Thursday, September 23, 2010

Kill Whitey? Is this what Disingenuous White Liberals want?

We know - thanks to the coverage of the Omar Thornton story - that there can be no peace. Those who perished weren't even buried before Disingenuous White Liberals (DWLs) in the media castigated them for alleged - by the mass murderer himself - racism.

Now comes word of an intriguing survey dubbed the "Kill Whitey" study that postulated an intriguing scenario and produced interesting results that corroborate our findings that there can be no peace:

Perhaps most revealing is what Pizarro calls the “Kill Whitey” study. This was a footbridge problem — two variations on a footbridge problem in one, actually — that the team presented to 238 California undergrads. The undergrads were of mixed race, ethnicity and political leanings. Before they faced the problem, 87 percent of them said they did not consider race or nationality a relevant factor in moral decisions. Here the paper’s (.pdf) description of the problem they faced:
Participants received one of two scenarios involving an individual who has to decide whether or not to throw a large man in the path of a trolley (described as large enough that he would stop the progress of the trolley) in order to prevent the trolley from killing 100 innocent individual strapped in a bus.
Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.
Tyrone and Chip. Just in case you’re missing what Pizarro is up to:
While we did not provide specific information about the race of the individuals in the scenario, we reasoned that Chip and Tyrone were stereotypically associated with White American and Black American individuals respectively, and that the New York Philharmonic would be assumed to be majority White, and the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed to be majority Black.
So the guy on the bridge kills either Tyrone to save the New York Philharmonic or Chip to save the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. How, Pizarro asked the students, did they feel about that? Was sacrificing Chip/Tyrone to save the Jazz Orchestra/Philharmonic justified? Was it moral? Was it sometimes necessary to allow the death of one innocent to save others? Should we ever violate core principles, regardless of outcome? Is it sometimes “necessary” to allow the death of a few to promote a greater good?

Turned out the racial identities did indeed, ah, color peoples’ judgments, but it colored them differently depending on their political bent. Pizarro, who describes himself as a person who “would probably be graded a liberal on tests,” roughly expected that liberals would be more consistent. Yet liberals proved just as prejudiced here as conservatives were, but in reverse: While self-described conservatives more readily accepted the sacrifice of Tyrone than they did killing Chip, the liberals were easier about seeing Chip sacrificed than Tyrone.

But this was just college students. Perhaps they were morally mushier than most people. So the team went further afield. As Pizarro describes in the talk:
We wanted to find a sample of more sort of, you know, real people. So we went in Orange County out to a mall and we got people who are actually Republicans and actually Democrats, not wishy-washy college students. The effect just got stronger. (This time it was using a “lifeboat” dilemma where one person has to be thrown off the edge of a lifeboat in order to save everybody, again using the names “Tyrone Payton” or “Chip Ellsworth III”.) We replicated the finding, but this time it was even stronger.
If you’re wondering whether this is just because conservatives are racist—well, it may well be that conservatives are more racist. But it appears in these studies that the effect is driven [primarily] by liberals saying that they’re more likely to agree with pushing the white man and [more likely to] disagree with pushing the black man.
So we used to refer to this as the “kill whitey” study.
They offered some other scenarios too, about collateral damage in military situations, for instance, and found similar differences: Conservatives accepted collateral damage more easily if the dead were Iraqis than if they were Americans, while liberals accepted civilian deaths more readily if the dead were Americans rather than Iraqis.
Kill Whitey. There is nothing more perverse, profane and disgusting to the white liberal mind then a white conservative, the embodiment of all that is evil and unholy in their secular worldview. 

The white liberal finds the Red State dwelling, white Republican a most despicable, degenerate form of life and looks upon their existence with a combination of both pity and fear. That they lack the intellect to understand progressive politics and erudition to pursue fine arts is a cause for pity, but that these Red State inhabitants still cling ferociously to proletarian  and archaic ideas of God, Country and guns they fear what that might lead too.

DWLs cheer on the demise of whitey nationwide, as long as the variety of whitey is conservative and preferably a George W. Bush supporter.

You see, DWLs are firmly ensconced in liberal Whitopia's of their own and this geographic segregation from a people whose votes they use with increasing regularity to win at the polls, is just the way they see fit to live.

Take a look at the top places in the United States for liberals to live and you will see towns, cities and municipalities listed that lack the diversity all DWLs preach is paramount for a strong, unified America.

Diversity is our greatest strength, but it is what DWL bastions lack in spades.

Boulder, Portland and Seattle have fewer Black people than Tea Party rallies, yet these same DWLs attack the Tea Party for a lack of inclusion (here is a list of the 40 largest US Metro cities based on white population).

One town dubbed a "city of the future" even advertised paying Black people to move there because the DWLs were immersed in whiteness.

Kill Whitey? It only depends on what type of white person when that question is directed to the DWL. They live in liberal enclaves that feature surprising little diversity, less even than appear at Tea Party rallies bemoaning the increasing size of the Federal government.

Freedom of Association is one of the last true freedoms we Americans have left and, based upon patterns of residence, DWLs think like the Red State white people they loathe:
America is known as the Great Melting Pot.
But a closer look at census data shows we're a lot closer to a dinner plate with the peas here, carrots here, potatoes here, and steak over there. In other words, a very high level of racial segregation.
This cool series of maps was produced by Eric Fischer, based on a map of Chicago from Bill Rankin'sRadical Cartography.

Red represents white people, blue is black, green is Asian, and orange is Hispanic, and each dot is 25 people.

One thing that DWLs and those cretinous white Republicans have in common, though, is a steadfast desire to live as far removed from Black people as is humanly possible. Both groups practice a form of white flight and both practice a form of pioneering known as gentrification.The end of white flight is here, as the once Whitopia suburbs become brown.

More importantly, both groups pander and grovel to the principles of Black Run America (BRA) with equally emasculating efficacy. The point is that one group is disingenuous, while the other group desires a continued supply of Black athletes to cheer for in collegiate and professional sports.

We have already stated that the South must be abandoned. DWLs have no problem - according to one psychological test - offing conservative whites to save a Black person. But DWLs do have a problem living around Black people, as one can discern from residential patterns.

Where do people move too in an effort to be free from both "Kill Whitey" DWLs and those that Thug Report profile with such harsh honesty?


Anonymous said...

What lifeboat? What do they mean by that? I'm not in a lifeboat and i wouldnt be in one with you freaks.

Stuff Black People Don't Like said...

Read the whole study here.

Not sure what you mean by "freaks" but thanks for reading.

Anonymous said...

Does throwing the whole Harlem Jazz Orchestra on the tracks to save Chip count? That's something I would do.

Anonymous said...

In the DC area, I'm part of a well hidden team that plans the WHITE take over. Its very easy and cheap, plus 100% legal. How? It's called Birch Haven Scout Group and it's mission is to buy up auctioned homes from the DC tax auctions. Most of the homes are in need of repair as they are usually similar to something in the Gaza Strip. The bones are perfect in these old brownstones from the 20s and 30s. We ensure that they are redone and either sold to whom we want with right of first repurchase and rent to only those we deem ok. We're not real estate agents/brokers so we do not have to comply with any fair housing laws. It's amazing to see all the 40s and crack pipes off the streets, and homes fully restored. THe blacks go nuts when they see this. I estimate it will take us perhaps 30 years to make DC a WHITE majority again.

Anonymous said...

What do you call a trolley crash that kills a bus load of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra?

A good start. Jazz is a crime against humanity.

Desiree said...

This is an interesting study.

Many a black militant knows so-called 'DWLs' or white liberals are still racist as hell; not a surprise that they'd want to live separately from blacks, too. They're still white!

Let me quote my favorite Pan-Africanist thinker, the late Brother Del Jones, about liberals (forgive his style; he states his goal is to eliminate every facet of the 'indigenous bourgeoisie'--whites--from his work, including even not writing like them). From his book 'The Black Holocaust':

"...the liberal approach [to dealing with PoC] is considered more hue-mane. Even though it is obvious they have the same goals [of genocide, takeover, ie. typical shit Whitey does to PoC].... They have a missionary approach to people of color, their land, their resources.

Their paternal attitude is racist and fed by their white supremacist position.... They call for integration loud and clear, but they can't, nor do they really want true integration. They just don't have the stomach for the raw violent approach of their conservative brothers....

Yet, with every contact with people of color they fight for control and believe control is their birthright. In the main, they have a very important function. It is their job to make us believe that there is hope for egalitarianism."

Bro. Jones always brings it on a real tip. I think you'd agree with him, SBPDL.

The study more shows how much so-called 'DWLs' will lie because it is politically expedient. Conservatives--though I do believe them to be loathsome racists for the most part--at least issued a quick response that was unfettered by any sort of political correctness.

They answered the way all whites would answer: 'Kill Darkie!' LOL...

The 'DWLs' thought about it too long. They are lying. The paternalism of some of them is quite astounding. But, all things considered, I'd rather be among whites saying, 'Desiree, you are so articulate and well-behaved' instead of whites who'd say, 'Desiree, you nigger bitch.'

The latter has been said. I prefer the former...

Desiree said...

By the way, I think it is better to kill 'Chip Ellsworth III' to save the Harlem Jazz Orchestra.

It isn't because I am black. No, it is because there are millions of 'Chips' and whites who'd be in the Philharmonic.

But those in the Harlem Orchestra are less common. They are doing something with their lives. They are being that 'concrete rose'! Isn't that what most of the whites on here want: 'capable' blacks who are doing something?

Killing Chip is the only logical response to the choice between the two scenarios. It's obvious...

Does throwing the whole Harlem Jazz Orchestra on the tracks to save Chip count? That's something I would do.

STFU. You never kill a lot of people to save one person. It would be equally stupid to kill the Philharmonic to save Tyrone. SMFH.

Donald said...

Hey SBPDL I am glad you were able to find those racial maps. I was going to submit them to you almost a week ago, but I could not find a submission link on the top of your page.

I found something else that black people don't like: Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps. I saw it earlier today and it was a great movie (although people that do not understand modern economics would be bored to death). I also saw perhaps not a single black person in the whole movie (not even a token with a line or two), nor did I see a single black person in the whole audience. I don't think they like it very much.

Silent Running said...

Killing Chip is the only logical response to the choice between the two scenarios. It's obvious...

I know what you're thinking and the answer is no, she's not a caricature. She's the real thing.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Desiree quoted and responded to me finally. I'm honored! Actually you can kill several people to save 1 person. You make it sound like each human life is equally valuable and important (they aren't).

And I do want capable blacks who are doing something, but without the influence of the oppressive Whitey. You see, we feel really bad about the whole slavery deal, so White flight is our way of rediscovering and rebuilding America without using slaves (as if it never happened). That way you can wallow in the African glory of your room temperature I.Q.'s and really show the world what you're made of.

Ah who am I kidding. There's no point arguing with you since nothing gets through that dense skull of yours.

laz said...

"room temperature I.Q.'s"

LOL! Never heard that one before. I know a lot of people, of several races, who fit that bill.

Desiree said...

Wow, Desiree quoted and responded to me finally. I'm honored!

You should be. By your use of 'finally', I can tell it was a long time coming, right? Typically, as I have proved time and time and time again on this site, many people love to converse with me. It would be a shock that you'd ever think differently, Anonymous.

Actually you can kill several people to save 1 person. You make it sound like each human life is equally valuable and important (they aren't).

I'd agree with you but, in the case of these scenarios, you cannot directly ascertain the value of Chip's life. The only thing you know about him is that his name suggests he is white. Those he'd die to save are individuals who are organized musicians in the ghetto; I live on the West Coast and isolated from East Coast slums but all of that seems like an accomplishment! How do we know Chip isn't an elite druggie who has blown a third of his inheritance on cocaine and hookers? Basically a waste of space.

And for Tyrone, how do we know he isn't a crack junkie? Clearly, those in the Philharmonic would be of more value if that were true, Anonymous.

But given the scenarios and the bare, instantaneous reactions to them (not determining the value of any one person's life), you'd have to make the decision to kill one to save many.

After that decision is made, you choose either Chip/Harlem orchestra or Tyrone/Philharmonic. Seeing that many believe blacks are achievement-less, it is better to kill Chip than to kill Tyrone.

That is the logical choice. If we knew the value of each individual life in the scenarios we could decide to save one over many. However, even if Chip or Tyrone were upstanding citizens who donated monies to charity, fed the homeless, and could fart magical pixie dust, it is still stupid to kill many to save one. If one person in either musical ensemble among the others was a child molester, that should not veto the 'it's okay to kill one to save many' rule. This is not the weakest link.

You sound like Dick Cheney.

Do I believe all lives have value? Of course I don't. But that is not the issue at hand, is it?

That way you can wallow in the African glory of your room temperature I.Q.'s and really show the world what you're made of. Ah who am I kidding. There's no point arguing with you since nothing gets through that dense skull of yours.

You know, seeing that I am an educated individual, I possess many medical reference books in my home. From my reading, I am certain 'room temp.-level' IQs are at the level of borderline retardation. I don't know if you were aware of that, Anonymous. If I had an IQ in the low 70s, I'd be unable to attend college (I'm attending), keep a blog (I have one), or write this comment (I'm typing!).

You are only embarrassing yourself by making clearly FALSE statements. Ah, who am I kidding? There is no point of arguing with you since nothing gets through that dense skull of yours.

Anonymous said...

Desiree is just another worthless black who for some reason thinks she is wanted on this forum.

Ignore her and eventually she'll go away.

Anonymous said...

Whoa, you're not becoming an African witch doctor Desiree? I suppose you're going to blame Whitey for medical school now?

Fact is I and White people don't need you. You're nothing but outdated farm equipment and all these black lawyers and doctors are nothing more than chimpanzees who have been trained to ride a bike. All of your "duhgreez n sheeit" are a result of White people who find pride in making something useful out of something so worthless as blacks.

Carlos said...

"outdated farm equipment" Let me take note of this!

The true is, like it or not, blacks are a burden for humanity. They kill people, they're lazy, they are racist, they continuously pose as victims (no matter how many whites men have been killed or white girls raped by them), and they depend on white's abilities of organization as they are extremely disperses. I really don't know what would the best to do to black people. Return to Africa? I sincerely doubt that native africans would like the idea of american blacks returning to their "roots".