prob cuz thats racist too? Black kids aren't innately more talented at basketball, they're just more likely to play it and play it often cuz of social dynamics.

black players in the US are disproportionately better per capita because basketball is the dominant sport among kids in their peer group growing up, and because it's the dominant sport in most american urban areas which are disproportionately black. The issue w/ lack of representation of specific minority groups in lots of areas (like poker) is also a largely American phenomenon.

I'll concede that Prahlad is a tone deaf dumbass and prob doesn't get it fully, but like, it's pretty objectively true that there are some already ingrained social barriers to poker reaching certain demographics (women, hispanics), part of which is due to what different communities pick as their gambling vice of choice, part of which is due to lack of peer representation.

Ok so what he meant is that you're supposed to strip people from all the social influences from birth on and then you give them similar opportunities.

So he's saying two races are exactly evenly skilled in a game, which cannot possibly be true due to genetics. Unless they average out to exactly equal, the answer "they will do the same" makes no sense whatsoever. You can argue white players are better, you can argue black players are better. I don't know, and I don't care. But he claims that anything other than perfect similarity is "****ing racist".

Well people can decide for themselves if my portrayal of it is accurate.

I was replying to "The irony of how extremely radically left wing so many top poker players are when they play a "zero-sum" game" and you've picked on the part I put in brackets and not my overall points in my post.

Plus there are similarities because Prahlad Friedman is the latest in a trend of professional poker players trying to be do-gooders with badly thought out campaigns and assertions that are flawed.

People of colour who replied to him on Twitter did make some very interesting points, that white people would likely not have known. For example that they typically find it harder to get financial backing from other players to play (compared to white people), and that finding poker study buddies and study groups to join is harder.

So there clearly are some issues and Prahlad Friedman highlighting the lack of poc players at the top level of poker has generated some very valuable and important discussion.

But also some people of colour have said that it is patronising the way he has expressed things and is going about trying to help people of colour in poker.

Of course one person sticking up for Prahlad Friedman's philosophy on this is Vanessa Selbst, another (former) pro poker player who now makes her money working for a hedge fund, so a company that makes financial markets more efficient, a process which reduces the value from the regular man and woman in the street's savings and investments. Another example of what the poster I was replying to stated, "The irony of how extremely radically left wing so many top poker players are when they play a "zero-sum" game" (in other words they are ruthless capitalists whose occupation has no social responsibility and ethics)

lol at the internet

Nah, everybody wasn't born as some equal blank canvas & not all lack of representation is due to some systematic racism. There are innate difference between racial groups. Black people are better sprinters & long distance runners than white people. Both demographics could eat, train & live exactly the same & the black guys will rinse their white opponents. That's not a controversial statement, it's an accepted reality. The same may well apply to basketball, & from there its simple cause and effect.

Asian people are good at maths, on average better than black AND white people.

Women might be worse than men at poker for any number of reasons. For one, maybe they dont wanna sit infront of their computer for 12hrs a day, every day. Most women can't even stomach video games. Maybe the same applies to black guys, I dunno. Sure seem to get a lot more white and Asian 'geeks' than u do black geeks.

There are always so many variables to these things which are apparently taboo to discuss, so it ultimately ends up with a few SJW's shouting "dats racist".

If you raise your own children, teach them to take care of themselves, provide a useful service, act honorably and treat everyone the way they would wish to be treated, they and society will be a lot better off than if they are taught that life is unfair, skin color matters (I’m mixed-race) and the state will provide them what they need (as long as they keep voting to enlarge the state).

This is a proven fact: if you finish high school, wait till after marriage to have children, avoid drug use and find any employment available and stick with it you have almost zero chance of living in poverty, regardless of race.

You cannot have equality of outcome - at least no scheme has come up with it so far and the most earnest attempts have resulted in corruption of the elites and mass murder.

The greatest upward mobility for the poor so far has been provided by the free market capitalist system.

Or else make it about race and grab the popcorn.

Saying that there's definitive proof that physical attributes are the cause of differences in outcomes among racial groups is empirically false. Cuz there's not. Black guys aren't genetically predisposed to be better at sprinting and long distance running, that is false and based on racial stereotyping.
see: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14679657


Asians perform better in standardized testing because East Asian immigrants place outsized influence on academics as a whole. This is disregarding that most Chinese/Japanese/Korean immigrants nowadays are upper class due to immigration screening.

I'm not disagreeing with u cuz "durr im SJW and u triggered me" you're just spewing a bunch of bull**** stereotypes w/o putting any thought into what the explanations are.

just lol

what other systems have reasonably been tried through human history? Feudalism? Various forms of oligarchy and castes? Oligarchal state-run economies masquerading as communism?

u should read Guns, Germs and Steel if u think that the system has legit upward mobility for the majority of humans living on the planet. There are entire regions of the world which are destined to be poor for the indefinite future because they have no access to the resources required to develop, resources to access patents, etc. Places like South Korea are the exception not the rule, billions on the planet could be brought out of poverty on the waste of the American population.

So why is it then that East African athletes (Kenyan and Ethiopian) dominate in distance running, but West African athletes (Nigeria, Cameroon, Senegal, Mali etc) and their descendants or partial descendants in the USA, Canada, The Caribbean and Europe dominate sprint events?

Could it possibly be because the former are in general smaller and slighter in build so better suited to long distance running and the latter are in general bigger and of more muscular build so better suited to explosive energy events such as sprinting?

(Add to this Mo Farah, a British athlete of Somalian ethnicity, again in East Africa, a multiple Olympic champion at distance events, and again of small and slight build)

Or is all of the above something that I have imagined for the last 40 years and that is about to be corrected or argued against by a modern day liberal thinker.

The article you link is partly wrong because West African countries have had good sprinters, perhaps not Olympic medal winners, but athletes that have made Olympic finals in sprint events, whereas East Africans have not featured in sprint event finals, nor have white athletes, with one or two occasional exceptions if you go back quite a few years to the 1980s and earlier when athletics was more elitist than it is now.

P.S. The BBC are well known to be left wing liberals.

Those aren't broad racial groups, there are people in very specific regions of the world, largely those who run long distances to school while young or are at high altitudes, who have slightly advantageous biological features. I won't doubt that there's some slight genetic advantages among those groups, but the regions that are the most dominant have a mixture of genetic and societal factors that contribute.

Is there a genetic explanation for Dutch skating dominance? There's certain genes which have a much higher appearance in specific areas of the world, but you can't draw any major inferences across an entire racial group.

and the BBC is center-left at best. Tell me what your go-to news source is? Do you trust Al-Jazeera (apart from their coverage of Qatar)?

Edit: some ppl disagree and would place more emphasis on genes (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037248/), but there's still a major difference between drawing inferences about an entire racial group, and about a specific small-sample ethnic group with inherited genes.

You are in denial of the plain obvious IMO. There are some clear generalised physical genetic differences between the peoples of some countries and regions etc.

Next you'll be telling me that people from Southern Europe, e.g. Greece, Italy and Spain are the same average height as people from Northern European countries such as Germany, Norway and Estonia.

In the case of people from The Netherlands excelling at speed skating it is a combination of genetics, environment and culture.

Dutch people are generally quite tall and well built with big strong legs and a strong core, more so than British or French people for example, it is very cold in the winter and they have a lot of frozen rivers and lakes to skate on, plus skating has been popular in their culture for a long time.

There is a huge and important difference between wanting to have a fair society, and taking it to such an extreme level of thought and opinion as to not acknowledge some clear and obvious differences between certain groups of people, differences that are normal and fine and should not be tried to be explained away by flawed and politically dogmatic thinking.

I don't get Prahlad. How is poker racist? One of the best of all time is black (Ivey). You've had Asians win the main. He's Jewish. The fact is, anyone with cash can and does sit down at a poker table and give it a go. I've never seen anyone turned away because of their race or gender. In fact, today the player to my right was a man wearing a dress and padded bra. Whether or not someone is successful is a different story and that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the effort they put into getting better.

I don't disagree w/ anything you said here. But like this guy below does, it's a fine line between pointing out genetic differences between people from regions that are largely homogenous, and drawing conclusions from broad, heterogenous groups like "black" or "asian" or "white", where outside of the most broad attributes, genetics are not the primary explanatory variable for differences in outcomes.

"Tired of seeing only whites and Asians at these final tables. Obviously systemic racism is responsible for this, cause everyone likes poker. To fight back just a little bit, I’m willing to give free advice to any non white non asian peeps out there! Hit me up and I’ll follow you."


And the winner of the prize for the best non white/ non Asian female poker player goes to...?

This guy gets it ^^

Very well said

Prahlad sounds like the kind of guy who won't be happy until we're all equally poor.

Or equally dead.

This sentence is gibberish.

It's always sadly amusing when people qualify their moronic, racist opinions with the qualifier "It's a proven fact."

No money in poker, everyone's Asian.

I need to move up to where they respect my Asian.

As someone else pointed out, there's also a huge and important difference between identifying measurable physical differences between groups and attributing observed differences in performance to genetics.

The average american IQ at the turn of the last century back when it was comprised almost entirely of old stock europeans was lower than most of africa of today.

There may be differences between groups (for a wide variety of attributes) but without clinical studies that control for variables like culture it tends to be highly speculative and interpretations of the existing data are driven primarily by intuition.

Prahlads post is still kinda though.

tthric