dylancatlow

But you're probably correct that there are more right-wing acts of terror in the US, and it makes perfect sense that there would be. For one thing, right-wingers are more likely to be gun-obsessed. For another thing, the country has been trending leftward for decades, so right-wingers have much more of a reason to feel desperate than left-wingers, who can expect to achieve many of their goals just by waiting. 

Okay, crazy. Then watch the video I linked to, where you can see Trump himself saying those words. 

My previous post included a quote from Trump in which he explicitly condemned white supremacists as evil, but apparently you didn't notice it. Here it is for the second time:

First I have to ask: are you really a black Trump supporter? If so, let me congratulate you on your high level of intelligence and rationality :)

I'm sorry if I incorrectly assumed that Trump is able to build the wall without the approval of any other branch of government. This is what I've heard from many different sources, including Ann Coulter. 

I provided reasons for why I think it "amounted" to a White Nationalist rally. You're free to disagree, but in that case you should explain your thinking. 

Thanks, that's interesting to know. The best case scenario is that Trump doesn't want attention diverted away from his wall proposal, given that it is the only solution which can't easily be reversed by democrats. The worst case scenario is that Trump has been lying to us all along. 

Thanks to all of you who are defending me despite probably not agreeing with my politics. 

Could you find me a quote where he says that? If he actually has said it, I'd really like to see what his exact words were. 

How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky? I'm not answering questions like these. 

Are the Nazis an authority on the topic of race, then? Are you aware of their position on the Jews? 

Despite still having failed to deliver on his promise to deport the millions of Mexican invaders and build a southern border wall to prevent their return, I find it very hard to believe that President Trump was insincere in stressing the dire need for such changes, and simply did it to get elected. So one has to ask: why is he not doing more? Is he scared to act, or constantly being sabotaged without his even knowing? Or, on the other hand, is he just not in this all the way, and lacks the will to fight as hard as he would need to? Either way, it’s not good, but that’s different from “hopeless.”

I say that his support for deportations and the wall is sincere not just for all the obvious reasons, like the fact that he’s still tweeting about these issues to this day, but also because of lesser-known facts, such as the fact that in 2017 he gave what amounted to a White Nationalist rally in Poland. Those who are able to read between the lines know the real meaning of sentences such as these, especially when spoken to an all-White crowd in the whitest country in Europe, the first European country he delivered a speech to:

“Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value individual freedom and sovereignty. We must work together to confront forces [...] from the South or the East [...]

We write symphonies. We pursue innovation. We celebrate our ancient heroes, embrace our timeless traditions and customs, and always seek to explore and discover brand-new frontiers.

Despite every effort to transform you [...] you endured and overcame.
[...] it is the people, not the powerful, who have always formed the foundation of freedom and the cornerstone of our defense. The people have been that foundation here in Poland.

Just as Poland could not be broken, I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail. Our people will thrive. And our civilization will triumph.”

One could easily imagine these words coming from Richard Spencer. The fact that Trump “disavows” him conveys virtually zero information, since, if Trump shares his ideas and wants to make them national policy, then he has no choice but to play along. Let’s hope for a day when charades like these will no longer be necessary. (I hope everyone here has figured out what the “Muslim terrorism problem” is really code for ;)).
It’s also known that his father instructed him very early on about the importance of genetics, and about the falseness of our national dialogue which rejects such facts in favor of absurdities like “everyone of every race is equal”:

“The Frontline documentary The Choice, which premiered this week on PBS, reveals that Trump agrees with the dangerous and abusive theory of eugenics.

‘The family subscribes to a racehorse theory of human development,’ D’Antonio says in the documentary. ‘They believe that there are superior people and that if you put together the genes of a superior woman and a superior man, you get a superior offspring.’”

Contrary to what he is allowed to claim, Trump *is* something very close to a White Nationalist and the Left is right to be terrified. He is far more radical than he can afford to present himself as to the public, and that’s a very good thing. It’s also good that he’s *not* being completely honest about his beliefs, because that just wouldn’t work, and this needs to work.

One fact that has always concerned me is that Trump was unwilling in the 2016 election to donate any significant portion of multi-billion dollar fortune toward his campaign, and apparently had to be coaxed into donating the small amount he did. Of course, it didn’t matter in the end, and perhaps the money wouldn’t have helped at all, and might have even turned voters off. But if this wasn’t a calculated move on Trump’s part, and he didn’t want to donate any of his riches because he’s just kind of a shitty person who would rather see the world burn than lose even a little of what constitutes his “identity”, I don’t know what to say. If he has even the faintest idea of what’s at stake, he’d know how silly that would be. So the question is: does he really get it?

To find what the mean “Ideological IQ” of Reform Jews is, we simply need to answer the following question: what would Group A’s mean IQ have to be if 93 percent of its members fell below Group B’s mean of 100? The answer is *78*, or 70 if we go with my “adjusted” ratio of 98-2 and 44 if we go with my more extreme adjustment. This is not too far above the level at which our courts deem someone “too retarded” to even stand for trial. In other words, a high percentage of Reform Jews are literally “retarded” when it comes to politics and issues closely related to politics, such as religion and philosophy. And it’s not just that so many of them are left of center. With their ideological bell curve set firmly on that side of the political aisle, many of them naturally go far beyond “middle of the road” leftism all the way to Eastern European-style Communism (yes, even here, and yes, even now). In short, they are now trying to pull in the US the very same Communist shenanigans which got them kicked out of Europe. This is what it means to be “retarded” ideologically. 
We can also calculate what the mean Ideological IQ is for non-Jewish whites, which comes out to 106 under this analysis, given that in 2016 they favored Trump over Hillary by a ratio of 65-35 (and some of that 35 percent were gentiles who got tricked and intimidated by Jews, so we also “adjust” this if we want).
Interestingly enough, their mean Ideological IQ of 80 puts American blacks a little ahead of the Reform Jews, and if we assume that their high poverty rate artificially increases their level of democratic support by a few points, then we could expect their Ideological IQ to be closer to 85, which would perfectly align with their actual IQ. Hispanics average 93, again about in line with their reported IQ of 89-92. And Asians are in roughly the same spot, although this is quite a bit lower than their actual IQ of about 100-105. This could be because half of them live in a liberal hellhole like California, and for cultural reasons all insist on getting “educated,” which at this point in our country’s history means nuking one’s intelligence (if it wasn’t already) for the sake of a “good job” and the respect of other “nuked minds.”(Sorry, Japanese people).  
Non-Jewish White’s mean Ideological IQ of 106 is only somewhat higher than their actual IQ of about 102. This puts them almost two standard deviations above the Reform Jews, about the same level of IQ difference between Germans and Somalis. 
Of course, like all Jews, Reform Jews are much smarter than Somalis in an overall sense, with a verbal IQ of about 120, and that’s exactly the problem. Imagine what damage could be done to an otherwise well-functioning country if by some miracle six million Somalis installed themselves as that population’s overlords, running their banks, schools, media, healthcare industry, entertainment industry, political system and every institution of any importance. What you’d get is a country about as dysfunctional as the United States of today. Hence, my concern about our crafty Somalian overlords. If humanity is going to survive long-term, defeating these people and their evil little “movement” must be high on its to-do list. 

I was recently asked to explain why I “pick on the Jews for being so left-wing” when the exit polling conducted after the 2016 election indicates that they supported Hillary over Trump by a ratio of 71-24, which is about the same level of democratic support shown by other minority groups. And it is the case: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html

It was merely hypothetical. No need to get pedantic about it. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/18/opinion/trump-rally-send-her-back.html
According to the demons who were assigned to write at the NYT editorial board, the “real meaning” of Trump’s presidency is captured in a quote they know he never made, reflecting his status as a “race warrior” who foments “racial hatred” for daring to send out tweets which PC doctrine demands that we all gasp at regardless of accuracy. You don’t need to read the article, because my summary of their summary should tell you about how many neurons were actually required to fire to get this piece written. One per letter, perhaps.


The truth, of course, is that Trump’s tweets didn’t go nearly far enough, but we can’t say that’s his fault. As president of Communist USA, there are many truths that even he can’t speak. Let’s just say that if by some tragic miracle *I* were elected president, I don’t think I could stop myself from sending out tweets like these:

They wouldn’t really be able to accuse me of anything of which they haven’t already accused Trump. They would just get louder, crazier and more sweaty because they’d know I was being serious.

Of course there's anti-white sentiment. When referring to the white race as a whole, you're expected to do the equivalent of role your eyes and sigh. Portraying whites in a positive light is forbidden unless it's qualified praise, and unless you have expertise in traversing minefields, even that is going to get you labeled a Nazi.

Just take the reaction to the "It's okay to be white" slogan. The people who freaked out over this claim that they agree with the slogan. Yet they themselves have never said it and never will, and were shocked to see it openly expressed. How are we supposed to believe that their "agreement" is genuine when the statement they "agree with" is one that actually frightens them? That they *claim* to agree with it tells us nothing, since of course "anti-racists" are not going to openly admit that their "hated of racism" is really just an expression of their "hatred of hierarchies", with whites being on top. It's not only whites that we're supposed to hate. We're also supposed to hate males, objective truth, rich people, IQ tests, basically anything which hints at the fact that some people are "lesser than". 

Basically, one side said to the other "We think you're racist against white people", and they responded with "Yes, we are". 

Thanks! And yes, I wrote it. 

It's even simpler than that. Everything I've said is contained in the term "truth", and at some level this is immediately recognized by our minds even if at the human semantic level we think we deny it. As parts of reality we can't help but understand this. 

Most people are uncomfortable with the idea of absolute certainty. No matter how firmly any fact can be established, at the back of their mind they will always think "There is nothing of which I am so certain that I am unwilling to consider the possibility of my being wrong. There have been times when I've been wrong when I felt certain that I was correct, and I'm not smart enough to think of all the possible counterarguments to any position, so how can I know for sure that none of them have validity? The very fact that I don't know whether I can know anything for sure is surely proof of this". 

In fact, there is something about which one can be certain, namely truth itself. One is never going to be put into a situation of being rationally forced to admit that truth is not true, for what would this even mean? In order for it to be untrue, there must be some "truth" to which it does not correspond. But truth is just defined as whatever that thing is. That is to say, the definition of truth is so general that its interpretation can always be changed to accommodate whatever "truth" it is claimed to lack. In fact, the very concept of "uncertainty" requires that we be certain of at least truth itself, because understanding truth and accepting it as absolute cannot be separated. Without the concept of truth, "uncertainty" cannot be meaningfully interpreted. 

Therefore, one can state without fear that there is a basis for absolute certainty, and that the basis is truth itself. A denial that there is such a concept as "truth" that makes no reference to the concept (which would be to admit its existence) has no relevance to truth, and even if true proves nothing about it. Therefore, the only way to deny that there is a concept of "truth" is to deny that there are any concepts at all. This runs into the same problem as denying that among the possible concepts is the concept of "truth", for now the concept of "concept" must be referred to in the course of declaring it meaningless, and the impossibility of doing so has the same implications for "concept" as for "truth". 

It should come as no surprise to anyone that at the end of the day, it is true to say that truth is true according to a true definition of truth. Anyone who denies it and expects to occupy the logical high-ground is a fool, and their denial can be explained only in terms of a flawed human psychology. Skepticism should be viewed as a psychological phenomenon driven by human emotions. 

It is frequently claimed that the United States spends an inordinate amount on its military, as reflected in the fact that its military budget exceeds the combined military budgets of the next 17 largest military spenders. Left-leaning politicians can't seem to enter into a discussion about military spending without framing the issue in such terms, presenting the above statistic as irrefutable proof that the US can and should cut back on its military become less of a global outlier. The statistic is, in fact, completely misleading, being mostly a reflection of the sheer size of the American economy as a whole. As a percentage of GDP, the United States spends slightly more on military than is typical for a Western country, but not that much more. The world average for military spending is 2.2 percent GDP, and the US spends a mere .9 percent GDP above that, at 3.1 percent GDP. For reference, France spends 2.3 percent, UK 1.8 percent, Australia 2.0 percent. So what these politicians are basically saying is: "Two percent may be reasonable, but three percent?! At three percent we're a global scandal." It's pretty laughable. 

Some countries spend significantly more on their militaries compared to the US, and one of them (Russia), has only recently warmed up to the US after more than half a century of extreme hostilities, at one point coming within inches (we are now learning) of launching a nuclear strike against the US that would have destroyed it and probably the entire world. It is not unreasonable to suppose that tensions could rise up again, especially if a democrat in the mold of Hillary Clinton were to occupy the White House. 

When combined, Chinese and Russian military spending amounts to approximately half the US military budget, even though China spends a mere 1.9 percent GDP on military, and between them have more than five times the population of the United States. China's real (price-adjusted) GDP has already surpassed that of the US, and is on course to surpass the US in actual GDP within a few decades. Therefore, what the US is looking at is a potential hostile military alliance that beats it in GDP and population. In such a world, American military dominance could only be maintained with the help of Western allies, who often have their own separate agendas.

It's hard to see why the US, as the one global superpower, should feel embarrassed that it spends slightly more on military than other Western countries, who in some ways can only get away with their smaller military budgets thanks to the protection offered by the United States. 

This is yet another instance of the democrats resorting to dishonest framing when facts do not support their preferred conclusion. 

There is nothing inherently wrong about BLM. It just happens to be a ridiculous movement based on lies. If you want to call it "racist" to think that blacks are the victims of racism and thus differ from other people in being targets of racism, then okay. 

Can you give an example of what you mean? If BLM maintains that people of a certain color are the targets of racist cops, then how is it racist to treat these people differently than the people who are not targets? 

Though I disagree many of the factual assumptions of BLM, I don't have a problem with the name. If their position is that black people are being unfairly targeted by the police because of their race, they're not obligated to make the focus about all people. There's no problem in saying "black lives matter" if they are the ones whose lives you think are being systematically undervalued by the system. The problem is with their factual assumptions, not with the name, which is just a logical reflection of those assumptions. "All lives matter" is too vague to be the slogan of any movement. 

Some of the criticism is deserved, but much of it is driven by pure hatred. You can think of it this way: to the extent that Trump is right, the media are dishonest, because they find it impossible to deviate from their anti-Trump rhetoric even for a second to acknowledge that something he has said makes sense. They continue to peddle the lie that Trump "mocked a disabled reporter for being disabled" when this is demonstrably not the case. It is established fact that Trump's impression of that disabled reporter is merely the impression he uses to mock any flustered person. How likely do you think it is that he even remembered the reporter in question or that he was disabled? Some in the media are surely aware of the facts, yet the media product continues to reflect the false assumption the media have made in regard to the incident since the very beginning. You may think this is a petty thing to focus on, but it's not. It's the clearest example of media bias I can think of, and is proof that when the media can't find enough real things to criticize Trump about they resort to false allegations so that they can continue to present Trump as the stupidest and most immoral man alive. 

How can Trump be expected to say that the press are anything more than a bunch of liars when they have spent the last two plus years relentlessly attacking his character, every one of his policy proposals, and essentially everything he has ever said or done? He's treated in the media like a circus freak whose "talent" is that he can't say anything true or do anything right. If he's not the completely dishonest buffoon he's presented as by the media, then they are the dishonest ones, given their hysterical degree of opposition. And since no person (let alone president) is going to admit to being a circus freak buffoon, what option is there really but to turn it back on the media? It would be downright illogical (and also out of character) for Trump to show or encourage respect for an extremely hostile media.

There is nothing "scary" about verbal attacks on the media by a president, unless one thinks it's "scary" that someone would be elected president who the press finds this awful. If the press are indeed failing at their jobs, then Trump is right to go after them, and in doing so is upholding the principle that a distinction exists between a genuine press, which is an asset to any democracy, and a dishonest press, which might as well not exist at all. For those who believe that citizens of a democracy would benefit from an honest press, a press which specializes in misleading the public while claiming to be tirelessly seeking the objective truth can fairly be described as "the enemy of the people".

Like, everything you're accusing the right of doing pretty much reduces to the idea that right-wingers are human beings, and equally applies to the left, who are also human beings. As for the idea that the right controls the press/internet to a greater extent than the left, I won't bother to comment. 

This is such a weird position. It definitely belongs in this thread.

Isn't it just inevitable that the non-liberal half of the country will take this view of liberals? What does the alt-right have to do with it lol?

I'm the last person you'd expect to say this, but I actually think sexism is behind much of the extreme animosity toward Hillary Clinton. The mere fact that she's a woman doesn't make people hate her, but it intensifies the hatred people already feel. Instead of "this person is bad" it's "this person is a crazy evil witch from hell". And that goes for democrats who hate her too.

It's true that Mexican immigrants commit less crime than the average US citizen, but why is that? It's purely because the US crime rate is far above the norm for an industrialized country due to the ridiculously high crime rate of blacks, who make up about 13 percent of the population. Mexican illegal immigrants commit crime at about the same rate as naturalized Mexican citizens when you adjust for age and time spent in the country, and this rate is almost double the rate for Whites. That's the way any honest person would frame it. 

Modern SJW liberals are the ones who appeal to the argument, so.  

The Paradox of Tolerance was an argument put forth by Karl Popper which describes the circumstances under which it would be justified for a society committed to the principle of tolerance to forcibly suppress the expression of certain ideas. Karl Popper believed that a tolerant society would be acting in the interest of tolerance by silencing those with "intolerant" views when the expression of those views would threaten the tolerance of the society. According to Popper, if one is in favor of tolerance, then one should seek the maximize it, and this sometimes requires fighting intolerance with intolerance. On the other hand, if one is not in favor of tolerance, then one has no reason to complain if the intolerant are suppressed. Either way, according to him, the principle of unlimited free speech is indefensible. 

The main flaw with the argument, or at least with its modern interpretation, is that "tolerance" is being used in two different senses. A society incorporating free speech as an absolute principle need not be a society committed to tolerance in any wider sense. That is to say, an ardent defender of free speech is only obliged, according to the argument, to suppress views that directly threaten free speech but not any other kind of "intolerance". They can want society to be tolerant of more than just people's speech, but they need only maximize free speech itself and not any other kind of tolerance in order to be considered a "true believer in free speech". Those who insist that society suppress intolerant views which don't call free speech into question cannot rely on the argument that "If free speech is good, then this person, whose views are at odds with free speech, must be silenced in the name of free speech". Instead, they have to rely on the a priori assumption that a view is bad if it is deemed by society as "intolerant". But this is no more justified than society trying to silence all views the majority considers "wrong", whether or not "intolerance" is the reason they are deemed wrong. 

At most, the Paradox of Tolerance requires that society prevent people from speaking out against free speech, and arguably, this would entail suppressing those who interpret the Paradox of Tolerance to mean that silencing all "intolerant" views is consistent with the principle of free speech. 

Consider two societies, society A and society B. Society A is 100 percent black and has a very high crime rate. People in the society are suspicious of strangers and generally keep to themselves. No one in the society is offended by this, because everyone understands that people's fear of others is justified, and no one expects to be treated better than they treat others. Now consider society B. Society B is 100 percent Asian, and unlike society A, has almost no crime. Trust among strangers is high, and people are generally willing to help each other out, knowing that others would do the same for them. 

I think most would agree that the level of trust in each of these societies is more or less appropriate to the circumstances. People in society A have a right to treat each other differently than the people in society B, because the level of trust one has in others isn't determined arbitrarily, as though there were a "baseline" level of trust appropriate to all situations, but, if one is rational, is based on statistical assumptions backed up by evidence. 

Now imagine that both of these societies combine into one society, so that blacks and Asians now live together side by side. The black crime rate remains high, or at least higher than the Asian crime rate, and for the first time Asians experience uneasiness around strangers - black strangers, that is. 

My question for liberals is: are the Asians wrong to treat the blacks differently than they treat each other? If so, was it also wrong for members of the all-black society to treat each other in the way they are treated by Asians (and themselves) in the racially mixed society? If not, why was it acceptable then but not acceptable once the races mixed? 

"affirmative action is about making sure every group gets a taste"

So the idea is that blacks need a group of articulate and well-connected "racial spokesmen" to advocate for their interests, and non-blacks cannot be counted on to perform this role, either because they are not sufficiently motivated or because they are not personally familiar with the problems facing the black community. Blacks with Harvard diplomas will find it easier to rise to positions of power and influence than those without them, and hence affirmative action will result in a larger number of effective black advocates.

This raises the following questions: specifically, what problems besetting blacks can be be attributed to their lack of influence at the upper levels of society? And are there any examples of black Harvard graduates who went on to make necessary changes that non-blacks didn't think of making before? What percent of black Harvard graduates fall into this category? Would it be justified to arbitrarily admit 1000 blacks knowing that only 1 would even try to advocate for black interests? Have black students at Harvard been made aware of the role Harvard wishes them to pursue once they graduate - that of a "black advocate"?

His statement is technically false, in the sense that progressives could claim that society today is much less racist than it was in the past, although still "deeply racist", but it's a ridiculous claim to make. Why, if you're going to describe pre-1950s America as "deeply racist", would you use the same exact description when talking about society today when it is by all measures significantly less racist? Why call it "deeply racist" and not "somewhat racist"? It appears that "racism" has taken on such a negative connotation that any Leftist who uses the term feels compelled to attach "deeply" in front of it, as though to speak of moderate amounts of racism would be to justify racism. It is simply ridiculous to call America "deeply racist", given that racism is a spectrum of belief which ranges from the teeniest tiniest bit of racism to justifications for slavery.

I think it's pretty clear that Ford is receiving instructions from the DNC. The goal is to stop Kavanaugh or any other Republican from being nominated to the Supreme Court, and the plan seems to be:

1. Wait to drop the bombshell until after Kavanaugh has been selected as the nominee, and do it close enough to the midterm elections so that Trump won't have time to select another nominee. 

2. Demand a lengthy FBI investigation with the hope of pushing back the vote until after midterms. If that doesn't work (and there's nothing to lose if it doesn't), then proceed to step 3. 

3. Testify and hope it's enough to sway the undecided senators. 

At the moment it would seem that the spammers are being confined to certain sections of the forum. I don't know how, and I doubt it will last. Unfortunately, no matter how hard Juggle tries to remove the spam that's already been posted, the site will remain unusable so long there is new spam being posted on a constant basis. 

It's possible that advertising for one of DDO's competitors is against their TOS and would result in a ban. But if and when DDO dies completely, my guess is that Juggle will no longer care enough to enforce the rules, and in any case, there will be nothing for any of us to lose at that point anyway. I'd prefer to stay on DDO if possible, even though there are some aspects of this website I like better. Only when DDO is unquestionably dead should we make an effort to move everyone over to this site. 

Today Juggle deleted over 2 million spam posts, which gives me hope that they are not quite ready to let DDO fall to the spammers. But if they do give up trying to halt the flow of incoming spam, it seems like debateart.com will have to serve as DDO's replacement. Let's all do our best to ensure that this website reaches the "critical mass" of members that it will need to be successful by advertising for this website in our forum signatures and on our profiles. That way, returning members will have a better chance of knowing that the DDO community has not dissolved but has migrated to another platform.