Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "A Short History of Slavery | 5 Minute Video" video.
-
7
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ShabazzTBL
You say that 550 years of slavery explains the racial discrepancy in America today.
A few questions for you:
1. More unmelanized slaves were held in North Africa than were melanized ones in North America. Why are those effects not felt by the descendants of the aforementioned unmelanized?
2. Where did you get the number 550 from anyway? Slavery has been around for thousands of years. The transatlantic slave trade lasted far less than 550 years. For nearly the entire history of slavery, people were enslaved by their own.
3. A century ago, melanized people had a higher rate of employment, and a higher rate of marriage, than did the unmelanized. What went wrong? Why has the melanized community lost so much ground since the advent of the Civil Rights era?
4. Immigrant groups are constantly arriving in the US, many with barely more than the clothes on their backs. They come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, China, Korea, Vietnam, and other such countries, some of them speaking no more than a few words of English. They move into slums, with both parents working menial jobs for 80+ hours a week each, and push their children to study all day and night to improve their lives. Those kids get into excellent schools, and are highly successful. In fact, they are statistically more succesful than the progeny of American slaves. How can that possibly be? How can they surpass those whose slavery ended 150 years ago - and whose legal equality came nearly sixty years ago - in a single generation?
The answer is that, as the brilliant Thomas Sowell has proven repeatedly, the Great Society began a terrible era for the melanized in the US, as the government incentivized unproductive behavior, thus creating more of it. Three generations in, and we have the mess that currently is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShabazzTBL
Your claims are false, at times incoherent, and other times possibly contradictory.
1. As I wrote above, more non-melanized people were held as slaves in North Africa than melanized folks were in North America. Your response was incoherent; the part I could make out never addressed my point.
2. You seemed to concede that you took the number 550 out of your nether quarters. At least that.
3. As MADx Games demonstrated above, your story about historical employment rate was without basis, instead repeating racial propaganda.
4. You never addressed the crucial point about marriage rates. Only a tiny percentage of inner city melanized folks have their fathers active in their lives. Kids born to teenage moms with no dad around tend to do poorly in life, irrelevant of melanin levels. Thank your beloved Democrat Party for incentivizing behavior detrimental to society.
5. Your new immigrant story is beautiful, but not at all based upon facts. The poorest immigrants living in NYC slums and working menial jobs for 18 hours a day get their kids into Stuyvesant. Or do you really believe that all those Pakistani or Bangladeshi immigrant couples are wealthier than the average melanized American?
6. Where you most expose your own weakness for leftist fallacies is with your rants about the criminal justice system, which is Alex Jones-like idiocy. "They admitted" that drug sentencing laws are "a ploy to imprison black people." Talk about absurdity. There was no such ploy, and certainly no one "admitted" to it.
Cocaine was used socially by doctors and lawyers in the late 1970s and early 1980s; your average person couldn't afford it. The epidemic of ruined lives began with the advent of crack cocaine, which made it affordable to all, and disproportionately affected the inner city. Desperate to save their own, melanized community leaders demanded that politicians change the sentencing given crack dealers, and laws were then enacted to that effect in bipartisan fashion.
Unfortunately, you continued down crazy path by going on about the prison industry being lucrative and therefore the system feeding it with innocent melanized folks. That is Farrakhan-style craziness, and backed by precisely zero evidence.
7. Speaking of which, and as partially noted by MADx Games above, your description of CRT is wildly off base. CRT starts out by assuming that everything has its basis in racism, then looks for evidence to prove its point. Using such feeble methods, anyone can "prove" anything, but basic intellectual rigor laughs at such attempts. Basic rule: Correlation does not imply causation. There are many reasons for current disparities on average, none of which is racist policies against the melanized. In fact, as amply demonstrated by the academic Heather Mac Donald, being melanized is an advantage when it comes to dealing with law enforcement, getting into college, applying for employment, and virtually every other measurable statistic.
1
-
@ShabazzTBL
Trying to read through your semi-literate, factually false rants is getting quite tiresome. Just a few points in response (not in any particular order), as I've already wasted far too much time considering your allergy to facts:
1. Your claim that slavery began in 1619 is stunningly ignorant.
2. No, you never admitted you were wrong about "550 years". You failed to defend the claim so I needled you about it. You are wrong about literally everything, yet you are still here flailing about.
3. Your story about employment rates assumes that statisticians are as dumb as you are. Anyone who has graduated JHS understands that 10% of one million is a larger absolute number than 10% of one thousand. You just threw out a wild response because the facts show that a higher percentage of melanized folks were employed than were non-melanized, and the facts don't fit your narrative.
4. Speaking of items you made up... In response to my point that most inner city melanized fathers are not involved in their children's lives, you came up with four remarkable rejoinders:
A. A study about whether incomes among husband and wives predict divorce, which you falsely and bizarrely decided shows that welfare for baby mommas increases the marriage rate, a rather wild claim backed by no studies and unrelated to this one,
B. You linked to a study of fathers which included no racial breakdown whatsoever, and which relied upon self-reported surveys of fathers' claimed level of involvement with their children, despite its utter irrelevance, as well as its total unreliability as it relies upon self-reporting,
C. Confused what I wrote about inner city fathers with melanized folks overall, apparently unaware that most melanized families are middle class or above, and
D. Accused me of racism, naturally.
I mean, are you freaking kidding me? Do you even read my comments? Do you read yours? Do you even glance at the links you include before sending them?
5. The article which you used as basis for your false claim that the war on drugs was only an excuse to lock up melanized folks and that "they...even admitted to it"? The Harper's article to which you linked does not that say that at all. John Erlichman, like his boss, was both a creep and a quack, and yet even he did not say what you claimed he said. Even if he had, that would hardly be a "they", that would be a "Richard Nixon". But that is not what Erlichman said, and anyway Nixon resigned in 1974, years before crack cocaine was invented. Do you not understand how you damage your own credibility by repeatedly proving yourself wrong?
6. I explained CRT, and once again, you can't handle the truth. That point is clear.
7. Your own many links, most of which I clicked on, either ignore or overtly disprove your own claims in regards to the economic backgrounds of immigrants. They come poor and work hard, and their kids are studious and become successful. That option is open to everyone.
8. YT lays a heavily censorial hand on my comments, forcing me to use oddball phraseology (e.g. "melanized"), and also automatically deleting any comments in which I provide a link. Feel free to Google for yourself an article by the respected academic Heather Mac Donald entitled "Are We All Unconscious Racists?". While you are at it, feel free to Google the official numbers on "Statista", under
"people shot to death by US police by race ". Being melanized is an advantage when it comes to dealing with law enforcement, college admissions, applying for employment, and every other measurable statistic.
Please learn the facts instead of just banging out semi-coherent, false, angry responses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShnoogleMan
If your point is that your mind is permanently closed, then nothing will penetrate, facts be damned.
Adam Smith is known as the Father of Economics, Milton Friedman won a Pulitzer Prize for his work, and Sowell is the premier public intellectual of the last half century. The last two were full fledged Chicagoans, which is to say fully committed to empirical evidence, which is how Friedman saw the light after having started as a Keynsian, and Sowell did as well after having been a Marxist. They had open minds, and brilliant ones, and were thus led to the economic truth. No one ever managed to best either one in a debate, despite many trying over the decades.
Now that Friedman has passed, the leftists who melted in his presence have posthumously gone after his legacy, which is the only way they could try to diminish him, callous and crass as such a move is. Presumably they will try to do the same with Sowell down the road. Undoubtedly, the blind leftists who have no use for facts will take succor from such attempts.
As to your last point, it is not realistic to engage in a full debate on ideas in a YT comment section. Given a faceoff at opposing podiums, I would be happy to explain the facts as they are, but given the limitations of this forum, as well as the wide scope of your false claims, it seemed most sensible to just point the reader in the appropriate direction, and hope anyone with an open mind takes it from there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheBlueArmageddon
Most of Prager U's work is excellent, although a handful of their videos have been off base. I would say that their batting average vastly exceeds that of the New York Times, which refers to six months of out-of-control rioting as "mostly peaceful protests" despite dozens murdered, thousands of businesses destroyed, curfews needing to be imposed, and $5b worth of damage, and still refers to antifa, which is a Marxist domestic terrorist collection, as "an anti-fascist group". But do you go to some anti-NYT blogger or vlogger every time the "paper of record" writes something? No, of course you don't.
Some 400 lb guy wearing pajamas in his mom's basement claims that Prager is not accurate, but you will assume that he is dead on? Based upon what, outside of your bias?
1
-
@TheBlueArmageddon
If 95 two-seater Cessnas took off this morning and landed safely, while five jumbo jets crashed into the ocean, would the headline be that today's takeoffs were "mostly successful landings"? Offsetting the numbers of mass riots in large cities by counting every time that 12 people walk around a traffic circle in Sheboygan is a perfect example of the dishonesty of the mainstream media.
There is no way around the fact that daily riots for six months in which citizens have to cower in their houses while police are instructed not to do their jobs, with dozens slaughtered openly in the streets and hundreds of cops attacked, with thousands of businesses burned to the ground and $5 billion in damage caused, should not be described as "mostly peaceful protests". Please point to the public safety issue in which a 5% failure rate is considered a wonderful thing. And again, that doesn't even account for the false equivalence of mass riots in a major city with seven people walking in a circle on a street corner in Moose Jaw.
As to your favorite pajama-clad blogger, do you really expect me to spend hours watching his material? Anyone can "prove" anything when no one is there responding. Videos like the type you describe abound on the internet, proving wonderful items like the earth being flat and the CIA conducting the attacks against America in 2001. The idea is to seek out opposing opinions.
If you would like to make a specific claim against any Prager video, I will be happy to respond. As I wrote earlier, not everything they espouse is wholly accurate, but they are far more reliable than are the leftists in the mainstream media.
1
-
@TheBlueArmageddon
The NYT, WP, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and other leftist media constantly refer to "mostly peaceful protests". They refer to a domestic terrorist Communist group, antifa, as an "anti-fascist" group. They falsely claim that police shootings and killings disproportionately affect the melanized, despite the facts showing the precise opposite to be the case.
Six months of riots - that's true, it happened. I did not mean to imply that in any one given place every honest citizen had to hide from the mob. But curfews in large cities were a regular feature during that time period, as the police were told to stand back and let the rioters riot.
The media has continued to talk about a "racial reckoning", despite the facts showing that being melanized is a statistical advantage in this country, when dealing with prospective employers, with college admissions, with law enforcement, and with virtually every other measurable metric.
The media has treated BLM as if it were a civil rights group, instead of the anti-American, violent, Marxist hate group it truly is. And that despite BLM making almost no attempt whatsoever to disguise its true aims.
Despite your claim, I have always made a point of reading and hearing both sides. I currently have paid subscriptions to the NYT, WP, and LA Times.
I watched a single John Oliver video, and it was so packed full of dishonesty that I could barely make it through. I wish I could remember what the topic was; it goes back a few months. Do you really believe that he is telling it down the center?
You claim to have made "hundreds" of specific claims, while in fact you have made zero. You have this Prager video here making points which you dislike, you have had every opportunity to specify objections about this video or any other, yet you have refused to do so.
Let me note that I pointed you directly to an article made by a respected academic in a legitimate publication, which contains verifiable data and is very well written, yet you absolutely refuse to take a gander. At the same time, you claim to keep an open mind, seeking information from all sides, which you clearly don't. Watching a PragerU video, then running off to your basement friend and choosing to believe his "rebuttal", is hardly called hearing all sides.
Remember, I'm the one who receives the NYT, LA Times, and WP daily. I'm also the one who spent a decade listening to a show on my local NPR affiliate. No, I don't feel compelled to watch some guy's video. But can you say that you willingly take in both sides? I think the answer is obvious.
Again, if you choose to make a specific claim - even one, which you have not yet done - I would be happy to respond.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1