Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Olaf

  1. Based on your post count and prose I was able to diagnose your depression awhile ago. Feel free to PM me if you're feeling down and need someone to talk to, but please don't do anything rash. Looking out for you, buddy.
  2. Your fear stoking the past few pages has been both more extreme and more amusing.
  3. What's so scary about whites, Christians, and people against open borders actually wanting their voice to be heard in our democratic process? Oh, the horror.
  4. I'll guess Super Bowl II with Daryle LaMonica as the Raiders starter and only QB designation on the active roster. George Blanda was listed as the Raiders kicker, but he was also their back-up QB.
  5. Yesterday, NFL on CBS posted the following comparison of Aaron Rodgers last eight games vs. Blaine Gabbert's last eight games...
  6. No, they're the same thing because people have different genetic traits and different cultures. Even if you ask drastically different people to melt into a shared society under a melting pot theory rather than a multicultural approach, drastically different people will be unable to do so as fluidly as people with greater similarities. People argue that "America is a nation of immigrants." That's true, but prior to the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 nearly all of those immigrants were European and Christian. In other words, they were genetically and culturally relatively similar. Once you start mixing people who are more different both culturally and genetically you'll naturally have more difficulty integrating them no matter what model you use. This is common sense. All studies support it, and empirical and anecdotal evidence supports it. I'm not sure why people feel compelled to deny what both research and life shows, but denial coupled with repression of dissenting views will only lead to even greater future conflict.
  7. No, you likely won't see as great a sense of family in America going forward as you have in the past You can't have both extensive diversity and as strong a sense of family. Numerous studies have shown that the greater the diversity the lesser the sense of family and community. The most noteworthy is the Putnam study referenced below. Aside from studies, the phenomenon that Putnam and other researchers have noticed is also evidenced in people's self-segregation in living. This is pertinent to not only to your comment, but also to the political conflicts that we're now seeing. When you look at the where the major incidents of violence have broken out at Trump events, it's been in Chicago, New Mexico, and California -- all areas with greater diversity. When you look at the pictures and the videos of the violence at those events you can't help but notice that it has a strong minority anti-Trump protester attacking white Trump supporter element. And, admittedly, the anger and violence from white Trump supporters has disproportionately been aimed at minorities. We're seeing a similar situation throughout Europe. The downside of diversity A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?
  8. Sounds like you have more in common with Winston than you realize. Well, except for the last seven words. Winston Churchill and Mental Illness
  9. My point of the link is that only books that reach the "acceptable" conclusion that the gap is not natural and can be corrected get the New York Times and mainstream stamp of approval. Those that don't reach that conclusion get deemed "racist". But if the gap can be corrected then why hasn't it been?
  10. Quite convenient how any scholar or person who reaches "unacceptable" conclusions based on the data is deemed a racist and right-winger. Just like the former Liberal icon James Coleman himself. This schtick is now as old as The Coleman Report. But if you want another resource on the matter, here you go... The Black-White Test Score Gap
  11. No, the articles say what I think they say. I just don't buy into the media spin. The media is trying to say the fact that the achievement gap is still so gaping is somehow an indication that racism still pervades and we must do more. I read the achievement gap remaining a giant chasm despite a half century of various methods to close it as proof that those methods, including desegregtion, didn't work, and no methods will work to considerably narrow the achievement gap because the gap is primarily a result of genetics. It's the same reason why Asian students consistently score higher than white students. That hierarchy matches international testing.
  12. I'm guessing that jonessed is sure that bussing and forced integration will not work because he's a sharp guy. I'm also sure that it won't work because I've read the reports and data that show that it hasn't worked. The achievement gap between white and black students continues to persist regardless of the methods tried to alleviate it. (Achievement Gap Between White and Black Students Still Gaping, U.S. News & World Report, January 13, 2016) More important than two guys on the internet (no matter how well read they may be on the subject), James S. Coleman agrees with us. Coleman was the distinguished professor of education sociology at Johns Hopkins University who conducted the survey of educational inequalities per the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Coleman's work was entitled Equality of Educational Opportunity ("the Coleman report" in common parlance). Coleman promoted an integrationist solution to the achievement gap. After over a decade of return data Coleman admitted that his findings indicated that bussing black students to majority white schools did not have a substantial effect on closing the achievement gap, but it did often bring down the environment and overall performance of the majority white classrooms thus causing white flight from those schools. The following is from a review of The Long Crusade: Profiles in Education Reform, 1967-2014 by Raymond Wolters. Wolters is a Professor of History Emertius at the University of Deleware. He has written extensively on education and race. Apologies in advance to anyone who may be offended by the word "Negro". It's used several times in the below passages which contain direct quotes from the 60s. ......................... Pursuant to the original understanding of Brown, by the late 1960s, the great majority of American public school students were being assigned on a racially non-discriminatory basis. This was usually accomplished in one of two ways. Either students were assigned to schools close to their homes or they were allowed to attend whatever school they chose. By assigning students by neighborhood rather than race or by allowing students to choose their school, school districts satisfied the requirements of Brown and the Civil Rights Act. Students were no longer being assigned on a racial basis. Yet neither policy achieved a racial mix in school enrollments that approximated the demographic proportions in the larger region. Enrollments in neighborhood schools turned out to be either mostly White or mostly Black because most Whites and Blacks lived in neighborhoods that were inhabited predominantly by people of their own race. Enrollments in choice schools were also skewed because most students did not wish to attend a school in which their race would be a minority. Thus Blacks were liberated from the stigma of official separation. But, as it turned out, mere desegregation did not narrow the racial gap in academic achievement. On most standardized tests, almost 85 percent of the Black students continued to score below the average White. 2. Why did the academic achievement gap persist? In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the most common explanation held that disproportionately Black schools were inadequately funded. With this in mind, the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided one million dollars for a survey of educational inequalities. According to Alexander Mood, the director of the statistical center at the federal Office of Education, it was assumed “that the schools in the cores of cities and in the rural South are inferior in terms of class size, teacher training, enrichment and remedial programs, and per pupil expenditures.” The research turned out to be so comprehensive and of such high quality that it superseded all previous work on school desegregation. EntitledEquality of Educational Opportunity (1966) and popularly known as “the Coleman report” for its principal author, James S. Coleman, then a professor of educational sociology at Johns Hopkins University, the study presented detailed information on 4,000 schools and test results from 570,000 students and 60,000 teachers. The report was of especially high quality because Coleman was the foremost mathematical sociologist of his age. His sophisticated statistical analysis of the quantitative information was evident on page after page.[8] The Coleman report reinforced two aspects of conventional thinking. It showed that the familiar disparity in test scores was still in place. And it showed that, as of 1966, the races were still disproportionately educated apart from one another. Eighty percent of all White pupils in the first and twelfth grades attended schools that were between 90 to 100 percent White; while 65 percent of all African-American first graders attended schools that were at least 90 percent Black, and 48 percent of Black high school seniors attended schools that were at least half Black. In another respect, however, the data contradicted the conventional wisdom. At the outset of the research, Coleman had predicted, “the study will show the difference in the quality of schools that the average Negro child and the average white child are exposed to.” Speaking to a reporter, Coleman had said: Yet to Coleman’s surprise, when the data were assembled, they indicated that by 1966 there was substantial equality in facilities and other measureable resources at majority-Black and majority-White schools. Predominantly Black and White schools had the same average number of teachers per pupil, similar pay scales, and teachers with almost the same amount of formal education and teaching experience. Put simply, by 1966, the nation had achieved the traditional notion of equality of educational opportunity.[9] And yet, on standardized tests the academic achievement gaps had hardly budged. The average African-American student still scored below 85 percent of White students. Put differently, at age six, the average Black lagged behind the average White by one grade level, and by grade 12, the gap separating the racial averages had increased to four grade levels. Coleman understood that the report was “tread[ing] on sensitive ground.” The differences could “lead to invidious comparisons between groups” and, even worse, might “lend [support] to racist arguments of genetic differences in intelligence.” Nevertheless, Coleman decided that it would be a mistake not to mention the gap in academic achievement. “It is precisely the avoidance of such sensitive areas that can perpetuate the educational deficiencies.”[10] 3. To make his report more palatable, Coleman phrased a summary of the report to emphasize a correlation that recommended racially balanced integration as a reform that eventually might reduce the size of the academic achievement gaps. As he pored over the statistics and test results, Coleman noted that Black children who attended majority-White schools scored higher than other Blacks. The difference was small, but Coleman also gave interviews and filed legal depositions in which he touted the benefits that Black children received when they were dispersed and educated in predominantly White classrooms. This eventually became the most widely reported finding of the Coleman report. “One of the report’s principal conclusions,” the N_ew York Times_ stated, “was that integration was by far the most important school-related factor in improving the achievement of poor children.”[11] Coleman’s integrationist sociology assumed that the quality of a school depended largely on its youth culture and that middle-class schools were better. Since “White” was presumed to be synonymous with “middle class” and “Black” the same as “lower class,” the purpose of integration was to create schools with enough White students to shape the prevailing attitudes and a substantial number of Black children to benefit from being exposed to peers who recognized the importance of schoolwork. Coleman explained that the social composition of a student body influenced academic achievement. According to Coleman, predominantly-Black schools were problematic because Black students did not offer one another as much beneficial peer stimulation as was available in mostly White schools. And this was important because, Coleman said, the socioeconomic background of fellow students was more important than the quality of teachers or the other resources that schools provided.[12] Eventually, the Supreme Court joined this chorus. In Green v. New Kent County (1968) and in subsequent opinions of the early 1970s, the High Court redefined “desegregation” to mean what Congress, in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, said it did not mean–“the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.” For the next 25 years, the Court held that Brown, when illuminated by modern social science, required the assignment of students by race to ensure that the mix of races at individual schools would be approximately the same as the proportions that existed in the overall school district (and sometimes in an even larger region). The constitutional mandate was changed from prohibiting racial discrimination that separated the races to requiring racial discrimination in order to achieve racial mixture.[13] It turned out, though, that Coleman’s sociological theorizing missed the mark. The racial differences in test scores persisted when Black and White students were mixed in proportionate numbers 4. The persistence of the academic achievement gap prompted Coleman to reconsider his research. When he had initially collected data in 1965, Coleman later noted, nearly all the Black children attending integrated schools in the South had been volunteers who had enrolled under freedom-of-choice plans, while almost all integration in the North had occurred in neighborhood schools where Blacks and Whites lived in the same vicinity. The desegregated Black students of 1965 were not representative of Blacks as a group. They were unusual, in that they came disproportionately from middle-class families that considered education important. They had either volunteered to attend mostly White schools or had lived in mostly White neighborhoods. In 1978, Coleman admitted that it had been “wishful thinking” to believe that other Black students would make similar scores if they were integrated under mandatory court orders. Yet Coleman did not have much to recant, for the improvement that he had noted in 1966 had been quite small.[14] In 1975, Coleman also came to recognize the significance of an important demographic trend. After analyzing data from 20 large school districts, Coleman concluded that court-ordered busing fostered “resegregation” by increasing the incidence of “White flight.” Coleman reported that the more Blacks enrolled in a school system, the more Whites left. Specifically, he found that after a tipping point had been reached, an increase of five percent in the average White child’s Black classmates would cause an additional 10 percent of White families to leave. Thus the nation faced an insoluble dilemma. There would be no racially balanced integration without court-ordered busing, but such busing had the overall effect of defeating integration. The official push for school integration was offset by the actions of White families who moved from areas where there was a large enrollment of Black students to areas where there was less racial mixing.[15] After documenting the extent of the flight, Coleman offered an explanation that infuriated erstwhile allies in the civil-rights movement. He said that in the 1960s he had mistakenly assumed that if middle-class students remained in the majority, they would continue to set the tone for an integrated school. “In that situation, both white and black children would learn.” As it happened, however, “the characteristics of the lower-class black classroom” often took over and constituted the values of the integrated school, even if middle-class students remained in the majority. Middle-class parents then transferred their children to private schools or moved to predominantly White suburbs. The problem, Coleman said, was “the degree of disorder and the degree to which schools … have failed to control lower-class black children.” It was “quite understandable,” Coleman said, for middle-class families “not to want to send their children to schools where 90 percent of the time is spent not on instruction but on discipline.”[16] Coleman’s report on on White flight riled integrationists. “In 1966, we cited you as proof that [integration] worked,” NAACP attorney Charles Morgan told Coleman in 1975. “We don’t cite you as proof any more.” Perhaps because Coleman had formerly been their ally, perhaps because he had spoken candidly about the misbehavior of Black students, and perhaps because of fear that Coleman’s comments on White flight would spark additional criticism of racially balanced integration, the NAACP’s chief executive, Roy Wilkins, denounced Coleman’s traitorous “defection.” The civil rights establishment went to work on the media. Ultimately, Coleman’s earlier endorsement of activist integration became a meme in popular discourse, whereas his mature reassessment was ignored. In 1966, journalists lauded Coleman’s first report as “firm evidence” for busing and generally treated Coleman himself “as a giant in his field, a social scientist with a progressive agenda.” Then, after Coleman’s report on White flight, liberal thought leaders “turned hostile,” “questioned [Coleman’s] findings, ”and “frequently quoted critics.”[17] One of these critics was Alfred McClung Lee, the president of the American Sociological Association. Lee used his position to denounce Coleman at a press conference and then asked the Ethics Committee of the association to censure Coleman. Still later, Lee asked the general membership of the organization to condemn Coleman (which never occurred). Coleman eventually confronted his critics at a plenary session of the association, at which the walls were plastered with posters bearing his name, Nazi swastikas, and various epithets. For some time thereafter, Coleman suffered through what he called “a tortured period of intellectual isolation.” “We should not forget,“ he later wrote, “how strong the consensus was at that time among social scientists that bussing was an unalloyed benefit, and a policy not to be questioned.”[18] Despite White flight, most civil-rights activists persisted with demands for racially balanced Integration. In 1984, Jennifer Hochschild, then a professor at Princeton, called for “democracy” to give way to “liberalism.” Since many middle-class parents would not voluntarily send their children to racially balanced schools, Hochschild urged courts to insist that they do so. Quoting John Dewey, Hochschild maintained, “What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that must the community want for all its children.” If most Americans would not choose to have racially balanced schools, “they must permit elites to make that choice for them.” James Liebman, a Columbia professor who worked on several school-integration cases for the NAACP, explained that one goal was to withdraw control from parents and give children “a wider range of choices about the persons with whom they might associate and the values they might adopt as they approach adulthood.” According to Liebman, a principal purpose of busing was to deny parents the right to send their children to schools that would reinforce “the personal features and values those parents have chosen as their own.” Liebman urged the government to protect the “autonomy” of children from the “tyranny” of parents. The state should make sure that children were exposed to “a broader range of value options than their parents could hope to provide.” According to Liebman, “family life” was too often “marked by exclusiveness, suspicion and jealousy as to those without.” In 2006, 563 social scientists signed a statement that assured the Supreme Court that racially balanced integration improved the “critical thinking skills” and boosted the “achievement levels of African American students.” [19] By then, however, the Court recognized that this was wishful thinking. With polite understatement, in 2007 Chief Justice John Roberts noted that social science had evolved, and many leading scholars had expressed doubt about “whether racial diversity in schools in fact has a marked impact on test scores … or achieves intangible socialization benefits.” In a landmark decision, Parents Involved v. Seattle (2007), the Court proceeded to end court-ordered busing with a ringing declaration that Brown meant what it said: the Constitution required public schools to assign pupils on “a racially nondiscriminatory basis.” “History will be heard,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” The Roberts Court belatedly recognized points that Justice Lewis Powell had noted back in 1973; that many parents regarded busing for racial balance as an interference with “the concept of community” and with the “liberty to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”[20] Meanwhile, James Coleman somehow managed to survive the criticism of his academic peers. His standing as a sociologist remained high, and eventually he became the president of the American Sociological Association. Accepting an award in 1988, Coleman acknowledged that “recognition by one’s fellow researchers is one of the highest honors that can be bestowed.” Yet he also recalled that it had been difficult to withstand the criticism of peers, and he lamented that others, including “some of the most original and brilliant sociologists,” had been “driven to the periphery or to adjacent disciplines because the implication of their work runs counter to the current intellectual fashion.” In the academic world, Coleman noted, “the threat posed by fellow faculty members is probably greater than that posed by the usual villains.” In academia, academic freedom had been constricted less by external pressures, from either the Right or Left, and more by fellow scholars who were predisposed against research that challenged the conventional wisdom of the liberal mainstream.[21]
  13. That's simple. Tim was taking his usual position of saying that the group outcome differences that we see in Baltimore and elsewhere are completely the product of institutional racism. That's simply not true and is a dangerous narrative that must be eradicated for two reasons: (1) it will never solve the issues of those communities; and (2) it engenders hostility toward people who are not responsible for those outcome differences. If you guys want to throw out the "racism" label, blaming outside groups for outcomes that they are not responsible for is a form of "racism" (though that term is meaningless since it is used in so many ways that it no longer has any true meaning.) Discover Magazine: "The history of a population affects it genome, and its genome effects the nature of its traits and diseases."
  14. Tim, you are aware that there are geneticists and evolutionary biologists who acknowledge the reality of race, acknowledge that natural selection has created differences in groups that evolved apart separately, and acknowledge differing allele frequencies in DNA based on ancestry which express themselves different manners, right? Tim, I've never personally encountered someone as close-minded on the science of evolution as you. You're like a religious fundamentalist whose dogmatic and often angry opposition to evolution is based on faith and strict adherence to an ideology rather than on facts and reason. You just have a different religion/ideology that you cling to, but the same end result. You are the intolerant fundamentalist that you claim to abhor. Leo would not be proud.
  15. For acknowledging reality? OK, I'm racist then. But you still didn't answer my questions, refute the content of the video that showed similar patterns throughout the world, nor persuasively argue against the differences that show up time and time again. You just name called. Interestingly, you're an Ashkenazi Jew. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest group IQ of any people in the world. A whole standard deviation higher then us goy. I mean you clearly bring down that average, but that high average exists. You honestly don't believe that nature has anything to do with group diffeences in average IQ? And if discrimination necessarily leads to lower group outcomes then how come a group who has been discriminated against for centuries like Ashkenazi Jews have the highest outcome? Try to answer with substance and without the name calling this time.,7340,L-4098351,00.html
  16. How do you plan on adjusting the natural differences in human nature that account for the outcome differences? It these outcome differences are allegedly all due to inequity then how come we see these similar patterns repeating throughout the world? Are other nations as allegedly unjust as America or could there be other factors at play?
  17. Artist: Kawehi Nine Inch Nails, Closer Led Zeppelin, Ramble On
  18. Yes, I feel sorry for the people who were displaced and had to stay at the Superdome, and I feel especially sorry for the people who were further victimized while there.
  19. It is posts like these why people want you to stay in your own thread. Geez, just horrible. As if that is the only possibility for wanting to discuss that topic. I would not have offered an opinion on this subject except that it was asked for in my thread. As I wrote, the subject doesn't interest me. If you or Olaf or anyone want to start a thread on it, be my guest. I won't participate.That is fine when you offer an opinion on a topic. But to blamketly project racism on any one who discusses such topic is too much. You need to be a little more diplomatic in the way you phrase things. You want to cast yourself as this moderate, but much of your rhetoric is that of an over the top leftist. It is weird because at times you can speak intelligently and respectfully. Jon, in Tim's defense he doesn't do that with everyone. He primarily does it to just me. He knows that he can't match me in an actual debate on the topic so he name-calls and then refuses to engage. His prerogative.
  20. "White racists" must have relaxed their entry requirements then because I see Asian, Arab, Hispanic, and even black "white racists" commenting about black interracial violence online. Some of these non-white "white racists" even write articles about it. "White racists" must also be doing some heavy online recruiting because the number of people who want a more honest discussion about interracial violence seems to have exploded the past few years. Those darn white racists! If you want to display your bigotry, hypocrisy, and intellectual dishonesty, though, feel free. But, keep in mind, that your dismissive and childish name-calling helps create Dylann Roofs.
  21. Every time there is a shooting somebody asks this, either nicely or rudely. We're not supposed to discuss guns in these situations. When should we discuss them?I agree with you Tim that we should use these tragic instances to discuss the larger societal issues that contributed to the tragedy. Hopefully, steps could then be taken to lessen that catalyst so as to avoid potential similar future tragedies. Since the killer made clear in his manifesto that he was motivated by race, do you also want to discuss the far higher rate of black-on-white violence than the inverse and the racism that often drives it? I mean since you're trying to glean issues to extract and discuss from this tragedy, and the media primarily took a race discussion stance rather than gun control stance after the Charleston shootings, makes sense for you to maybe explore this issue as well. And apologies in advance for posting this here. I want to respect the wishes of other FFA members to keep the shooting thread free of tangential philosophical discussions, and the gun control thread should be limited to that topic. So this seemed like the best place to the raise larger societal issues that you suggested.
  22. Bernie could use some balance and self-accountability on this plank, but I understand his position as neither balance nor accountability on this issue will help him in the Democrat primaries.
  23. Don't see it that way. My uber bleeding heart Obama lap dog of a father (love him as I do) is going bonkers over this guy and he's 75. Of course, they're both old, liberal, Jewish guys. People tend to root for candidates that remind them of them.
  24. Who's doing all the killing? What do I look like, Columbo? Does it take Columbo or just someone who's honest? From your own linked article: "At approximately 12:11 p.m., 21-year-old Amari Jenkins of Southeast D.C. was fatally shot in front of the St. Luke Roman Catholic Church on the 4900 block of East Capitol Street NE. And just hours later, just after 3:30 p.m. on the 1300 block of Congress Street SE, a woman, a teenager, and a boy were all shot. The woman, 31-year-old Tenika Fontanelle of Southeast, died of her injuries, while the two juvenile boys were transported to the hospital and are in stable condition. One of the juvenile boys transported to the hospital was arrested and charged in Fontanelle's murder." Here's another article: