Inventions by Black folks

Originally Posted by NOBLE

I made one thread about white privilege in which I argued that there is such a thing. I've never said anything even remotely close to suggesting it is the reason for every negative or that it explains everything. I was actually going to make a long ass post about IQ and race in the other thread, but then I thought why bother? Then I realized it was closed anyway.

You said white privilege was a thing and denied that black privilege was a thing. Enough said.

Originally Posted by DaBeastDT

First off, white people did not invent alot more . i love all people second my granddad is 100%German so i mix alot up because I i have both sides.

Racist ass dude its facts behind black inventions before we we're giving freedom. Yo some off your so called genius people stole outrageous amount of inventions from african people.

I mean go study for your self. Europeans were not even taking baths or shampooing there hairs before a black moor went there. Have you thought about all the lye your people told you? I dont give a fuck about non of lame ass bias ass dude on this site... Dont be talking shit about stuff you want even go look up yo self. You rather go off what you heard... Bitch ass dude

I don't know what race invented spelling, but you better hope one of them travels to your area.

Anyways, if we're talking REAL historical and actual impact of invention, then it'd be hard to really have any stance on the matter. But what I'm talking about is technological advancements, and there's not really a discussion in that aspect. The only reason is because the side of the world which murdered and colonised the world had a vast white majority, kept other races as slaves, and had all the wealth and motivation to make those technological advancements.

I'm not implying anything, I'm giving the reasoning behind someone who might use "white invention vs black invention" as some sort of valid statistic to prove intelligence and ingenuity. You can't compare that level when one in the side of the world with wealth and motivation to invent, other races weren't being given the ability or platform to create anything.

It's a bit different now because of the Asian domination in technological advancements. I'm not sure if there would be more or less Asian people than white people in high ends of their respective fields but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a huge gulf in the way of Asians. Black people continue to grow towards high positions in every field and it's becoming more and more common.

You calling me racist though, it really shows why people like Rain's initial opinion exists. You so quickly prefer to jump to that angle rather than have a discussion. What did I even say that was racist? Where have I even projected a tone of racism in this thread? You can go out and wave a Black Lives Matter flag and follow some totally not racist youtuber who talks about how black people can't be racist and cultural appropriation is the worst thing ever.

Originally Posted by NOBLE

I made one thread about white privilege in which I argued that there is such a thing. I've never said anything even remotely close to suggesting it is the reason for every negative or that it explains everything. I was actually going to make a long ass post about IQ and race in the other thread, but then I thought why bother? Then I realized it was closed anyway.

You said white privilege was a thing and denied that black privilege was a thing. Enough said.

Originally Posted by DaBeastDT

First off, white people did not invent alot more . i love all people second my granddad is 100%German so i mix alot up because I i have both sides.

Racist ass dude its facts behind black inventions before we we're giving freedom. Yo some off your so called genius people stole outrageous amount of inventions from african people.

I mean go study for your self. Europeans were not even taking baths or shampooing there hairs before a black moor went there. Have you thought about all the lye your people told you? I dont give a fuck about non of lame ass bias ass dude on this site... Dont be talking shit about stuff you want even go look up yo self. You rather go off what you heard... Bitch ass dude

I don't know what race invented spelling, but you better hope one of them travels to your area.

Anyways, if we're talking REAL historical and actual impact of invention, then it'd be hard to really have any stance on the matter. But what I'm talking about is technological advancements, and there's not really a discussion in that aspect. The only reason is because the side of the world which murdered and colonised the world had a vast white majority, kept other races as slaves, and had all the wealth and motivation to make those technological advancements.

I'm not implying anything, I'm giving the reasoning behind someone who might use "white invention vs black invention" as some sort of valid statistic to prove intelligence and ingenuity. You can't compare that level when one in the side of the world with wealth and motivation to invent, other races weren't being given the ability or platform to create anything.

It's a bit different now because of the Asian domination in technological advancements. I'm not sure if there would be more or less Asian people than white people in high ends of their respective fields but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a huge gulf in the way of Asians. Black people continue to grow towards high positions in every field and it's becoming more and more common.

You calling me racist though, it really shows why people like Rain's initial opinion exists. You so quickly prefer to jump to that angle rather than have a discussion. What did I even say that was racist? Where have I even projected a tone of racism in this thread? You can go out and wave a Black Lives Matter flag and follow some totally not racist youtuber who talks about how black people can't be racist and cultural appropriation is the worst thing ever.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by EtHnic Cleansing

You said white privilege was a thing and denied that black privilege was a thing. Enough said.



I don't know what race invented spelling, but you better hope one of them travels to your area.

Anyways, if we're talking REAL historical and actual impact of invention, then it'd be hard to really have any stance on the matter. But what I'm talking about is technological advancements, and there's not really a discussion in that aspect. The only reason is because the side of the world which murdered and colonised the world had a vast white majority, kept other races as slaves, and had all the wealth and motivation to make those technological advancements.

I'm not implying anything, I'm giving the reasoning behind someone who might use "white invention vs black invention" as some sort of valid statistic to prove intelligence and ingenuity. You can't compare that level when one in the side of the world with wealth and motivation to invent, other races weren't being given the ability or platform to create anything.

It's a bit different now because of the Asian domination in technological advancements. I'm not sure if there would be more or less Asian people than white people in high ends of their respective fields but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a huge gulf in the way of Asians. Black people continue to grow towards high positions in every field and it's becoming more and more common.

You calling me racist though, it really shows why people like Rain's initial opinion exists. You so quickly prefer to jump to that angle rather than have a discussion. What did I even say that was racist? Where have I even projected a tone of racism in this thread? You can go out and wave a Black Lives Matter flag and follow some totally not racist youtuber who talks about how black people can't be racist and cultural appropriation is the worst thing ever.

Arabs had a far greater number of African slaves than the Europeans And the Arabs had hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of white slaves too. They also kept slaves until the 1900s. While Europeans outlawed slavery and became the dominate culture after doing so. So European's dominance was from more than just oppressing people.

Technology and advancements in tech were usually first seen in areas with lot of trading. That's why the Arabs were so advanced prior to the European Renaissance. They controlled the known trading routes. The silk road and all that. The Renaissance was possible due to what Europeans learned by interacting with Muslims. Yet, one civilization prospered while the other fell off. The latter one utilizing slavery till the end.

European advancements in banking, business and industry is what gave them the edge. Along with usery. It's haram in Islam to get or give loans with interest. This gave Europeans an advantage in war and economics. It allowed them to wage wars and do business without the money in hand. Something Muslims couldnt do. It was also a sin for Christians but Christians used Jews to do their banking to get out of it. That's a big reason why Jews are in banking now and were always targeted when blame needed to be placed. When really, it was the European aristocracy at fault for building up huge debts.

Regardless, white people were all over the world and not just in Europe. White people can be found all throughout Africa, the middle East, central Asia and even India. White people were not the creators of slavery and every race benefited from slavery.

[Wayco]

Originally Posted by EtHnic Cleansing

You said white privilege was a thing and denied that black privilege was a thing. Enough said.



I don't know what race invented spelling, but you better hope one of them travels to your area.

Anyways, if we're talking REAL historical and actual impact of invention, then it'd be hard to really have any stance on the matter. But what I'm talking about is technological advancements, and there's not really a discussion in that aspect. The only reason is because the side of the world which murdered and colonised the world had a vast white majority, kept other races as slaves, and had all the wealth and motivation to make those technological advancements.

I'm not implying anything, I'm giving the reasoning behind someone who might use "white invention vs black invention" as some sort of valid statistic to prove intelligence and ingenuity. You can't compare that level when one in the side of the world with wealth and motivation to invent, other races weren't being given the ability or platform to create anything.

It's a bit different now because of the Asian domination in technological advancements. I'm not sure if there would be more or less Asian people than white people in high ends of their respective fields but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a huge gulf in the way of Asians. Black people continue to grow towards high positions in every field and it's becoming more and more common.

You calling me racist though, it really shows why people like Rain's initial opinion exists. You so quickly prefer to jump to that angle rather than have a discussion. What did I even say that was racist? Where have I even projected a tone of racism in this thread? You can go out and wave a Black Lives Matter flag and follow some totally not racist youtuber who talks about how black people can't be racist and cultural appropriation is the worst thing ever.

Arabs had a far greater number of African slaves than the Europeans And the Arabs had hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of white slaves too. They also kept slaves until the 1900s. While Europeans outlawed slavery and became the dominate culture after doing so. So European's dominance was from more than just oppressing people.

Technology and advancements in tech were usually first seen in areas with lot of trading. That's why the Arabs were so advanced prior to the European Renaissance. They controlled the known trading routes. The silk road and all that. The Renaissance was possible due to what Europeans learned by interacting with Muslims. Yet, one civilization prospered while the other fell off. The latter one utilizing slavery till the end.

European advancements in banking, business and industry is what gave them the edge. Along with usery. It's haram in Islam to get or give loans with interest. This gave Europeans an advantage in war and economics. It allowed them to wage wars and do business without the money in hand. Something Muslims couldnt do. It was also a sin for Christians but Christians used Jews to do their banking to get out of it. That's a big reason why Jews are in banking now and were always targeted when blame needed to be placed. When really, it was the European aristocracy at fault for building up huge debts.

Regardless, white people were all over the world and not just in Europe. White people can be found all throughout Africa, the middle East, central Asia and even India. White people were not the creators of slavery and every race benefited from slavery.

[Wayco]

I wrote a rather lengthy reply then realized the thread was closed.

•IQs are good for gauging intelligence
•A high IQ doesn't guarantee success
•Having an extremely high IQ wouldnt be superior to survival skills in the Serengeti.
•IQ scores are limited to what's being tested
•Many believe IQ test are skewed
•An Ivy League student may be smart but would probably get schooled in the streets and end up robbed
•A misconception about black people is their IQs are low. Reality, due to their size of population there's a lot more smart black people than Asians
•I think IQ matters but someone with a high IQ can waste their talent while someone with a lower IQ achieve with theirs. I've met some real smart people of all races. As well as creative. IQ doesn't determine your drive and is limited in scope

[Wayco]

I wrote a rather lengthy reply then realized the thread was closed.

•IQs are good for gauging intelligence
•A high IQ doesn't guarantee success
•Having an extremely high IQ wouldnt be superior to survival skills in the Serengeti.
•IQ scores are limited to what's being tested
•Many believe IQ test are skewed
•An Ivy League student may be smart but would probably get schooled in the streets and end up robbed
•A misconception about black people is their IQs are low. Reality, due to their size of population there's a lot more smart black people than Asians
•I think IQ matters but someone with a high IQ can waste their talent while someone with a lower IQ achieve with theirs. I've met some real smart people of all races. As well as creative. IQ doesn't determine your drive and is limited in scope

[NOBLE]

You're just making up shit. I've never even discussed "black privilege" here, let alone denying it.

[NOBLE]

You're just making up shit. I've never even discussed "black privilege" here, let alone denying it.

[Babylon]

Lyve science is on point with the cultural knowledge, dope conversation

[Babylon]

Lyve science is on point with the cultural knowledge, dope conversation

I’ve cut any type of racism out of my life. I can be called the N word, or any black related joke, it doesn’t bother me. And I have friends all different Colours and races

I’ve cut any type of racism out of my life. I can be called the N word, or any black related joke, it doesn’t bother me. And I have friends all different Colours and races

Most lame thing about black ppl is when they hate on and blame white people for things like slavery when it was black ppl who sold the black slaves to white ppl.

Most lame thing about black ppl is when they hate on and blame white people for things like slavery when it was black ppl who sold the black slaves to white ppl.

[Wayco]

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

It's Sad @NOBLE, trying to win an argument by semantics or exceptions.

Or finding where I misspoke to win an argument, of zero importance.. eeeww you got me!

Black, white and Semitic are common ways of describing common ancestry yet you took issue with me using the word Semitic, why? Semantics. You have no substantive argument so you argue about definitions. When clearly there's a social standard already set in place. Second, if you want to use obscure definitions you should make sure we both agree on the definitions so there's no confusion.

Regardless, of anything you say Berbers are a distinct racial group. I don't 'subscribe' to the racial classifications myself but for the sake of argument i simplified things. I'm not a faggot.

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

If you don't believe me Sufis dance ask this guy pal

[Wayco]

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

It's Sad @NOBLE, trying to win an argument by semantics or exceptions.

Or finding where I misspoke to win an argument, of zero importance.. eeeww you got me!

Black, white and Semitic are common ways of describing common ancestry yet you took issue with me using the word Semitic, why? Semantics. You have no substantive argument so you argue about definitions. When clearly there's a social standard already set in place. Second, if you want to use obscure definitions you should make sure we both agree on the definitions so there's no confusion.

Regardless, of anything you say Berbers are a distinct racial group. I don't 'subscribe' to the racial classifications myself but for the sake of argument i simplified things. I'm not a faggot.

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

If you don't believe me Sufis dance ask this guy pal

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

https://youtu.be/TAN9ahGEaI0


If you don't believe me Sufis dance ask this guy pal

https://youtu.be/jBJlAn-0v5A

That chick who has white fleash who is black is hot, i think i love her.

As 4 the sufis, the sufis are alright, the mystic ones are fine, mystics, shamans, saints are all cool, average religious folk kinda silly with it imo.. Jesus was not Christian, buddha was not Buddhist nah mean.

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

https://youtu.be/TAN9ahGEaI0


If you don't believe me Sufis dance ask this guy pal

https://youtu.be/jBJlAn-0v5A

That chick who has white fleash who is black is hot, i think i love her.

As 4 the sufis, the sufis are alright, the mystic ones are fine, mystics, shamans, saints are all cool, average religious folk kinda silly with it imo.. Jesus was not Christian, buddha was not Buddhist nah mean.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

https://youtu.be/TAN9ahGEaI0

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

It's Sad @NOBLE, trying to win an argument by semantics or exceptions.

Or finding where I misspoke to win an argument, of zero importance.. eeeww you got me!

Black, white and Semitic are common ways of describing common ancestry yet you took issue with me using the word Semitic, why? Semantics. You have no substantive argument so you argue about definitions. When clearly there's a social standard already set in place. Second, if you want to use obscure definitions you should make sure we both agree on the definitions so there's no confusion.

Regardless, of anything you say Berbers are a distinct racial group. I don't 'subscribe' to the racial classifications myself but for the sake of argument i simplified things. I'm not a faggot.

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

If you don't believe me Sufis dance ask this guy pal

https://youtu.be/jBJlAn-0v5A

I don't think I'm "winning" this argument at all, and neither am I trying to...because we're arguing opinions and not fact. Race isn't a scientific fact. Sure, there are science-related fields like forensics that can determine the race of an unknown perpetrator based on evidence left behind like hair follicles or the genetic profiles of their DNA. However, those findings are based on probabilities and use inductive reasoning. They don't have enough deductive force to be considered science because it is possible for something to be true statistically but factually wrong. Even when they do paternity DNA tests, they can only say someone is the father with 99 point something percent accuracy, not 100% because it's based on probability and statistics. It's the same thing with the question of what race a particular hair follicle or DNA sample belongs to. I remember watching a series where Henry Louis Gates (an African American scholar) was interviewing some black celebrities and helping them find which tribe in Africa their DNA mostly matches. When he did himself, he found out he was actually more European genetically than African. Lol! So if he commits a crime and left some DNA evidence, forensics could conceivably think they are looking for a Caucasian individual rather than someone who is visually black. Research the "problem of induction" and you may understand why race cannot be scientific. Race is more of an opinion than anything else.
What makes this argument even more absurd, and why I don't think either of us can win the portion about race, is the fact that we are debating the race of a people neither one of us are claiming to belong to. You are not a Berber and neither am I. That's why I said I'd defer to a Berber speaking for themselves as to whether they consider themselves black, white, Arab, or none of the above. I think the way someone defines themselves takes precedence over the way they are defined by others. Your wife, for example, may be a Berber and claim to be white. I have also met Berbers who claim to be black..so even when they speak for themselves, they may not all agree. Like I said...arbitrary opinion. But on an individual level, I respect someone's right to define themselves. If you tell me your name is Muhammad Ali, I'm not going to insist on calling you Cassius Clay, no matter what your birth certificate says, because I'm not an asshole like that. It isn't my opinion or your birth certificate that ultimately defines your identity. It is you who define it, and I respect that.
The portion about history is more concrete and winnable as a debate item. But the thing about history is...we mostly get the side of the winners and it can be told from many angles. For example, the perspective with which I was taught about the War of 1812 growing up in the US is rather different from the perspective that I learned was taught here since moving to Canada. This brings me to what you were saying about black and white revisionists. Yes, there are historical revisionists, both black and white or otherwise, who twist history to suit their own agenda or to make themselves feel better or their ancestors look better in the past than they actually might have looked. However, history being revised isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's actually history being corrected. Like I said, history is mostly told from the perspective of the winners. "Until lions have their own historians, tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter"....or so the saying goes. Particularly for people who have been marginalized or have been the losers of historical events, you can't always take for granted that what we were all taught is 100% factual. An alternative version of history can be wrong, but it isn't wrong simply because it is alternative, if you get what I'm trying to say.
Either way, it's been an interesting chit-chat. Keep elevating!

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Lyve SCIENCE

https://youtu.be/TAN9ahGEaI0

---------- Post added at 01:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:20 PM ----------

It's Sad @NOBLE, trying to win an argument by semantics or exceptions.

Or finding where I misspoke to win an argument, of zero importance.. eeeww you got me!

Black, white and Semitic are common ways of describing common ancestry yet you took issue with me using the word Semitic, why? Semantics. You have no substantive argument so you argue about definitions. When clearly there's a social standard already set in place. Second, if you want to use obscure definitions you should make sure we both agree on the definitions so there's no confusion.

Regardless, of anything you say Berbers are a distinct racial group. I don't 'subscribe' to the racial classifications myself but for the sake of argument i simplified things. I'm not a faggot.

---------- Post added at 01:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

If you don't believe me Sufis dance ask this guy pal

https://youtu.be/jBJlAn-0v5A

I don't think I'm "winning" this argument at all, and neither am I trying to...because we're arguing opinions and not fact. Race isn't a scientific fact. Sure, there are science-related fields like forensics that can determine the race of an unknown perpetrator based on evidence left behind like hair follicles or the genetic profiles of their DNA. However, those findings are based on probabilities and use inductive reasoning. They don't have enough deductive force to be considered science because it is possible for something to be true statistically but factually wrong. Even when they do paternity DNA tests, they can only say someone is the father with 99 point something percent accuracy, not 100% because it's based on probability and statistics. It's the same thing with the question of what race a particular hair follicle or DNA sample belongs to. I remember watching a series where Henry Louis Gates (an African American scholar) was interviewing some black celebrities and helping them find which tribe in Africa their DNA mostly matches. When he did himself, he found out he was actually more European genetically than African. Lol! So if he commits a crime and left some DNA evidence, forensics could conceivably think they are looking for a Caucasian individual rather than someone who is visually black. Research the "problem of induction" and you may understand why race cannot be scientific. Race is more of an opinion than anything else.
What makes this argument even more absurd, and why I don't think either of us can win the portion about race, is the fact that we are debating the race of a people neither one of us are claiming to belong to. You are not a Berber and neither am I. That's why I said I'd defer to a Berber speaking for themselves as to whether they consider themselves black, white, Arab, or none of the above. I think the way someone defines themselves takes precedence over the way they are defined by others. Your wife, for example, may be a Berber and claim to be white. I have also met Berbers who claim to be black..so even when they speak for themselves, they may not all agree. Like I said...arbitrary opinion. But on an individual level, I respect someone's right to define themselves. If you tell me your name is Muhammad Ali, I'm not going to insist on calling you Cassius Clay, no matter what your birth certificate says, because I'm not an asshole like that. It isn't my opinion or your birth certificate that ultimately defines your identity. It is you who define it, and I respect that.
The portion about history is more concrete and winnable as a debate item. But the thing about history is...we mostly get the side of the winners and it can be told from many angles. For example, the perspective with which I was taught about the War of 1812 growing up in the US is rather different from the perspective that I learned was taught here since moving to Canada. This brings me to what you were saying about black and white revisionists. Yes, there are historical revisionists, both black and white or otherwise, who twist history to suit their own agenda or to make themselves feel better or their ancestors look better in the past than they actually might have looked. However, history being revised isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's actually history being corrected. Like I said, history is mostly told from the perspective of the winners. "Until lions have their own historians, tales of the hunt will always glorify the hunter"....or so the saying goes. Particularly for people who have been marginalized or have been the losers of historical events, you can't always take for granted that what we were all taught is 100% factual. An alternative version of history can be wrong, but it isn't wrong simply because it is alternative, if you get what I'm trying to say.
Either way, it's been an interesting chit-chat. Keep elevating!