'Progressive' (shitlib) false narratives and their debunkings

Author: Mesmer

Posts

Total: 60
Topic's author
#1
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
I thought I'd compile a list of the typical anti-white shitlib narratives that 'Progressives' like to peddle, as well as super brief sentences explaining why they are debunked, and finally linking them to an excellent site wherein more thorough explanations are giving for why they are debunked:

That human races don't exist (Wrong. Dead wrong: The Existence of Race – The Alternative Hypothesis ).

That there is more genetic variation within races and between, therefore human races don't exist (Wrong. It's true for total genetic markers, but wrong for the total variance generated by markers which creates racial differences: Variation Within and Between Races – The Alternative Hypothesis )

That race is a "social construct", therefore human races are arbitrary (Wrong, although human races are "social constructs" in the technical sense: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-is-a-social-construct/ ).

That racial equality is possible (Wrong. Dead wrong: The Impossibility of Equality – The Alternative Hypothesis )


That cultural bias skews the results of IQ tests (Wrong. This doesn't happen for g loaded ones, which is where the data is derived: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/cultural-bias-on-iq-tests/ )

That IQ doesn't test for all kinds of intelligence (Wrong. It tests for all g loaded types: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/multiple-intelligences-emotional-intelligence-creativity-and-g/ )

That low SES/poverty causes differences in racial outcomes, that biology has nothing to do with it (Wrong. Biology is a large factor: IQ and Socio-Economic Status – The Alternative Hypothesis  https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/race-iq-and-poverty/  )

That lead poisoning is the only reason there is a white-black IQ/outcome gap (Wrong. Dead wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/23/race-iq-and-lead/ ).

That the black-white IQ gap is closing, therefore it's not genetic (Wrong on both fronts: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/09/10/the-flynn-effect-race-and-iq/ )

That the Black arrest rate in the US is due purely to "systemic racism" or "racial bias in policing", rather than biological differences (Wrong. Dead wrong: Race and Crime: the Causes of Black Crime Rates – The Alternative Hypothesis )

That racial diversity is a source of strength (Wrong. The truth is the complete opposite: Ethnic Diversity: Strength or Weakness? – The Alternative Hypothesis )

That American slavery and Native American genocide narratives taught in US schools are accurate (Wrong overall, although some parts are true: History – The Alternative Hypothesis ).

That white privilege exists (Wrong. Nothing but a slanderous label: White Privilege – The Alternative Hypothesis ).


I hope this helps :)

#2
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
you can link to alot of articles off a white supremicist website. good for you.
#3
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mesmer
Your source leaves a lot to be desired. In short, they admit to a bias (alt-right) and avoid the methodology (science/peer review) which would filter it out. Using this to 'substantiate' your position doesn't do a lot for you...
#4
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
But black people score lower not because they are stupid. It is because they on average receive less education. Still a problem though.
#5
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,516
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Rare HB sighting 👀
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Ultra rare.
#7
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
You’re presenting links as credible sources of information. 

I don’t accept the scientific authority of a website run by two guys, with no apparent credentials on the subjects they are analyzing, and appear not to be impartial in any way.

This means, there is reason to believe that through their own conflict of interest, and lack of credentials - they may have misrepresented, misunderstood, omitted, or made unwarranted assumptions in support of promoting their particular point of view.


Given that the links in question may not be a valid authority - and given that no other argument has been presented - this whole post can be ignored.




#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You're debunking ideas that very few on the left uphold. If anything it's right-wing libertarians that tend to run the 'race isn't real' Kritik, in order to dodge the benefits and validity of BLM and what they've pushed for.

Also your debunking is just URLs
Topic's author
#9
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Ramshutu
@HistoryBuff
I'm going to respond to you all at once because your responses are so bad they don't deserve individual responses.

you can link to alot of articles off a white supremicist website. good for you.
...
Your source leaves a lot to be desired. In short, they admit to a bias (alt-right)
...
You’re presenting links as credible sources of information. 

I don’t accept the scientific authority of a website run by two guys, with no apparent credentials on the subjects they are analyzing, and appear not to be impartial in any way.

This means, there is reason to believe that through their own conflict of interest, and lack of credentials - they may have misrepresented, misunderstood, omitted, or made unwarranted assumptions in support of promoting their particular point of view.


Given that the links in question may not be a valid authority - and given that no other argument has been presented - this whole post can be ignored.
All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.

and avoid the methodology (science/peer review) which would filter it out.
Peer review has virtually no effect on the quality of article published. At least you wrote this kinda non-stupid thing: Peer Review, Replication and Publication Bias – The Alternative Hypothesis .

All of you need to go and learn what Ad Hominem is. Don't come back until you've done that.
Topic's author
#10
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@Intelligence_06
But black people score lower not because they are stupid. It is because they on average receive less education. Still a problem though.
You haven't demonstrated this.

Topic's author
#11
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
You're debunking ideas that very few on the left uphold. If anything it's right-wing libertarians that tend to run the 'race isn't real' Kritik, in order to dodge the benefits and validity of BLM and what they've pushed for.
We've literally had several "left-wing" people already push back against these debunkings in this thread, not to mention the dozens of instances everywhere else on this site.

Go try the No True Scotsman fallacy somewhere else.

Also, I'm not really interested in your label games, so if you're not here to address the actual arguments, you can shove off.

Also your debunking is just URLs
Yeah and your display pic is cringe anime.
#12
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mesmer
I stated facts about the inadequacies of your source. Do you find that insulting?

Topic's author
#13
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
I stated facts about the inadequacies of your source. 
No lol.

Your argument was just an illogical Ad Hom attack combined with 'muh peer-reviewed' kvetching, the latter of which I addressed.

That's all there was to it.

If you've got nothing more than that, run along now.
#14
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mesmer
You don't understand ad hom very well. 

1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments). 
2. What insult has been directed at your person?

Have a nice day.
Topic's author
#15
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
You don't understand ad hom very well. 
You've failed to demonstrate this at all.

1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments). 
2. What insult has been directed at your person?
"they admit to a bias (alt-right)" -- This is Ad Hominem. It attacks the nature of the people making the argument (who are apparently "alt-right"), as opposed to the argument itself (that the shitlib narratives are wrong).

You are wasting everyone's time. Argue something that isn't a logical fallacy or leave.

Have a nice day.
You have a better one.
#16
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
You don't understand ad hom very well. 
You've failed to demonstrate this at all.

1. What argument has been avoided? (Note: assertions aren't arguments). 
2. What insult has been directed at your person?
"they admit to a bias (alt-right)" -- This is Ad Hominem. It attacks the nature of the people making the argument (who are apparently "alt-right"), as opposed to the argument itself (that the shitlib narratives are wrong).

From your source:

"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."




Topic's author
#17
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
You don't understand ad hom very well. 
You've failed to demonstrate this at all.
[no response]
You going to address the above, or are you just going to concede it?

From your source:

"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."
Yeah and you using this (if it even came from any of the sources) is just you ad homming LOL.

But please keep trying to excuse your Ad Hominem instead of actually addressing the arguments. You and other shitlibs are proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that people can't defend these shitlib false narratives, and instead have to resort to Ad Hominem, Appeals to Authority and other sophistry to weasel their way out of the discussion.

Thanks for that :)
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Your reply to me was simply ad hominem fallacy... Hypocrite?
Topic's author
#19
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
You're debunking ideas that very few on the left uphold. If anything it's right-wing libertarians that tend to run the 'race isn't real' Kritik, in order to dodge the benefits and validity of BLM and what they've pushed for.
We've literally had several "left-wing" people already push back against these debunkings in this thread, not to mention the dozens of instances everywhere else on this site.

Go try the No True Scotsman fallacy somewhere else.

Also, I'm not really interested in your label games, so if you're not here to address the actual arguments, you can shove off.

Also your debunking is just URLs
Yeah and your display pic is cringe anime.
Your reply to me was simply ad hominem fallacy... Hypocrite?
None of the above is Ad Hominem.

Go back to doxxing White people elsewhere.
#20
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Mesmer
From your source:

"That being said, we exist within the online community of people which has become the alt-right, we know many people who run notable alt-right sites, and our ideology exists within the alt-right if one has a “big tent” conception of the movement."
Yeah and you using this (if it even came from any of the sources) is just you ad homming LOL.
It is not an insult to quote a source - if you view someone's own words as impugning their character, you should probably find a better source for your information. Also, you did not make an argument (not even one) - you posted a bunch of links. They can be dismissed in the absence of argumentation - no dodge is needed. If you posted this in a formal debate, you would be eaten alive.

Again, you don't understand ad hom (or debate).
#21
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
The ad hominem is that you’re attacking the opinions of the author of the source rather than the arguments. the OP should have made those arguments himself and quoted the sources, though 
#22
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@thett3
I'm not attacking the opinions of the author. I showed the self-admitted bias of the source. 
#23
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
A source can be biased and still be right, or make a compelling argument though 
#24
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@thett3
A source can also recognize their poor credibility, and admit it, because that source is primarily edited by anyone with access to it, but the editors' credentials...? Problematic, and that's Wiki. Is anyone confused about that? Any link to Wiki ought to be double-verified.
#25
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mesmer
You are posting links with no argument or justification presents them as if they are credible and authoritative on a matter.

I have given fairly detailed reasons to believe they are neither credible or authoritative - and cannot be accepted as credible.



Simply posting a link from some random source claim it is true; and then just demanding that everyone open the link, and accept its contents or disprove it - is not just shifting the burden of proof, it is also intellectually lazy and antisocial.

I mean, you are swanning into a forum, making  a post that makes absolutely no intellectual effort, and spends absolutely no time throwing out a bunch of claims you’re making no attempt to justify - and then demanding that everyone spends time you are unwilling to spend yourself to disprove a bunch of arguments you didn’t even make.




Topic's author
#26
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
@Ramshutu
You both Ad Hommed.

You've both made it clear that you have no interest in discussing the arguments made in the links.

I'm not going to spend any more time bickering over your worthless Ad Hom arguments.

Thanks for the concessions.


Topic's author
#27
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@thett3
The ad hominem is that you’re attacking the opinions of the author of the source rather than the arguments.
They're just too stupid to get this. This is what shitlibs do.

the OP should have made those arguments himself and quoted the sources, though 
I'm not convinced this will produce any better responses from shitlibs. Maybe non-shitlibs will give far better responses, but it would take 10 plus hours to flesh out all of these links and re-write them in my own words. I just thought it was efficient to link the argument, refer what they debunk and write a very quick tl;dr next to them to explain why these shitlib false narratives are false.

I already tried to flesh out arguments in this thread: Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) .

Dfss produced some pretty good responses, but once the shitlibs rolled through, they started to post links and not flesh them out: Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) (you know, exactly of what they're accusing me of here).

Anyone actually curious about the topics will click the links and read them. 90% of the users on this site don't actually post, so there's a chance several people have already clicked a link or two and seen what is said. I was hoping someone would have something to say about any of the links, but oh well.

A source can be biased and still be right, or make a compelling argument though 
Shitlibs just don't care. They want to use all their nonsense slander words to avoid the argument.
#28
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@thett3
True, but when no argument is provided by OP it doesn't really matter. 
#29
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@thett3
@SkepticalOne
@HistoryBuff
@Intelligence_06
@Mesmer
Can nobody evaluate any of the arguments in the links and give a reasoned rebuttal? The authors do not need credibility, they are not asking you to believe in God. Is what they say reasonable and rational? If not, why?

So if 2 guys on a website said 2 + 3 = 5 you would dismiss it because, what, they're 2 guys on a website? Why don't liberals ever address the points of the argument?

We know you disagree, but why? Stop telling is over and over you disagree. Stop telling us you don't find some guy or other credible. Your credulity is not the standard of veracity.

You might even find that some people on the right agreed with you if you ever gave us your argument instead of just your negative, and biased opinion of the other guy.

This is not a popularity contest, it's a debate website.
Topic's author
#30
Mesmer
Mesmer's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 516
3
2
4
Mesmer's avatar
Mesmer
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Can nobody evaluate any of the arguments in the links and give a reasoned rebuttal? The authors do not need credibility, they are not asking you to believe in God. Is what they say reasonable and rational? If not, why?

So if 2 guys on a website said 2 + 3 = 5 you would dismiss it because, what, they're 2 guys on a website? Why don't liberals ever address the points of the argument?

We know you disagree, but why? Stop telling is over and over you disagree. Stop telling us you don't find some guy or other credible. Your credulity is not the standard of veracity.

You might even find that some people on the right agreed with you if you ever gave us your argument instead of just your negative, and biased opinion of the other guy.

This is not a popularity contest, it's a debate website.
This man just gets it.

I didn't think that nearly EVERYONE would sperg out over having to click links to arguments I'd defend line-by-line. They could have literally quoted any argument from any of the links and I would have addressed it.

I did expect all the shitlibs to do their usual routine of Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority, though. At least RM freshened that up with a No True Scotsman.