particular disease based on the presence of one or more genetic variants and/or a family history suggestive of an increased risk of the disease. Having a genetic predisposition does not mean an individual will develop the disease. Lifestyle and environmental factors can also affect an individual's risk of disease. Also called genetic susceptibility, hereditary predisposition, and inherited predisposition."
THe fact that technology or culture shapes a trait doesn't mean you can throw genetics out the window and everyone is equal. Fuck this is so dumb.
>.blogspot
you aren't even on the level of 15 second google searches you dumb uyghur. blogposts are 3 leagues above you.
>Also, the highest rates of single parenthood are in the US, Russia and Western Europe. Are European-descended people genetically prone to single parenthood? No
You don't actually know that. And the original point was that you can't just point to an environmental factor to disprove race as a cause if the environmental factor can be partially racial in origin.

>>12379
> doesn't mean you can throw genetics out the window and everyone is equal. Fuck this is so dumb.
But genetics tells us that in general societies are pretty much genetically equal.

>>12379
Obviously if a group is more predisposed to single parenthood it doesn't mean that 100% of them will live under single parents, but the group should similar rates across different places and have it higher than other groups. We don't see that with single parenthood for any group and they all internally have wildly different rates of it.
>You don't actually know that
Uh, so whites/europeans are more prone to it? Wait, wasn't it blacks? Or is it both? You're acting more schizo right now.
I know Euros aren't genetically predisposed to it because even though western europe has a higher rate than sub-saharan Africa, in the US the situation is reversed with European-descended people having less rates of it than African-descended people. Therefore its cause is more environmental than genetic.
>And the original point was that you can't just point to an environmental factor to disprove race as a cause if the environmental factor can be partially racial in origin.
So why didn't Africans reproduce the same environment that African-Americans did that caused them to have a higher rate of single parenthood? Why did Europeans in Europe reproduce the environment that American blacks did but Europeans in America didn't? What you're doing right now is unfalsifiable ad-hoc shit where the evidence against what you're saying is hand-waved.

>>12380
>But genetics tells us that in general societies are pretty much genetically equal.
We share like 99.8% of our DNA with apes so i guess we are mostly the same with them also.
>>12381
>Uh, so whites/europeans are more prone to it? Wait, wasn't it blacks? Or is it both? You're acting more schizo right now.
Your error is that you as a leftoid are physically incapable of just taking a statement at face value and must always read intentions and secret dogwhistles into everything. My stance is evolution doesn't care about equality. Whatever the genetic rate of single motherhood or crime is for Europens won't be exactly the same as that for Asia or Africa. Maybe it's lower, maybe it's higher, maybe it's roughly the same with different variance or whatever. Those are ultimatetly an empirical questions that have to be measured to be answered. In practice when you DO measure stuff like the results are usually Europe/Asia > Africa.
>So why didn't Africans reproduce the same environment that African-Americans did that caused them to have a higher rate of single parenthood?
>Why did Europeans in Europe reproduce the environment that American blacks did but Europeans in America didn't?
The environmental factor for single motherhood are things like access to modern technology, the welfare state or birth control. Western culture was historically dictates by Europeans so Africans had little to no influence of norms in the first place. Besides that i really have no clue what you're asking for.
>What you're doing right now is unfalsifiable ad-hoc shit
Name one thing i said that can't be falsified. 1.

>>12382
>Whatever the genetic rate of single motherhood or crime is for Europens won't be exactly the same as that for Asia or Africa
Well in that case it's higher among whites in Europe and lower among blacks in Africa. But also lower among whites in America but higher among blacks in there. The point is that since the two races have different rates in 4 different environments then it's mostly environmental.
>The environmental factor for single motherhood are things like access to modern technology, the welfare state or birth control
So why do American whites suffer from less single motherhood than European whites even though both of the genetic and your personal environmental variables are in both places are the same?
>Name one thing i said that can't be falsified. 1.
The fact that I pointed out that the rates are inconsistent across races and you just said "this actually only proves my point further!!!!!!!!!11".

>>12382
Oh also
>blacks suffer from a high rate of single parenthood in america
<this is because of their genes bro
>whites suffer from a high rate of single parenthood in Europe
<this is because of the environment bro
Nice double standard.

>>12383
>The point is that since the two races have different rates in 4 different environments then it's mostly environmental.
I'd say the shithole conditions of Africa just pull things out of proportions. Look at the difference in single motherhood rates within countries and that will give you much better estimate.
>So why do American whites suffer from less single motherhood than European whites even though both of the genetic and your personal environmental variables are in both places are the same?
Do they? At any rate it doesn't matter because none of my core arguments are disproven either way.
>The fact that I pointed out that the rates are inconsistent across races
What answer are you even expecting here? First off there are ethnic differences between whites in America and whites in Europe so you can't simply equate the two, second i already listed environmental factors that impact single motherhood and third the world is complex. "You said race matters but why then can't i reduce everything in life down to this one variable, clearly race is totally 100% meaningless". That's retarded. Bottom line is nature doesn't care about equality and blacks are more predisposed towards criminality. Tough luck.

>>12385
Also addendum how the fuck can you say that America and Europe are the same environment? Fuck me that's dumb.

Could somebody debunk this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThbANBaX68

>>12377
How can this impact be measured? Keeping in mind that emigrants to america are cream of the crop in their former country, and (American) blacks started retarded.

>>12399
Not really. No.

>>12399
if a lesbian is convicted of raping women would he have the same complaint?
he brings up a valid issue with the prison system but he seems to ignore that sexual assault happens in prisons regardless.
maybe rapists should be housed away from other inmates?

>>6530
That pic kind of annoys me. Sure, there are activists like this, but there are also many people who legit do not realize they're being oppressed and exploited, like a lot of workers in the West.

THE VIDEO OF HILLARY CLINTON COMPLAINING ABOUT CHINA BEING A TOP-DOWN CONTROLLED ECONOMY PLEASE