The article is about being aware of only blacks. Which is bullshit and even dangerous for the kids. Many of the situations listed there where you have to be cautious applies to people from any race who live in the same conditions (poverty, or just poorness). It's just happens to be that blacks are poorer in average. Living in a different race's neighbourhood for example can be the same between any combination of races. You always have to be cautious.

Okay, I'm not an American, but in Hungary the ""gypsy problem"" is similar, if not a bigger issue. I live inside the biggest gypsy community inside the city and I still don't think "gypsy problem or "gypsy criminality" exists. "Poverty criminality" exists. Hungarians in poverty are just the same as the gypsies, we aren't any better, I'm cautious (afraid) here of Hungarians just like gypsies. I guess the same applies to blacks too.

Well, I guess that doesn't make much sense, my English is failing me today

The article is about being aware of only blacks. Which is bullshit and even dangerous for the kids. Many of the situations listed there where you have to be cautious applies to people from any race who live in the same conditions (poverty, or just poorness). It's just happens to be that blacks are poorer in average. Living in a different race's neighbourhood for example can be the same between any combination of races. You always have to be cautious.

That's not entirely accurate. Poverty is only part of the equation for the statistical spike. Mixed neighborhoods below the poverty line have much lower crime rates than non-mixed neighborhoods. Black people are statistically more likely to live in poverty, and impoverished black people are more likely to live in non-mixed neighborhoods than other races.

Again, it's tragic that black people are more likely to be put into situations where they are more likely to be violent than other races, but that doesn't change the fact that overwhelmingly statistics show that odds are any given black person is more likely to be violent than a given person of another race. The article in question doesn't say anything about the capabilities of a black person or black people in general being able to change the current statistics. It's just a cautionary tale of the statistics the way they currently are.

Does blaming racism for the picture the statistics paint solve anything? Does adding 3 levels of obfuscation in the cause and effect chain change the start and end of the chain?

A non racially charged example would be that rich people are more likely to steal candy from babies. The logical reason being that the traits that would make a person likely to steal candy from a baby makes them more likely to be rich. If we were to play a game where you had to ensure a baby kept their candy and you were aware of the income of every person your baby could interact with, it wouldn't be classist to avoid the rich people, even though there exist people who exhibit the traits that make them likely to steal candy or not steal candy regardless of income.

Well, I'm not good at connecting the dots and I may be wrong.
I'm saying that this selective cautiousness is BS anyway, especially as an ""advice"" to a kid. Maybe black people are more violent by nature, that doesn't change the fact that any concentrations for unknown purpose of strangers from a poor group is better to avoid, just to take out one example.
Or "Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white". BS.

In this day an age on the Internet it's easy to become jaded towards most anything. I'm sure you've had circumstances where other people are deeply offended by something that you didn't mind that much. So I guess what I'm saying is, who cares if Carmack made the comment. It doesn't mean he's a racist.. some people are just oversensitive about racial issues.

You'd get exhausted if this is your reaction to everything bad on the Internet:
[media][/media]

The author of that article correctly covered his ass by saying that statistics dictated everything beyond point #10 (from 10a on).
Mathematically speaking, I can’t be racist by not being offended by what he said, and I, like Carmack, am a mathematical being. So I can fully understand why he was not offended. Making a post about it on Twitter simply means he forgot that not everyone works in id Software and understands his sense of humor.

As pointed out by ApochPiQ, don’t read too deeply into a Twitter post. Instead of understanding that he is racist, you should understand that he seems to think everyone on Twitter knows him as well as his real-life friends and that they will get the joke. That is what he botched.


I personally feel that a lot of people can’t separate realism from what is taught to mean racism, and act strangely for fear of being called racist based on the definitions of racism they have been taught.

Instead of 2 old grey-haired white guys, Obama runs for president.
“Hmm, never seen this before. He has a pretty honest face, so what are his ideals? Promote technology, science, and the advancement of America? And he enjoys Blackberries? Nice!”

The fact that no black person had run for presidency before caused me to pay attention. You could use the word “scrutinize” if you wanted. Does that make me racist?
Racism would be hating him for being black. I paid attention to the fact that no black person had run for presidency, which was a landmark. Dismissing that just for fear of being characterized as “extra scrutinization just because he black” is what would have left me either ignorant or racist.
Ignorant because it is the fear of being called racist that makes people react abnormally towards racial minorities.


I think szecs is falling into this type of trap.
Admitting that you raise a brow when a political candidate is black causes shame? Guess what: The whole world raised a brow when Obama ran for presidency. The whole world paid more attention. Which is essentially the definition of scrutinizing.
Scrutinization simply means “to examine thoroughly”. Do you realize that we can examine things more closely just out of curiosity?


I openly admit that I scrutinized Obama more than I had any previous president. And I know fully well it was out of curiosity, not racism.
Yes, he was black. But he was a black who ran to be president. This is new. This has never happened before! When I listened more to his speeches and ideals, I favored him far more than any president I had ever. I registered to vote from overseas just to vote for him and I still support him now despite his decline in popularity.

But I am racist just because I was curious enough to look at him closer?

A black politician is probably a rare thing. Just as a Japanese politician is (at least outside of Japan).
But I moved to Japan for a reason, and it certainly is not because I hate Japanese or in any way think down upon them.
Seeing anyone besides a fat grey-haired white man about to kick the bucket become a politician in America piques my curiosity, and it has nothing to do with any specific race.


I am just using this one quote as an example, but in truth it covers so many areas. People are afraid to behave differently towards people of other races out of fear of being mistaken for racism. Even afraid to admit a little extra scrutinization because so many people can’t understand the difference.


Settle down and think logically. I am not offended by the article—statistically he is correct, but he is also a racist because he takes joy in manipulating the audience (by starting off completely reasonably such that any idiot would agree with what he says, then going into more racist tones gradually as the less-intelligent audience members are unaware that they have been dragged into prejudism) and specifically enabling himself to make targeted racial statements.
I am picking on the politician section because it is the most obvious and easily exploitable example of his targeted racism, but it generally goes downhill from point 10 on.

He is basically playing on peoples’ inability to distinguish between why they feel certain ways or do certain things, or their lack of confidence that others can properly judge them based off such, and twisting it in such a way that he himself can’t be judged for stating it.


Carmack is an idiot for thinking everyone on Twitter knows his sense of humor.
The article author is a manipulative racist who exposes his racist side only if he feels comfortable that no one will actually detect his racism.

Simple as that.


L. Spiro

The fact that no black person had run for presidency before caused me to pay attention.

I didn't know this before just checking, but Shirley Crisholm was a black woman who ran for president in the 1970s and she won 28 delegates

I didn't know this before just checking, but Shirley Crisholm was a black woman who ran for president in the 1970s and she won 28 delegates

Had I been alive and mature enough to realize that it was not a common occurrence, I would have paid more attention back then, specifically for the same reasons.


It really would not matter though. I might have discovered a black woman who had ideals apposed to my own (which are the advancement of science and technology and the digression of religion (and hopefully total elimination in the future)) or inlined. The skin color may draw my attention but nothing else. Wow, someone black ran for presidency. Niftypuff. Now what are the ideals/goals of said person?

Anyone who simplifies the “scrutinize black political people more” into a simplified interpretation that implies racism is am idiot, and is ultimately playing off people’s insecurities.

Obama was new to me and I turned my head where I would not otherwise have.
I am not going to feel guilty for that just because some prick thinks he can pull on the strings of the insecurities of the masses. That might tug on the strings of some people, but I know exactly what I felt and why, and I can only wish that more people were the same. Stop questioning yourselves. Your are not as evil as they wish you were, and 99% of what you feel is valid and fine, just misinterpreted by both you and the masses.


L. Spiro

Well just to be accurate, Obama was the first black man to successfully run for President. Others have tried but didn't make it past the convention, if at all.

And honestly, it's great to say that statistics show this and show that. But does anyone really think this author or any non-black parent is quoting statistics while warning their kids to avoid black people? Yeah, he/she quoted statistics in the article on the Internet. But only to do exactly what L. Spiro said, CYA.

I’m not sure if it makes it better or worse, but the OP is referring to the wrong article…

John Carmack ?[s]@[/s]ID_AA_Carmack
Reading Derbyshire's "We are Doomed"; I agree with most of his points, yet I remain a clear headed optimist.

brennen ?[s]@[/s]brennen
[s]@[/s]ID_AA_Carmack Can I ask your feelings on his recent "hey guys so actually I'm totally a white supremacist" bit?

<I google and find that he is referring to this: http://www.vdare.com...dissident-right, which I read and respond with >

John Carmack ?[s]@[/s]ID_AA_Carmack
[s]@[/s]brennen I just read the article that is getting the “Double-plus-un-good-thought-crime!” revulsion, and I don’t find it that offensive.


As a general rule, I don’t think very highly of people that go out of their way to take grievous offense in other people’s names. The comments sections in the meta-articles about the actual article are filled with a great many people whose company I would not enjoy.

I am a little bit tempted to try to write a thoughtful position statement, but I know that anything that strayed from orthodox political correctness would generate lots of little tempests in a teapot, and I am too busy working to argue.

John Carmack

edit: I'm going to be honest, I don't know how to make this image smaller...