Pioneering, first openly lesboon & social justice WNBA bakkabaw sow Layshia Clarendon is going into retirement

[Whitey Ford]

https://i.ibb.co/brGbR38/sowbuckbakkabaw.png

25380


Los Angeles Sparks (https://www.espn.com/wnba/team/_/name/la/los-angeles-sparks) guard Layshia Clarendon (https://www.espn.com/wnba/player/_/id/2490794/layshia-clarendon), a leader in the WNBA's social justice initiatives, the league's first openly transgender and nonbinary player and a 2017 All-Star, announced their retirement (https://www.instagram.com/p/DAJgmVxy9z0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==) Friday on Instagram.


Off the court, Lay is a trailblazer and impacted so many with their bravery to be authentic and unapologetic while consistently fighting for the marginalized."

"..social justice..first transgender and nonbinary....bravery...marginalized...." The usual word salad.


Clarendon, who uses she/her, he/him and they/them pronouns, was drafted ninth by the Indiana Fever (https://www.espn.com/wnba/team/_/name/ind/indiana-fever) in 2013.

Pronouns, too. But, it still gets better.


They advocated for LGBTQIA+ inclusive policies across the league and for racial justice. It was Clarendon's idea to dedicate the 2020 season to the "Say Her Name" campaign. When an idea was pitched to put "Black Lives Matter" on the court for the 2020 season, Clarendon drew up the rudimentary plans in Microsoft Paint.

In Microsoft Paint! Imagine if that fat sow ever learns how to use a word processor, she/him might take over the world. :lol

https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/41346251/layshia-clarendon-wnba-first-openly-nonbinary-player-retires

[Sandy]

Uh, yeah, a "sow" that can't be bothered to fully shave its mustache!

[Weewuzzkangs]

Who cares news:

Written by Bo Winegard.

Like many of his fellow Americans, Matt Yglesias has noticed (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/e0ab9189-bbc2-4b19-a46f-b31be05be996?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) that black people are vastly overrepresented at the highest levels of competitive basketball.
He is not wrong. The overrepresentation is undeniably striking. As of 2023, approximately 70% of NBA players were black (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/79863981-fdbf-45df-a411-3badab3983a4?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE). A curious, scientifically minded observer might find this pattern fascinating—and naturally ask the follow-up question: why?
But not Yglesias. Apparently troubled by the invidious stereotypes that might result from examining the causes of black overrepresentation in the NBA, he confesses that, “I have not looked into it [the causes of different racial representation] and frankly I don’t intend to, because I am happy living in a society where it is considered unseemly and inappropriate to preoccupy oneself with such questions.”
Socrates claimed wisdom by recognizing his ignorance. Matt, by contrast, seems to claim wisdom by embracing his ignorance—a curious anti-philosophical inversion. Matt is, no doubt, an intelligent man—which only makes his self-imposed nescience all the more perplexing, and in need of explanation.
I doubt that he is disconcerted by the potential discovery that blacks are better at basketball (on average) than whites because of some difficult-to-disentangle combination of genes and environment. Commentators have long joked about the relative lack of athleticism of whites, and Hollywood even made a movie about it appropriately entitled (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/8b00c986-0479-41b0-b771-7b83e6bc7316?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) White Men Can’t Jump. Most whites do not seem to care—in fact, many find it amusing.
What Matt probably fears is that any attempt to explain Black overrepresentation in basketball might lead—by symmetry of inquiry—to uncomfortable questions about black underperformance (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/fb6e1bfd-deb1-4c9b-a612-48f26eee5cab?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) on tests of cognitive ability. Or as Eric Turkheimer put it (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/4e3f8c2e-47d7-46d1-b121-f1baee1ee546?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) with characteristic lack of nuance:
Coming back to Yglesias’ concern with the manners of discussing group differences, I have a rule: All discussions of black-white differences in athletics are really about cognitive ability. If we accept that it is obvious that the predominance of Black people in the NBA is somehow the result of genetic differences, then it opens the door to having a similar discussion about why Black people have historically scored lower on IQ tests. This, I think, it the ultimate reason why Yglesias is uncomfortable with the topic, and I agree that he should be.

Matt does not embrace Kendi-style dogmatic anti-racism, which he finds unworkable. Yet he insists that “it’s perfectly reasonable for people to worry that stereotyping will lead to discrimination,” and appears to believe that inquiring too closely into the root causes of racial disparities risks encouraging invidious stereotypes. The result is a kind of genteel omertà: we may observe the patterns around us—how could we not?—but we ought to remain as discreet about their causes as we are about our sex lives or our bathroom habits. Yes, everyone knows that people copulate and defecate, but only the juvenile (or bad comedians) dwell on such matters in polite company.
I’ve addressed this subject many times (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/4ccd4f74-53d7-4e7c-9c0b-9ccc61361f1c?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE)—and, perhaps deservedly, been mocked for doing so. Yet despite my desire to write about Tarkovsky or Nietzsche, I continue to encounter essays insisting that we keep silent about racial disparities and their causes. And so, I continue to reply. It is not so fun as talking about Soviet cinema or German philosophy, but somebody must do it.
The most compelling reason the taboo against examining racial differences is misguided is that it undermines liberal principles by fostering—indeed, nearly compelling—the belief that the West is thoroughly and systemically racist. My best guess is that Matt is more insouciant about disparities than many others on the left because, despite a pretense of ignorance, he has a strong suspicion about their source. He does not think whites outperform blacks on cognitive tests or in university because of racism or stereotypes threat. (And similarly, he does not think that blacks outperform whites on the basketball court because of anti-white racism.)
Fair enough. But consider the position of a morally decent yet uninformed observer—we’ll call her Sarah—who begins to take note of the pervasive racial disparities in American life. She may first notice the conspicuous lack of representation of black people in intellectually demanding fields. As she looks deeper, she might come across data (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/cbfe432f-5c9c-40c2-b8ad-91b1f685dd45?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) on test scores—GRE, SAT, ACT, and others—as well as persistent income gaps between blacks and other demographic groups.
Even without encouragement from the media or Democratic politicians, she might begin to question the fairness of American society. Why do white Americans outperform black Americans on cognitive tests? Why do they earn more? Why were all the professors at her university white and Asian, while all the janitors were black? Something, surely, must be suppressing, thwarting, impoverishing blacks—something likely sinister and certainly unjust. Racism is the obvious explanation. And if not overt then covert racism—racism so subtle and systemic that it pervades society like an effluvial mist.
How does Matt suggest we answer Sarah’s legitimate concerns? As noted, he rejects Kendi’s rigid disparate impact doctrine, but offers nothing persuasive in its stead:
Insisting on perfect racial balance in everything (automatic ticket enforcement, advanced math enrollment, etc) makes it very hard to design functioning social systems. Besides which, nobody has ever tried to apply this in a truly comprehensive way (do we need initiatives to get more white kids playing basketball?) or developed a principled account of exactly which ethnic groups matter in this accounting (is it necessary to inquire after the balance of WASPs to Irish Catholics on America’s police forces?).

Imagine someone (Good Citizen) who accepts Matt’s view—that the taboo on discussing racial disparities should be preserved—engaged in a conversation with Sarah:
Good Citizen: “Well, you see, designing a system that produces perfect racial balance is very difficult.”
Sarah: “I understand. But why are the disparities so vast? Surely that isn’t just random.”
Good Citizen: “Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. But it’s probably best not to talk about it.”
Sarah: “What? If this might be an enormous injustice, how can we possibly ignore it?”
Good Citizen: “It’s just... unseemly to investigate such things. Best to leave them alone.”
Sarah: “That’s outrageous! You’re treating this like a pustulating wound that must be hidden from view. But this is a great moral injustice. How can I, how can you, ignore such obvious unfairness?”
Good Citizen: “As I said, it's hard to design a perfectly racially balanced society.”
Sarah: “Yes, you said that. But men and women perform about equally on the SAT and GRE. Why do Black test scores lag so badly? Are the tests racist?”
Good Citizen: “Polite people don’t discuss such things in public.”
Sarah: “You're just throwing a blanket over the hideous truth of widespread racism!”
Good Citizen: “No, no—I think Kendi’s disparate impact theory is misguided.”
Sarah: “Then what’s the explanation for such large disparities? If not racism, what?”
Good Citizen: “We shouldn’t talk about such... unseemly things.”

If we imagine millions of people like Sarah, the scale of the problem becomes clear. In the absence of a credible answer to the obvious and legitimate question—Why are racial disparities in America so vast?—the average, morally serious person may understandably conclude that the country is saturated with racism. Not just casual racism, but powerful, stultifying racism—the kind that shapes destinies and produces vast inequalities in life outcomes.
One need not be a zealot to wish to oppose such racism—and to come, quite reasonably, to regard the praise so often heaped on America by conservatives as nothing more than patriotic cant. America is not liberal. Not free. Not glorious. It is wicked. Racist. White supremacist.
Matt contrasts Kendi’s views with a ludicrous strawman version of Nathan Cofnas’s (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/ec8f6d4f-02dc-4967-bd50-3e3eacdc8af5?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE):
Ibram Kendi said it wasn’t good enough to not be racist, you had to be anti-racist in a very specific way. And there’s a counter-view, perhaps most forcefully articulated by Nathan Cofnas, that it’s not good enough to reject Kendi’s brand of anti-racism, you need to work to rehabilitate racism so that people can hold their heads high and believe in a hierarchy of races.

I’ll let Cofnas defend his own views against Yglesias’s calumny. But I will note that this is a false—and grim—dichotomy that overlooks an obvious, reasonable alternative: we can and should investigate the roots of racial disparities, just as we do with sex disparities. And we ought to discuss them judiciously but honestly, offering careful, qualified, and candid answers to legitimate questions.
At present, the best-supported answers (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/214cdc89-19ed-4fea-9043-a02d6fa38dfc?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) suggest that differences in key traits—such as IQ and self-control—likely account for much of the observed racial disparities, while the role of racism appears comparatively limited. These differences are, in all probability, partly genetic in origin and resistant to meaningful intervention. They are, in short, realities we will have to learn to live with.
These answers may be unpleasant, and they may offend the ears of egalitarians. But they are preferable to imposed ignorance or flattering falsehoods. And one can accept them while still championing a tolerant, liberal, multi-racial society. In fact, preserving such a liberal, mutli-racial society requires honesty about the causes of racial disparities because the alternative is submission to a false and corrosive narrative, one that blames whites for the struggles of other groups and in doing so fosters racial resentment and anti-Americanism.
Before concluding, I should address a common counterargument: that there is simply no credible evidence of meaningful racial differences—so the arguments made here are not worth considering. For example, in his brief response to Yglesias’s essay, Eric Turkheimer writes (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/4e3f8c2e-47d7-46d1-b121-f1baee1ee546?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE):
There are many more or less well-intended heterodox-type thinkers, from Yglesias to Andrew Sullivan to Sam Harris to Jon Haidt, who try to establish their heterodox, pro-science, academic freedom bona fides by giving a fair shake to genetic explanations of race differences in behavior. My point is that this is a very poor platform for the effort. In part, Yglesias is right, it is a poor platform because the hypotheses can lead so easily to stereotyping and bigotry, but the more important reason is that the alleged science sucks. There is no good evidence, nothing that deserves our serious attention. It is easy to think that everything is a culture war issue nowadays, but this one isn’t.

This objection is both mistaken in its reading of the data and confused about the nature of causal reasoning in discussions of racial disparities. The evidence that genetic factors play some role in race differences is extensive and well-documented, denied only by those unfamiliar with the literature or constrained by ideological commitments. I have addressed this body of evidence in detail elsewhere (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/861e4c89-f9a9-4c8e-94a9-29cf912eb016?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) and will not repeat it here.
However, even if the genetic hypothesis were entirely mistaken—which is highly unlikely given the current evidence—there remain large and incontrovertible (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/90700cf1-3b21-4176-a817-a92374b1051d?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) racial differences in causally relevant traits, such as IQ and violent crime rates, that help explain disparities in social outcomes. Thus, even if one insists, contrary to the weight of the data, that these differences are wholly environmental, they would still be central to any honest discussion of racial inequality.

Liberalism is a fragile thing, always threatened by resentment and bitterness. It is especially vulnerable in a multi-racial society characterized by deep and persistent racial disparities. Matt Yglesias argues that we should uphold the taboo against exploring the nature and causes of these disparities, lest such inquiries give rise to invidious stereotypes and bigotry. But this position is not only anti-intellectual and illiberal—it is dangerous. It condemns responsible thinkers to silence or to vague platitudes, leaving them unable to answer the obvious and morally urgent question: Why are whites, on average, more successful than Blacks in America?
I suspect that Matt knows the answer. But many people don’t.

[Sandy]

there remain large and incontrovertible (https://www.eclipso.ch/deref.php?https://substack.com/redirect/90700cf1-3b21-4176-a817-a92374b1051d?j=eyJ1IjoiNGU2aW1iIn0.fQpbKpF14gPThJm EA5w6l53F5uXyGF5ydReJSnu95RE) racial differences in causally relevant traits, such as IQ and violent crime rates, that help explain disparities in social outcomes. Thus, even if one insists, contrary to the weight of the data, that these differences are wholly environmental, they would still be central to any honest discussion of racial inequality.

That's a lot of words to overthink things. It isn't a matter of IQ or race. It's a matter of species. You don't expect to take a wolf out of the wild, bring it into your house, and expect it to act like a dog. You can't expect to take niggers out of Apefrica, bring them here for cheap labor, and even after 100 generations, expect them to act anything like human. "Why do whites outperform niggers?" is as easily answered as "Why would I prefer a dog to a wolf for my children's pet?"

At least with wolves, certain genetics were gradually bred out. The tamer ones were kept, and those that couldn't be domesticated, well, were disposed of. There's no such possibility with niggers. They're full of dominant genes of aggression and a lack of thinking, so successive generations of niggers are always worse. Even bestiality breeding with humans produces niglets just as horrible as if they came from pure niggers.

[Ignatow]

That's a lot of words to overthink things. It isn't a matter of IQ or race. It's a matter of species. You don't expect to take a wolf out of the wild, bring it into your house, and expect it to act like a dog. You can't expect to take niggers out of Apefrica, bring them here for cheap labor, and even after 100 generations, expect them to act anything like human. "Why do whites outperform niggers?" is as easily answered as "Why would I prefer a dog to a wolf for my children's pet?"

At least with wolves, certain genetics were gradually bred out. The tamer ones were kept, and those that couldn't be domesticated, well, were disposed of. There's no such possibility with niggers. They're full of dominant genes of aggression and a lack of thinking, so successive generations of niggers are always worse. Even bestiality breeding with humans produces niglets just as horrible as if they came from pure niggers.

Succinctly put, it's a matter of SPECIES. The negro species truly hasn't evolved to match the human species. Leading scientists have this belief deep in their hearts, they just can't say it publicly.

Thousands of years, prior to importation of niggers into the new world, niggers have just been feral animals. Don't believe the wild tales of Timbuktu and the richest nigger in the world. All made up fairy tales. All of these great "African civilizations" are fictions. To prove my point: name ONE great nigger philosopher, a product of any great nigger civilization. NONE, because there's no such thing. There have never been, or at present, any great nigger minds. There's the occasional magic, but that's just a regular 100 IQ nigger.

Niggers claim many inventions. But all are factually wrong. The greatest nigger invention, to their species, is muh-dikk. Next, it's immorality, and third,it's vulgarity. There. In a nutshell, that's all they've ever accomplished.

[Jim Crow]

I don’t know who that fucking disgustingly ugly nigger sow/bulldagger is. And I really don’t care to know! The fact that people actually watch it play the baakkabawl on the tv is sickening. Knowing there are some really stupid niggerloving idiots out there that worship this useless hideous creature is beyond sickening!Things like that hideous ungodly t\creature are role models for our youf! God help us!

[Nigroids]

You know what the great amazing achievement of Timbuktu was? They built a mosque out of mud. Go look it up if you don't believe me, it's probably a UN heritage site now.

[Sandy]

Don't believe the wild tales of Timbuktu and the richest nigger in the world. All made up fairy tales. All of these great "African civilizations" are fictions. To prove my point: name ONE great nigger philosopher, a product of any great nigger civilization. NONE, because there's no such thing. There have never been, or at present, any great nigger minds. There's the occasional magic, but that's just a regular 100 IQ nigger.


You know what the great amazing achievement of Timbuktu was? They built a mosque out of mud. Go look it up if you don't believe me, it's probably a UN heritage site now.

I remember now that we had a very old thread about that. The kang nigger supposedly caused massive inflation in the Middle East by throwing around what it claimed was spare change, but it was physically impossible. Whatever kazillion dollars equivalent the number was, each pack animal would have had to be carrying 700 pounds in just gold. In all these hundreds of years since, nowhere in all Africa has gold been found in such quantities. They'd probably blame YT as usual for stealing their treasure, especially their lies about "Jewish slave traders."

I wonder if the kang might have been clever, for a nigger, getting an idea from a very old Arabian Nights story. A man ran off to a faraway city to escape his evil wife Fatima. By chance he met a long-lost friend, who taught him to be a con artist pretending to be a merchant. He'd secretly ask someone if he could borrow money, which was supposed to be for buying something to resell at a profit and pay back the loan, except that Ma'aruf would give the money away to impress everybody. He'd say it was nothing compared to his full wealth, and his caravan would be arriving any day. The next day, he'd go to another merchant and do the same, until one day there was nobody left to borrow from, and he had to flee the city.

[Nigroids]

I don't know that story about the kang, but it sure smells like fictitious nigger bullshit to me. Plenty of pictures of the "city" online, just one-storey mud huts all the way to the horizon, plus the mud mosque that looks like it was designed by a three year-old.