Total posts: 516
-->
@HistoryBuff
All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.you linked to a website that regularly advocates for the superiority of white people or the inferiority of other people.
Ad Hominem.
Therefore saying you are linking to a white supremacism website is neither Ad Hominem not Logically fallacious.
The topic involved the arguments being made, not the nature of the author.
You continue to Ad hom.
You are logically fallacious.
It is a statement of fact.
Here's an actual fact: you're ad homming.
And that is exactly why it isn't even worth responding to any of these articles. If you choose to think that these have merit, there isn't really any point going down this racist rabbit hole.
More Ad Hominem.
You are wasting everyone's time with your worthless, illogical arguments.
Address the arguments or get lost.
Created:
-->
@dfss9788
All of this is Ad Hominem is thus should be be ignored due to its logically fallacious nature.When evaluating the credibility of a witness / source, ad hominem is relevant and isn't fallacious.
You are logically incorrect.
Ad Hominem is always a logical fallacy.
We should be addressing the arguments involved, instead of assessing the author making them. Furthermore, the thread is about the arguments involved, not the nature of the author.
You are just being a massive idiot like all the other shitlibs here.
For you:
I posted mine first. You respond to everything first, then I'll respond to everything here.
Now let's watch you not do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So let’s start at the beginning.I label you a white supremacist because that’s what I think you are.
No.
We're not playing the label and Ad Hominem game.
You failed to construct a sourced argument for us to discuss. That alone is enough to end the conversation.
I'm not going to go into your sophistry funhouse and bicker over labels with you, but it's pretty clear that you're just a anti-white shitlib who just hates White people. I'll leave it up to others to agree or disagree with that, but you're not invited to that conversation.
All everyone needs to know is that is that you failed to construct an argument that is sourced. If they want to see that you're also an anti-white shitlib engaging in bad faith sophistry, that's an added but unnecessary bonus. That's the end of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is an argument from incredulity as you gave no objective reason for us not to trust the source.Because they state that they are Alt right in their YouTube video which implies that they are biased. It is pretty much only people with a strong right bias that call their channel "Alt censored".
This is Ad Hominem. Being "biased" doesn't necessitate that someone is wrong. If the bias is a problem, it will make them wrong, but it won't always make them wrong.
Don't stoop the standards of shitlibs. You're a much better poster than that.
I've also demonstrated that African Americans don't pay for themselves, so at this stage you're objectively wrong.Most African Americans pay for themselves as only a minority consume welfare benefits. Those that do should get jobs. Corporations take more welfare than individuals do.
I provided a data-driven source to show that this is not the case.
I prefer that evidence over you effectively saying 'no'.
The only time I would support automation is if there is a better alternative for the worker being automated.You haven't given us a reason to agree with you.So the unemployment rate doesn't skyrocket.
There are a lot of assumptions you're making with this, and it's super hard to agree with you when you don't source or provide much elaboration.
I agree prima facie that automation will probably have a negative effect, but you haven't come close to showing it at all, let alone suggesting that it will "skyrocket".
Again, Hispanics are a net negative on the US economy.Only the Hispanic adults that are on welfare are a negative to the US economy. Kicking them off at the federal and state level (and kicking corporations off of welfare) causes this group to not be on welfare anymore.
How do you know this? Where is your source?
Lol.
It's just bare assertion after bare assertion with you.
For example, African Americans are a minority in America and yet BLM is globally known.BLM is known, but not everyone supports BLM.
That's besides the point I was making.
The point I was making was that even minority groups could have major influence on politics.
You haven't provided a source for your second paragraph. Let's fix that before we start making arguments that extend from it.Because the kids of muslims get exposed to huge numbers of christains and this causes them to respect western values more than their parents.
[citation needed]
In addition, homeland security and related costs figure at around $589 billion. The cumulative costs of business interruption and reduced airline travel and tourism is estimated to be around $123 billion. Add to that $1.649 trillion in war funding and $867 billion in future war and veteran care, and the entire cost to the U.S. government adds up to a staggering $3.3 trillion.These costs were just government waste and these costs should have never been paid. Terrorist attacks don't have to result in this spending. The buildings being destroyed was only about $55 billion and we should have gotten Saudi Arabia to pay for it.
The point was that this is what it cost. You could argue that it shouldn't have been that expensive, but it was.
Your middle argument isn't sourced. If you're not going to source anything you say, I have better things to read. I'm tempted to agree with it but I won't without a source.If your referring to this claim:America has spent more killing middle easterners than it has spent on Middle Easterners attacking the US.Costs of the 20-year war on terror: $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths | Brown University states that the war on terror cost $8 trillion, enough money to pay every American over $24,000.
So you finally decide to source one of your arguments.
I actually agree with your argument now.
Well done :)
3000 people dying in an attack is obviously horrific for the people involved, though.It's horrible for the people involved, but there are 300 million people in America. if the odds of dying in a terrorist attack is 1/100,000, I don't think those are big odds to justify SJW policies of judging the Muslim group by the individual terrorists.
Yeah I agree the deaths aren't a huge problem (relatively speaking).
It's more the cost and fear it generates.
Also, I'm pretty sure that SJWs are into the whole 'solidarity with Muslims' thing, but whatever; that doesn't really matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
one cannot argue Straight up Systemic Racism with a White Supremacist.
This is all you anti-white shitlibs really want to do and I'm glad you're finally exposing yourself.
You don't care about providing real arguments that are sourced and can be discussed. You don't actually want to argue about systemic racism. You just hate White people and want to slander and attack them into oblivion.
You appeal to your authorities and anyone who questions their arguments is branded a 'white supremacist' and thus is wrong because they are a 'white supremacist'. Even if you don't understand the arguments of the authorities, or even if they are disproven in front of you, you believe a magic science man is correct somewhere in the world about the narratives you believe, and thus that's good enough. That's good enough to doxx and deplatform them. That's good enough to demand reparations and attack White people. That's good enough to have a visceral hatred of White people.
And because I've dealt with you shitlibs enough, I know that your nice and cordial front is a thin veneer for this vitriolic hatred of White people bubbling beneath the surface. When I saw you were engaging in sophistry to avoid providing actual arguments, I could just smell the anti-white hatred bubbling inside of you.
And because I pointed out your lack of argument enough, because I refused to get bogged down in all the rhetorical tricks you've attempted to employ, you eventually let the cat out of the bag and gave the game away: you just hate White people.
You just hate White people.
That's all this was ever about. You were never interested in a productive conversation. You just hate White people.
Typical shitlib.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You've failed to construct a worthwhile argument to support your position.
There is nothing more to discuss.
Off you go.
Created:
Posted in:
If you're an independent reader watching this, this is largely a lesson in choosing the right arguments to make.
Proving that something is theoretically possible doesn't prove that something exists.
Proving that something exists is the way to go. You do that by making an argument to show that something exists, and then using data/research/studies to back up that argument.
That's the way to go.
Don't get baited into talking about theoretical possibilities, Ad Hominem/Appeal to Authority or other irrelevant pivots. If an argument backed by data/research/studies isn't provided, then they have no logical argument to make their case. You should reject their arguments on that basis. That's all you need to consider. That's all you need to eventually end up with a good argument to believe in. Give the middle finger to sophistry every time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Just tell me why you think systemic racism exists, and use some data/research/studies to back up that claim.
You haven't done that yet.
That's literally all you have to do.
Created:
So, ironically, I can see the flaws with it that Mesmer mentioned earlier. It doesn't fit very well into anyone who has a busy lifestyle and who then doesn't want to spend much on a game.
Yep. This is exactly right.
It's designed to get you addicted, not to help you have a good time.
Blowing up random stuff in GTA or sneaking through a dangerous area in Fallout is fun; developing cocaine-level addictions to skinner box games is not.
Add to that the fact that you probably have a job and responsibilities, and suddenly the skinner box game just adds to your responsibilities.
If you need a strategy game, chess is free and gets right into strategy from the get go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You are not building your arguments correctly.
Nobody but you cares about the 'principles we agree on', your "imagine" speeches or whether I'm a 'white supremacist' or not. These are objectively irrelevant and a waste of time in regards to systemic racism.
State your argument involving systemic racism, defend it with data/research/studies, and we'll go from there. That is how arguments are formed. Your Ad Hominem and red herring pivots are not worth engaging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You still haven't provided any data, studies or research to support your claims. I don't care about what you "imagine" to be the case or whatever hypothetical "working hypothesis" you want to pivot to in order to avoid posting data, studies or research about systemic racism. You are clearly not interested in discussing anything substantial that is based on reality.
I don't care if you incorrectly think I'm a "white supremacist" and I don't care about discussing that at length. I don't care if you incorrectly think I'm "uncomfortable" with whatever and I don't care about discussing that at length. This Ad Hominem against me is wasting everyone's time -- none of this is relevant to systemic racism in any way.
You've effectively conceded the discussion.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
All narratives are just opinions, people seem to think they have to accept them and believe them. Reject all narratives, they are opinions. They are not fact nor truth. Don't know why anybody listens to them in the first place.
Shitlibs listen to the narratives because they have an authoritarian view of knowledge wherein the 'experts' tell them what to think. Most shitlibs don't attempt to think for themselves and simply exist to Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority in any argument they get when someone attempts to question the 'experts'.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Governments are meant to represent their people's interest. If you have a large enough population (which is pretty much always the case with a nation), you're going to have racial in-group bias being the biggest factor in determining people's interest. I've already explained that to you previouslyHere we go again.Do you understand the difference between politics and policy?Hint: The above describes politics, not policy.
Who do you think the policy is for? Rocks? Aliens on Mars? Imaginary ghosts?
I'm talking about policy for humans. Therefore, that policy needs to take into account human nature.
There's no point in getting hyper-cerebral and developing policy that isn't for humans.
What annoys me is that your entire claim to fame here and rebuttal to charges of being a racist is that race should play a role in government policy, yet you absolutely refuse to talk about government policy. That’s absurd.
"Racist" is a nonsense, malicious term, so that's a non-starter: Racism is a nonsense, malicious term v2.0 (debateart.com) .
Facts and data are not arguments and cannot form conclusions, that requires logic. So it’s pointless to go back and forth with someone on the facts when that person cannot even answer a question so simple as “do you believe the past impacts the present?”.
All you're doing is proving that your argument doesn't have any facts or data.
Provide them or concede the point.
Now that’s funny.Every time I’ve responded to you in any of your threads you immediately shut the conversation down, hence my surprise that you actually responded to me here.I’d be happy to bring my big brained intellectualism to one of your threads when I can make the time.
Does you wife see through this posturing?
Sorry, I meant does your waifu anime pillow see through this posturing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Your "imagine" rhetorical device doesn't prove anything.Well no: the argument but after does he work to set up my point; so far you’ve been kinda trying to avoid it.
I'm avoiding a discussion about things that don't exist.
Again, cite data, research or studies. Not interested in anything else.
No no no. Right now - my intent isn’t to prove systemic racism exists - that would be you moving the goal posts.
That should be the goal because that was where the original disagreement was. You're the one attempting to move the goal posts to something far murkier and frankly not worth discussing (hypotheticals).
If you're no longer going to prove that (probably because you can't), then you have no argument worth listening to and have conceded what you originally pushed back against.
As I’m debating a white supremacist with extreme views
No lol.
You're just a slanderous anti-white shitlib intent on talking about hypotheticals rather than reality.
Make arguments like this Systemic Racism in U.S. criminal justice is a myth (debateart.com) or go away.
Everyone has their own strategies for how to defend their beliefs from direct attacks
Yeah and your "imagine" arguments even concede the fact they're not based on reality.
I'm not going to keep saying that you need to start citing data, research or studies to back your claims. If you keep with this "imagine" garbage, then you've effectively conceded that you don't have worthwhile arguments.
Up to you.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Oh wow, look who suddenly has something to say. Perhaps now you can finally address the question of what government is supposed to be in the first place so that we can continue discussing whether race should play an active role in government policy. But I won’t hold my breath.
Governments are meant to represent their people's interest. If you have a large enough population (which is pretty much always the case with a nation), you're going to have racial in-group bias being the biggest factor in determining people's interest. I've already explained that to you previously. If you need to get your big male ego bent out of shape again, go ahead and do that now, and then we can keep discussing the implications of race in government policy.
I have agreed and maintain that races are not genetically the same. I made my reasons for not considering it any further clear in your thread… because the topic you raised was government policy and my position is that genetic differences should play no role in government policy. This isn’t complicated.
Alright so we're working with the premise that the races are not genetically the same.
So, one of the genetic difference between the races is the racial in-group bias people have for their own race. This fact cannot be controlled for because this is what macro societal groups do: vote based on race. I know this annoys you. I know it's 'smol braned' and doesn't have a particular "standard" to base policy on, so it's all very primitive and beneath a fine intellectual such as you. But people's interests are primarily generated by their racial in-group bias, and ignoring that is ignoring an essential part of humans.
It doesn't please me either that people are literally this stupidly racially tribal, but they certainly are and that isn't changing anytime soon.
Also, "our past" didn't cause the racial disparities of the presentDo you believe the past impacts the present?
I don't care about your theoretical musings.
Argue facts, data and research to prove systemic racism/oppression/whatever or don't even bother with this.
Hell, I even made an entire thread dedicated to referencing the refutations for all those shitlib false narratives you're probably implying here. I would be honored if you graced the thread with your big brained intellectualism based on super smart "standards" that save me from the usual shitlib Ad homs, Appeals to Authorities and pedestrian sophistry that have currently been pooed out in the thread: 'Progressive' (shitlib) false narratives and their debunkings (debateart.com) .
Created:
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 URLsYeah 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.
Created:
-->
@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 :)
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
It's more of a legal issue than anything. This site is a 13+ site and we starting enforcing the rule more because of the fact that COPPA made things much stricter on sites. We have no issue with Deadfire and would keep him if legal concerns weren't an issue
This is a smart move. Legal battles, particularly in the US, are a major pain at best, and a death sentence at worst.
I'm glad the site is making smart moves like this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm just gonna go ahead and fact check this for satire.
It's clearly satire lol.
The only idiots not realizing that are the shitlib anti-white zealots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The lack of homosexuals in positions of power was a supporting argument for claims of discrimination, not the argument itself. The argument itself was the litany of examples that every person who lived through the 90’s or before saw for themselves in addition to the litany of well documented examples of discrimination nationwide. It wasn’t exactly a secret.The exact same things are true for Asians in Nigeria. You easily see it for homosexuals in America, but not for ethnic Chinese in Nigeria. Why?I don’t know anything about Nigerian politics or it’s racial history so perhaps you can enlighten me… did blacks in Nigeria enslave the white population for 400 years, then free them into a society with no education, no resources to care for themselves and no compensation for the work they did to build the country’s wealth, then spend the next 100 or so years stopping them from voting, owning businesses, and buying their own homes, then suddenly and finally change the rules to make them facially neutral even though by that time the black population already controlled everything?No. But is your point that discrimination, racism, and bigotry cannot exist absent that history? No one from 400 years ago is alive today. No one alive today can be blamed for 400 year old behavior.The same things you point to as evidence for oppression in America against blacks, exist for oppression in Nigeria against Chinese Asians.Mesmer's satire has exposed the hypocrisy in the American liberal's position.
+10,000 this.
This was exactly the intention of the OP.
These stupid shitlibs criticize White Americans for America being 'too White', but refuse to criticize Black Nigerians, Asian Chinese and pretty much every non-white country for exactly the same reasons. It just shows how anti-white these shitlibs are, too.
Anyone who isn't a zealot shitlib is going to see this thread, realize that the OP is satire and see the hypocrisy in the shitlib argument.
Total hypocrisy exposed in this thread.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@thett3
Well my goal isn’t to convert them
Fine.
But understanding the underlying causes and motivations behind politics is a personal, autistic interest of mine so that’s really the goal of the thread.
I've spelled out very clearly what is going on here with them, but I'll simplify it further: they work from false premises/narratives. If you don't address those false premises/narratives, you're just going to end up being called a racist or some other shitlib term. Instead, address the false premises/narratives and see what they come up with when they agree they are false. If they were "true believers", then they'll change to something more reasonable. If they handwave their false premise/narrative and move onto another to excuse their arguments, then they just hate White people and will believe anything to excuse their anti-white hatred.
Address the false premises/narratives or prepare to go into a shitlib funhouse where you eventually emerge with a very sore butt.
Created:
Posted in:
idk know what this thread is becoming at this point lol
Re-read the OP, realize that you were dumb for taking it seriously instead of the satire it clearly was, and then laugh at all the negative IQ idiots that are kvetching over what is clearly a satire thread.
This whole thread is proof that most people are too stupid for politics.
Created:
-->
@thett3
I do get it, but not everyone is a cynic. There are true believers out there, and I'm trying to understand them
You're not going to convert or have productive conversations with them doing what you're doing, even if they are "true believers".
Even the milder shitlibs like Oromagi and DoubleR just end up arguing that Ad Hominem is a valid form of argument to excuse anti-white slurs, or that only Republicans practice dumb tribalism. They might think they're being so big brained, rational and "true believers", and they scoff at the notion of being racially biased as being lowly and beneath them, but they're practicing the same tribal rationalizations pretty much everyone else practices.
There's no point in these kinds of discussions you're attempting to have via the OP. You need to demonstrate that their narrative premises are false to have any hope of doing anything productive. You need to show them how stupid 'more variation within that between' is. You need to show them how MLK was a pretty garbage human being. You need to show them how much they've been lied to by their shitlib schools, governmental bodies and societies. You need to break their false narratives in front of their eyes, otherwise they'll continue to base all their arguments on false narratives. THAT is the source of your disagreement. Address that.
Created:
-->
@thett3
So I am asking in good faith: what do you actually want to do? Reparations? Economic redistribution? Hate speech laws? Etc. And at what point would you consider the issue to be resolved?
The fact that you're asking this questions shows that you don't get the game they're playing.
They don't actually care about being consistent or even correct. All they know is that when they complain and call you racist, they get free stuff or benefits.
It will never be enough. You can never fix "the issue" because their greed and racial bias is unfixable. They are either race denialists and/or just hate White people. That's what this is about. It's about grouping up and pushing for free stuff/benefits at the expense/indifference of White people. The arguments themselves don't matter and are a smokescreen to dupe you into being anti-white yourself (or at least indifferent to your White group, whilst they remain biased to theirs).
That's why when I made a thread criticizing Nigeria for "racism" and "systemic racism" by saying Nigeria is Black Supremacist (due to all the reasons these shitlibs usually give for America being White Supremacist), all these shitlibs were @ing me saying that I'm wrong, that's it's different blah blah blah Nigeria is racist and Black supremacist (debateart.com) . They don't care about consistency. They don't care that they're criticizing precisely the same arguments they use to attack Whites in America. They just don't care.
You accept their false narratives or get called a racist (and suffer either way). You're White therefore bad. That's it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Sorry but I'm not going to engage in your racism anymore.
Go and post your racist fascism on another thread, Trumpet.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
actually DONT see considerable decreases in racial disparities closing in recent decades.I think is more about economics than race per se. Due to lots of policies that were blatantly racist in the past, black people are disproportionately poor compared to white people. America's system punishes people for being poor. So the best way to help close racial disparities is to redesign the system to better help poor people.
This has already been tried and it leads to poor Whites and Hispanics getting crapped on, whilst poor Blacks get the goodies because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat, and so the Democrat power (when it power) gives them the goodies.
You're not saying anything new. This has all been done before. It doesn't work.
You're just another shitlib who does little more than larping around with nonsense terms like "racist".
Created:
-->
@Double_R
To put it succinctly, my view is that we should be focusing on building an economy where everyone has a realistic opportunity to succeed. That’s really it. Race shouldn’t play a role in how we go about it, but if we can succeed at making drastic improvements that would go a long way to mitigating the racial disparities that have retained from our past.
No they wouldn't because the groups are genetically distinct from each other, and those genetic distinctions influence the outcomes (e.g. IQ, self-control ability, in-group bias etc.). That's why East Asians in America often talk about their children becoming doctors at the dinner table, whilst Northern Territory Australian Aboriginals are watching the 'don't sleep on the road' ads.
This is what happens when you totally ignore the reality of race: you think everything is environmentally determined, and that makes you completely incapable of dealing with the genetic reality that groups of people have. This is a flatly false premise to start from. Even anti-white Wikipedia can't deny the validity of heritability.
You've even agreed in past threads that you don't think races are genetically the same (which is correct), but then you don't think any further for whatever reason. It's like you're capable of understanding the truth, but you don't like what it is, so you choose to forget.
Also, "our past" didn't cause the racial disparities of the present, so once against we have a shitlib starting with a false premise and reaching wrong conclusions.
You might not care about race, but race cares about you.
Created:
There's good reasons, not only corrupt reasons, why we trust information and claims made by those with greater authority in a field than those with very little.
Yeah it's because you have an authoritarian view on knowledge and you're too intellectually bankrupt to think for yourself. That's why you constantly Ad Hom in a lot of the interactions you have with people you disagree with: you actually don't understand at all what you're talking about.
So of course you appeal to authority at every opportunity you get -- you can't do anything better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
ImagineThis is where you should have stopped and realized that you're not about to talk about reality.What I was talking about is actually what happened in reality: I’m explaining how overtly racist laws can produce inequality that can be maintained with a fig leaf of non-racial justification.I was simply employing a rhetorical device in its delivery.I think you know this however, and your objection was simply a red herring in order to dismiss an argument you didn’t like.
Your "imagine" rhetorical device doesn't prove anything.
Demonstrate using data, facts and research that systemic racism is real.
If you can't do that (you haven't so far), you have no logical argument.
Created:
Posted in:
no they still is democrat get this,the KKK is alt rightAlt right ≠rightALT stands 4 alternative.alternative to right is left.Alt right = left
That's right.
People on the right are actually on the left, but only when it's convenient for us to say so.
Good job, comrade :^)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Communism would actually make me rich because the wealth would spread amongst everyone. Real Communism hasn't been tried yet, and when it does get tried, fascists like you will get nothing.
The left are the only ones trying to help people by ignoring race and focusing on policies. Donald Trump is more interested in promoting hate and walling off the rest of world.
Take your racism elsewhere, bigot.
Created:
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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
If I had a nickel for every braincell you had, I would have no nickels.
The extreme racism in Nigeria with Black Supremacy is far more important than you babbling about Donald Duck oh sorry I meant Donald Trump.
We need to fight hate and fascism by stopping the Black Supremacists in Nigeria from oppressing Asian Nigerians, Muslim Nigerians and Jewish Nigerians. All minority perspectives are valuable and if you weren't such a bigoted racist, you'd understand that.
Also, if you're not going to cut down on the hate speech and White Supremacist propaganda, I'm not responding to you and I'll block you and I'll report you, fascist bigoted racist.
Created:
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 IQ is not valid (Wrong. Dead wrong: https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-validity-of-iq/ )
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 :)
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I identify as a Liberal and consider race a mostly social construction.
This is a reoccurring problem with a lot of what you write.
You drink the shitlib Kool-Aid arguments that are thoroughly illogical, and then you make logically sound arguments based on that building block, BUT your arguments are never logically valid because you start with the wrong premise.
Race being mostly a "social construction" doesn't mean race is whatever we want it to be (mostly). What the 'experts' actually mean by this is that the division labels used are socially constructed, similar to how 'red', 'blue' and 'green' are also social constructs, but representative of a reality (light receptors, light bending etc.). However, the 'experts' can't come out and explain this distinction this clearly because it debunks all their works on how 'we're all part of the one race: the human race', and they'll get deplatformed/fired for 'hate speech' against minorities. So, they equivocate with this 'social construct' term so they're not incorrect AND it dupes people like YOU into thinking they're arguing something that they themselves know is wrong, but can't say is wrong without the shitlib mob coming after them.
And that's how you got duped with shitlib Kool-Aid.
I think the big answer to the question what should be done about race in America is that we're doing it- working to create a nation where all people enjoy access to the American franchise...
Yeah this has been done recently and it's called Brazil.
It's also been done in the past with Ancient Rome and various other empires. We already know this doesn't work.
If you don't vet people and keep one of the races a racial majority, it leads to heaps of crime and civil wars.
If we look at the steady march of improved enfranchisement over the course of US history, we should recognize considerable decreases in racial disparities over the past 200 years, 100 years, 50 years, even 20 years.
This is a function of the environmental improvements (i.e. mostly White US improvements) that allowed African Americans to maximize their genetic potential. Now that they pretty much have, there's no more progress to be made and they're always going to be dragging the US down with lower IQ, other genetic problems and a racial in-group bias.
African dominated areas in the US (Detroit, Chicago etc.) are steadily marching to being like Nigeria and Mauritania. Unless you think that's a good thing (it's not), you need to stop advocating for this.
My hope is that my generation is more racially harmonious than the previous and that each subsequent generation is more harmonious still.
People by default practice racial in-group bias. Yes, this is stupid and very primitive for our modern setting, but it's also what humans do.
People who get brainwashed into not being racially biased (shitlibs) get carved up at elections and eventually kicked out of your own country.
The people you're fighting for aren't on your side, and you don't understand this because you don't understand what humans are: racially bias.
I don't think much more can be accomplished at the level of Federal legislation. Reparations are impractical. Economic redistribution is provocative. Hate speech laws are ineffective and illiberal.
Finally things we agree on.
Let's make sure that every citizens has easy and equal access to the vote without government override by state legislatures. Let's invest in projects that improve American efficiency while also employing the working class. Let's make the US more competitive by making good education and good healthcare relatively inexpensive and widely available.
You just don't understand humans.
You're so cerebral and in your head that you're completely ignoring how racially bias humans are.
This is all talk for creatures that don't exist and certainly not for humans.
I disagree that racial politics is as hot on the American Left as it is on the American Right. As far as I can tell, right-wingers spend way more time worrying about race than does the left-wing. Take a look at this site, for example. How often do right-wingers raise topics specific to race or post to topics with racially specific concerns compared to left-wingers? I think right-wing institutions like Trumpism and FOX News are essentially built on white fears of losing power and as such spend a lot more time worrying about race than does the left-wing, who seek improvement on a much wider range of issues.
Nobody of merit cares about your divisive labels of "right-wing" or "left-wing".
The fact is that race denial is slowly murdering America and needs to be talked about sooner rather than later, because there won't be a later forever. That's the real talking point here, not whether it's "right-wing" or "Trumpism" or whatever you shitlibs think.
White people should be afraid of losing power because they shouldn't want America to turn into a Brazil or even a South Africa. I don't know about you, but I prefer not living in the country with the highest rape and one of the highest murder rates per capita, or having the cartel swing by to load my house with two-hundred 50mm rounds. If you import/breed a lot of Africans and Hispanics en masse, that's what you're going to end up with -- that has been shown repeatedly. Meanwhile, you're off in your fantasyland of 'race is a social construction', and we all need to join hands and sing kumbaya as it leads to "improvement".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Sorry but you're one to talk when you far-right extremists stormed the capital and attacked government officials. Trump got people to "stand back and stand by" and look what that racist caused. Not to mention White supremacists, KKK members and Richard Spencer all caused serious problems at peaceful Antifa protests that only because riots when the far-right got involved. How is THAT for rioting? Bigot.
Systemic racism and racism in general are serious problems in Nigeria, and the fact that you want to change the topic to something else just shows how ignorant you are of the dire situation, you racist.
Take your White supremacy somewhere else.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
appeal to authority is something that will always be a problem in any heavily liberal environment. Establishment bias means and liberals having control of the establishment means that sources considered credible by the establishment and also coincidentally funded by the establishment, will be liberally biased. It's not that there are no experts that agree with conservative positions (even many who are liberal), it's just that the establishment chooses which experts get heard.
Just to be clear, I think you're specifically talking about anti-white 'Progressive' shitlibs, not the Classical Liberals that espouse the works of David Hume and the like. If so, I 100% agree.
Since liberals are intellectually lazy (part of the reason they uncritically accept whatever the establishment tells them), they will just lazily say1. Believe A, because expert said believe A.You can respond that the experts premises are flawed or that experts disagree, but they just come back with.1. This is an establishment backed expert, and premises should be ignored for the experts opinion, however if we do look at premises, the silenced experts premises aren't to be trusted because they don't have the backing of CNN.
Yeah you're right.
It's a pretty nasty spiral of silence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Imagine
This is where you should have stopped and realized that you're not about to talk about reality.
I'm sure you'd like to take me into your funhouse wherein you wax poetic and spin narratives about your feelings and African Americans making frowny faces. But I'm not interested nor will anyone of intellectual honesty and merit be convinced by your "imagine" speech.
I deal with data-driven and research based arguments that show/disprove that systemic racism exists. I've looked at 100s and concluded that systemic racism doesn't exist. That's where I'm at.
So, if you actually have arguments based in reality showing that systemic racism exists in America, like in criminal justice or schooling, I'll argue that line-by-line. If you're just going to request that I "imagine" things, don't bother.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trust a racist to defend his racism.
I'm not going to take the bait and engage in your White Supremacist propaganda.
Your hate speech should be deplatformed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Well, you're wrong about me being uncomfortable. It's just that I think I've overstayed my welcome. From now onwards, my new responses will be selective, not because I don't appreciate where this conversation is going, but i'd rather leave this as a good memory, rather than one that involves endless back-and-forth. I hated chain emails when I was a freshman.
Oh no I just meant that people usually find talking about race like that uncomfortable, especially in regards to sexual attraction. I think it's mostly because it bundles together two things the general public seem to enjoy being incorrectly liberal on (race and sexual attraction).
And fair enough about the 'selective' responses thing.
I care more for the fact that people should be allowed to discriminate who they like. Here's an example where Caucasian sperms are most desired in Brazil:This is pretty predictable. Even the rich Asian Indonesians, Singaporeans and whatever asian filth had Caucasian spouses and they had them for a reason; it's all similar to Brazil. Whites are mostly desired. There is a saying among buginese that no white man/woman will ever be homeless; that's because they're all married to rich Asians.
I pretty much agree with all of this.
As to how much of this is a result of Whites being genetically more attractive (due to phenotypic traits I'm guessing, as opposed to mere skin skin), compared to environmental forces that make Whites more desirable (maybe seen as having more money), is something I haven't seen quantified and would like to see quantified.
Lol. I think that anecdote was hilarious.Well, people are generally irrational when it comes to love. This isn't the best way to live life; if I'm marrying a retail worker, my kids will be dumb and will never read books. That is a fact I will never accept. I'm not going to marry bums.
:)
Well retail workers aren't necessarily dumb because IQ and job don't correlate too highly. They're more likely to be dumb for sure, but there should be plenty of smart (usually young) female retail workers juggling uni/highschool studies, or ones who simply can't be bothered to have a proper career despite being capable of it because they'd rather work less hours.
I'm seeing how arbitrary logic is when deciding on who to love. I just did mine: I'm not marrying bums without book addictions. I think they're bums for a reason. So, I'm understanding that people have a reason, and they're widespread. However, foreknowledge of expected wide-spread predictions isn't a good enough reason for me to follow it. I think it's not nonsense when love is found against the odds. Cohabitation is a new thing among couples, should I follow that and cohabit with my Chinese gf because everyone's doing it? No. It's an unavoidable fact that people are shallow, but IMHO, it's not a reason to follow it.
If you're going to rebel against your feelings, you're starting to get into territory that isn't 'love' but rather something far more platonic. You're also going to struggle to generate sexual attraction if you're not going to follow these feelings, because these feelings are a result of sexual attraction.
It would be like you marrying a horrendously overweight woman who is 3'10 and 300 lbs. Yes, she's a great cook, an esteemed mechanical engineer and has a love for knowledge, but would you really ignore her physically revolting body for the rest of your life, just because there's "not a reason to follow [the shallowness]?"
Well, in the same manner that people choose looks/money, true love doesn't hold among philosophers; it allows abusers more time to harass their partners. Again, that doesn't mean I have to follow them. These are factors beyond my control, but where I have control over things, I will exert control. The things that I can control includes avoiding any of the pitfalls people fall into. The only logic-based decision I made in relationships is avoiding bums with no real love for knowledge.
I don't think the average person is capable of such discipline. Hell, I'm not even sure if anyone can do this.
But if you can hold out against a woman who doesn't have a love for knowledge, but has a smoking hot body with a pleasant personality who is heavily into you, I'd be amazed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Oh the OP is purely satire and designed to present all the bad arguments that Progressives make. Don't take is seriously or as my own opinion -- it is designed to be logically bereft.
It's also incredibly satisfying to have all the Progressives in this thread saying that my arguments in the thread are "stupid" and that the mods need to be involved, when I'm literally copying the arguments they usually make against White people. Even the smarter ones like DoubleR are still falling into the trap of saying my arguments are bad, despite him pretty much knowing this is satire.
It's either they're too stupid to get that it's satire, or smart enough to realize that and then still fall into the trap anyway.
It's also incredibly fun to use horrendously bad faith and illogical terms like "racist" and "White supremacist" and watch the people who usually spam them cry over them lol.
That's all this thread is about. Don't take it seriously or you're falling into the trap, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Except for gender there is an alternate explanation - hormonal differences caused by a small gene set - which has been demonstrated. Can you demonstrate that black people have a similar genetic exception? No- you can't. Because if you could do that, you would have already done that, but you can't because your a racist conspiracist theoriest with no handle on logic.You have failed to acknowledge my rebuttal - and repeated your argument again. You are an obtuse intellectually bankrupt fraud who loves to be racist without saying - you've proven to me that you don't care about intellectual honesty by refusing to actually engage with my argument, merely repeating your tired old assertion. Good bye
Listen.
I agree that there are genetic differences between men and women, and those differences make the groups of 'men' and 'women' consistently valid at the genetic level.
All I argued initially is that when I took your logic of 'more variation within than between', we get conclusions that you seem to not agree with: men and women are genetically the same so that we can't group them separately; humans and chimpanzees are genetically the same so that we can't group them separately. If you want to drop this line of argument that's attempts to prove human races don't exist, then I'm happy to see it. Just stop defending the 'more variation within than between' argument to disprove human races because it leads to wildly wrong conclusions.
With the 'find the genes' argument ("Can you demonstrate that black people have a similar genetic exception?"), again, this isn't valid because this isn't the level of proof required to prove sub-speciation (or even speciation). People don't need to 'find the genes' to show that groups are genetically distinct. We haven't even found all the genes that differentiate ALL differences between men and women -- are they not valid groups distinct from each other? You mentioned "a small gene set" that accounts for some of the hormonal differences, but I doubt you agree that's all the difference between men and women and the genetic level.
Created: