RSS
From CBS News in Minneapolis today:
Racist Notes Unite Students At St. Olaf
May 11, 2017 11:42 AMNORTHFIELD, Minn. (AP/WCCO) — A racist note left on a student’s car at St. Olaf College has been deemed a hoax, but some students at the southern Minnesota school say the incident resulted in action toward addressing minority student concerns. …
St. Olaf senior Daniel Katuka says the note brought the campus community together “in a positive way” in the face of an apparent threat.
Students staged a boycott and submitted a list of demands to administrators to confront racial problems on campus.
What are the chances that the administration will rescind the concessions it made to the mob due to the hate hoax? Slim or none?
Shouldn’t news organizations adopt the custom of appending “purported” or “alleged” to all such hate incidents until they’ve been proven to be true? E.g., “the purported hate speech.” And after they’ve been debunked, shouldn’t they use “pseudo”? As in:
Pseudo-Racist Notes Unite Students At St. Olaf
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Soon we can skip the hoax and just have the demands
Was the use of ‘southern’ just a harmless adjective, or was its use subliminal given the topic of the article?
I think that's the tone they were going for...Replies: @International Jew
So lying, delusional thinking and false narratives are actually positive things. And much less hateful than the truth.
Yes, the hate hoaxers--who should receive some sort of consequences for their actions--at this school have to keep up with Alt Right's falsehoods, irrational thought processes, and bogus accounts. It's a race to the bottom of the brain stem.Replies: @res
“Students staged a boycott and submitted a list of demands to administrators to confront racial problems on campus.”
Problems. Yeah, more hoaxes and paranoia when, in fact, the real problem is unqualified blacks feel out of place in an academic setting.
It’s like a grossly fat person complaining about feeling uncomfortable. So, the furniture is replaced with new ones, new clothes are offered, temperature of the room is adjusted, and more comfort food/drinks are offered to the fatty to make her feel better.
But NO ONE says the obvious. The fatty feels uncomfortable because she is a tubaroon.
Blacks have lower IQ and nasty personality. It’s innate. It can’t be fixed by others.
Worse, white self-huggers gotta have their virtue-meth. They gotta get their fix to feel so high and noble with ‘white guilt’, and they can’t pass this up. After all, they were raised on TKAMB(To Kill a..) and that movie with mountain-sized Negro with little white mouse.
The supremacism of these whites have been subsumed into self-righteous vanity.
It had positive effects, didn’t it? So why should good-thinking people try to discourage the phenomenon, by stigmatizing it in some way? It’s one of the few ways that the perpetrators can get a warm feeling of accomplishment.
Since the hate hoax is doing so much good should the perp add it to his resume?
Are “hoax, but” stories one of the forms they teach in J-school?
Related: Washington Post editorial calls for universities to ‘make crystal clear that racist … speech [is] off-limits’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/05/11/washington-post-editorial-calls-for-universities-to-make-crystal-clear-that-racist-speech-is-off-limits/?utm_term=.21901ecfed63
And after they’ve been debunked, shouldn’t they use “pseudo”?
Shouldn’t they get points for consistency?
They still count faux anti-Semitic hate incidents as “real.”
Don’t these ‘racist’ white folks understand that this woman was just trying to bring attention to corruption by doing corrupt stuff?
It’s the prevailing logic because there are three holies in the West: Jews, homos, and Negroes.
They are holy, so even when they do wrong, it must be spun in ways that blames everything but them.
Remember David Schraub? The Jewish guy who pulled that stunt to defame whites and Christians is an ‘anti-Semite’. And ADL adds those incidents on list of ‘antisemitism’.
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/228149/yes-the-jew-who-called-in-bomb-threats-was-anti-semitic
No, because “everyone” knows that the people in the (northern) hinterlands are unredeemable hicks, but there’s trouble even here, here, in the urbane Twin Cities *shudder*.
I think that’s the tone they were going for…
Dear Mr. Sailer,
These hoaxes should be dubbed “false flag operations” like the ones done by nation states. That way people would get the immediate connection between why these are done: As pretexts for aggression.
Sincerely,
Edward Dorsey
If you read the last story in this hoax, I would be surprised if Samantha Wells isn’t using it on her resume. For the kind of career she is going to be looking for, it probably is a resume enhancer. It mostly likely was done to enhance her resume regardless if the truth came out or not.
-Organized petition campaign addressing structural and institutional racism at university.
-Negotiated alterations to university affirmative action policies.
-Successfully achieved landmark concessions from university administration.
Certainly those more creative (than I) could enhance her resume...
Tampering with evidence,and being a sleazy,stupid slimey underhanded hustler. We'll be hearing from her!
I think that's the tone they were going for...Replies: @International Jew
Looks like we’re on our way to the repeal of Moynihan’s law of the northern border!
I assume (can’t be bothered to go look) that the student demands included hiring more graduating St. Olaf seniors of diversitude as campus administrators, a phenomenon Steve wrote about back in 2015. (link)
It was nice of CBS News to tell us that “a racist note left on a student’s car at St. Olaf College has been deemed a hoax…” [emphasis added] so we won’t mistakenly think that it actually was, you know, a hoax.
Comment #2 (Anonymous): very insightful. “Southern Minnesota,” indeed.
No, Steve. “Alleged” is very, very busy always appearing in front of the words “terrorist attack” whenever someone shouts “Allahu akbar” while mowing down dozens of innocents. How much work can you expect one little word to do?
Some clever jerk is going to come up with the concept that it is a ‘progressive’ act to create these ‘incidents’ and ‘happenings’ to raise consciousness. Then it won’t be a hoax anymore and just a ‘performance’.
What matters are not facts but the capital ‘Truth’ of the Narrative. Anything to prop it up.
It’s like the Church came to tolerate and encourage bogus ‘miracles’ to inspire people’s faith in God. An entire culture developed around such superstition. People began to see Jesus and Mary patterns in everything.
Or if you worship Harambe, you might see him in a cheeto.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/06/harambe-shaped-cheeto-reaches-bid-nearly-100k-ebay/97567340/
And there is the preacher/televangelist tradition in the US, not least among blacks, of cooking up ‘miracles’ to inspire the flock and win over new suckers.
So, stuff like the Olaf freakout is miracle hate-healing shtick.
And white kids flock to stuff like this because they’ve been instilled with stuff about the ‘original sin’ of slavery. So, when there is ‘hate’ on campus, they must go lawdy lawdy hallelujah to feel purged. Glory be, helly-luyah.
Even so, this black idiot woman is small potatoes. The real hate hoaxers are the big guys who control national policy. This stuff about ‘new cold war’ and ‘russia hacking’ is hate-hoaxing on a grand scale.
Trump may have hate-hoaxed with Syrian chemical attack.
WMB and Hussein was one big hoax. 100,00os of lives destroyed as a result.
Obama hate-hoaxed Gaddafi and Libya. Total destruction.
Media told nothing but hate-hoax lies about Ukraine.
It’s part of the culture. And it’s not confined to one ideology or one side. There are rumors that Russian intelligence hate-hoaxed the terrorist bombing in Moscow to justify war in Chechnya.
Hitler pulled all sorts of dirty tricks. Stalin too.
At any rate, since fish rots from the head, it’d be nice if the Power set a better example for all of us. But the globalist elites are a bunch of lying two-faced scum who push any lie to get what they want. And the entire journalist-education teaches students to favor the Narrative over facts. Certain causes and peoples are deemed HOLY, and ‘truth’ exists to serve their (vain)glory.
Also, terminology used by academia rigs the discourse to favor certain causes and peoples. Take ‘antisemitism'(but no anti-gentilism), ‘homophobia'(but no homomania), ‘racism'(that uses ‘ism’ as synonymous with supremacism), and ‘misogyny'(that could be used to mean anything).
World is awash with false flags by the Power Elites. Worse, journalists and academics often serve these Elite instead of speaking truth to power. They too favor the Narrative or Agenda over the truth. Big Fish go for False Flags. Little Fish(like moron at Olaf) go for hype hankies.
As the CBS report indicates, even if these incidents are hoaxes, they are still necessary as propaganda events, needed to continually perpetuate the Two Minutes’ Hate against whites and to justify the official state ideology of racial egalitarianism.
hoax hate crimes: a form of therapy for these poor little snowflakes. what’s needed are designated hoaxers, this can be taught on a college level.
The lügenpresse is real.
That’s kinda where they’re going with the wars, I don’t even remember what they pretended Libya was about or anyone even holding a vote to authorise war.
Looking at the word hoax and it finally dawned on me….the ho ax you to believe that some racist sheet be going down.
Students: Ho ax you? Ain't nobody care bout your pinion.
OT: Eminent nonegenarian sociologist Herbert Gans is in the NYT today telling whites not to worry about becoming a minority, because mixed-race individuals and middle-class Asians and Hispanics will aspirationally identify as white.
Gans is an actual scientist, not like the modern critical theory types, but I don’t think he’s done a great job of keeping up with recent intellectual trends.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/opinion/sunday/the-census-and-right-wing-hysteria.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region
It is a pity that this has happened. They should have expelled this student instead of granting concessions. The school administration has learned nothing from Trump on how to deal with these people.
I visited St. Olaf, Carleton and Macalester recently on college visits with my son. I always look at the books on the shelves in the student bookstores to evaluate the curriculum. St. Olaf by far had the largest selection of materials in history, religion, literature etc that I would consider part of the western canon. Included were also materials on the many religions, and peoples and languages of the world. There were your usual marxist, feminist, LGBT social justice materials. Most of this stuff is nonsense, but I don’t mind it being covered, as part of a balanced education. Everybody can benefit from a critical analysis of Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations in the same semester. I also met a number of people in the classics department. Qualified, talented and most importantly, very good people. It seems the social justice warriors object to having an outlier institution like St. Olaf that has not been culturally cleansed, so the heat is on.
The campus at St. Olaf is small, but lovely. The physical plant was nicely planned and in good condition. The architecture was coherent and used lots of natural materials. It was not the jumble of hateful brutalist concrete you see at so many schools: and the choral program is out of this world. More notable was the high level of trust among the students. Students left all their book bags and computers in large metal racks prior to entering the dining hall. The hall itself was a large room with a high vaulted ceiling made of wooden beams, allowing a great deal of light.
Carleton had far fewer important works, but it was not a complete disaster, and Carleton did seem to take their hard sciences and mathematics seriously. The architecture of the school was less coherent, and not maintained in the tidy fashion of the Lutherans down the street and up the hill.
Macalester was truly horrific. There were practically no materials covering traditional history or viewpoints. The school has been culturally cleansed by the new church. The bookstore featured a number of publications written by the faculty. It was all social justice nonsense and the faculty appears to be infested with these types of people. I am unwilling to drop a cool $250k to have this tripe force fed to my child.
Right next door to the Macalester bookstore was a retail bookstore owned by none other that Garrison Keilor.
The next visit will be Hillsdale College. Hillsdale is half the price and twice the education.
Time for parents to vote with their feet.
The five year old analogy was funny, but I am curious what others think about her tying all of this to Citizens United?
As we Calvinists start looking at college options as well, Hillsdale seems promising.Replies: @Chrisnonymous
Related topic:
Until authorities put a stop to this nonsense by finally saying ‘No!’, it will continue. These groups do not know when to stop and count their blessings, but will continue to demand, demand, and demand. In truth, these groups should have little or no standing since their needs, like everyone else’s are generally met. The do not want ‘equal’ treatment, they want ‘special’ treatment because they see themselves as special people, with exceptional value.
Administrator: How do we know who this was done by and why?
Students: Ho ax you? Ain’t nobody care bout your pinion.
St. Olaf has 3,000 students. 63 are black. (176 are Latino, but I imagine at least half of those are sons of Cortez.)
http://wp.stolaf.edu/ir-e/st-olaf-students-raceethnicity-profile/
The hoaxer actually did commit the racist speech that the WaPo demands be off limits. True, her intention was only to implicate innocent whites rather than frighten and intimidate blacks, but nonetheless she did write and disseminate the offending words. Zero tolerance begins with patient Zero.
It’s been a while since I read To Kill a Mockingbird, but wasn’t the conclusion there basically the same as the St. Olaf one? Jim Robinson was grudgingly conceded not proven guilty of this particular rape, but the larger lesson for the community was a much needed consciousness raising of the problem of black men raping white girls and women.
Pseudo-Racist Notes Unite Psuedo-Students At St. Olaf
Goes to show a lot of this is just a version of Salem Witch trials. The crowd whips itself up to a frenzy whether real or not.
-Led on-campus vigils protesting discrimination.
-Organized petition campaign addressing structural and institutional racism at university.
-Negotiated alterations to university affirmative action policies.
-Successfully achieved landmark concessions from university administration.
Certainly those more creative (than I) could enhance her resume…
Contrast the MSM’s ignoring of the fact this is a hoax with how they treat events reported from our side. Even if an event reported by one of ours happens, if it is not reported 100 percent accurately, the entire event is deemed suspect, false and no lesson, other than our bigotry and ignorance, is to be gleaned.
For example, when Trump mentioned “last night in Sweden” the media treated it as false because apparently something specific did not happen on the previous specific night in Sweden. The fact events had occurred before, or that a little riot occurred a couple days later in no way validated Trump’s main assertion that Sweden was having problems with mass immigration.
What a remarkable monopoly that one man has on evidence-free claims!
It's also almost always a lie ... few claims have no evidence. They have a little evidence, bad evidence, insufficient evidence to support a confident conclusion. But rarely no evidence at all.
The contrast with the St. Olaf hoaxer ... wait, what's her name? Ah, Samantha Wells, there it is in paragraph 6. Well, best to protect the identity of the victim, I guess. Anyway, when she claimed, with no evidence ... oh, I guess she had some evidence ... it was fabricated, but it was still evidence ...
Man, this propaganda stuff is exhausting.
What matters are not facts but the capital 'Truth' of the Narrative. Anything to prop it up.
It's like the Church came to tolerate and encourage bogus 'miracles' to inspire people's faith in God. An entire culture developed around such superstition. People began to see Jesus and Mary patterns in everything.
Or if you worship Harambe, you might see him in a cheeto.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/06/harambe-shaped-cheeto-reaches-bid-nearly-100k-ebay/97567340/
And there is the preacher/televangelist tradition in the US, not least among blacks, of cooking up 'miracles' to inspire the flock and win over new suckers.
https://youtu.be/M6hhikoAKVU?t=18s
So, stuff like the Olaf freakout is miracle hate-healing shtick.
And white kids flock to stuff like this because they've been instilled with stuff about the 'original sin' of slavery. So, when there is 'hate' on campus, they must go lawdy lawdy hallelujah to feel purged. Glory be, helly-luyah.
Even so, this black idiot woman is small potatoes. The real hate hoaxers are the big guys who control national policy. This stuff about 'new cold war' and 'russia hacking' is hate-hoaxing on a grand scale.
Trump may have hate-hoaxed with Syrian chemical attack.
WMB and Hussein was one big hoax. 100,00os of lives destroyed as a result.
Obama hate-hoaxed Gaddafi and Libya. Total destruction.
Media told nothing but hate-hoax lies about Ukraine.
It's part of the culture. And it's not confined to one ideology or one side. There are rumors that Russian intelligence hate-hoaxed the terrorist bombing in Moscow to justify war in Chechnya.
Hitler pulled all sorts of dirty tricks. Stalin too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0zXKISeSUI
At any rate, since fish rots from the head, it'd be nice if the Power set a better example for all of us. But the globalist elites are a bunch of lying two-faced scum who push any lie to get what they want. And the entire journalist-education teaches students to favor the Narrative over facts. Certain causes and peoples are deemed HOLY, and 'truth' exists to serve their (vain)glory.
Also, terminology used by academia rigs the discourse to favor certain causes and peoples. Take 'antisemitism'(but no anti-gentilism), 'homophobia'(but no homomania), 'racism'(that uses 'ism' as synonymous with supremacism), and 'misogyny'(that could be used to mean anything).
World is awash with false flags by the Power Elites. Worse, journalists and academics often serve these Elite instead of speaking truth to power. They too favor the Narrative or Agenda over the truth. Big Fish go for False Flags. Little Fish(like moron at Olaf) go for hype hankies.Replies: @res
I think that has pretty much already happened. Also pay close attention to how the people initially baying for punishment for “whoever did this” become very quiet and understanding once it becomes known to be (or “deemed to be”) a hoax. But those same people still want it counted in the hate crime stats.
Aren’t minority concerns being addressed on constant basis, 24/7?
Serious question.
The spectre of YT crooks his little finger, and non-whites are driven at speed into the waiting bosom of the white leftist power structure, to be cosseted and entertained.
Tell the wee darkie bairns a bedtime story.
Gosh, if hate crimes have such positive effects, it seems a little unfair to punish white people on those few occasions that they actually commit them.
The wording before the first comma is so wrong.
“A racist note left on a student’s car at St. Olaf College has been deemed a hoax”
Ok, there was never any racist note and in fact ‘racist notes’ aren’t actually a thing, but writing like this puts it in peoples minds that ‘racist notes’ are common, especially if evening drama shows on Talmud-vision feature ‘racist notes’.
And it was deemed a hoax by who? oh the very student who’s car it was on.
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/862739257999462400Replies: @Alden
One would think that she could use a thousand dollars of that embezzled money for a decent wig.
Hoax!
I visited St. Olaf, Carleton and Macalester recently on college visits with my son. I always look at the books on the shelves in the student bookstores to evaluate the curriculum. St. Olaf by far had the largest selection of materials in history, religion, literature etc that I would consider part of the western canon. Included were also materials on the many religions, and peoples and languages of the world. There were your usual marxist, feminist, LGBT social justice materials. Most of this stuff is nonsense, but I don't mind it being covered, as part of a balanced education. Everybody can benefit from a critical analysis of Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations in the same semester. I also met a number of people in the classics department. Qualified, talented and most importantly, very good people. It seems the social justice warriors object to having an outlier institution like St. Olaf that has not been culturally cleansed, so the heat is on.
The campus at St. Olaf is small, but lovely. The physical plant was nicely planned and in good condition. The architecture was coherent and used lots of natural materials. It was not the jumble of hateful brutalist concrete you see at so many schools: and the choral program is out of this world. More notable was the high level of trust among the students. Students left all their book bags and computers in large metal racks prior to entering the dining hall. The hall itself was a large room with a high vaulted ceiling made of wooden beams, allowing a great deal of light.
Carleton had far fewer important works, but it was not a complete disaster, and Carleton did seem to take their hard sciences and mathematics seriously. The architecture of the school was less coherent, and not maintained in the tidy fashion of the Lutherans down the street and up the hill.
Macalester was truly horrific. There were practically no materials covering traditional history or viewpoints. The school has been culturally cleansed by the new church. The bookstore featured a number of publications written by the faculty. It was all social justice nonsense and the faculty appears to be infested with these types of people. I am unwilling to drop a cool $250k to have this tripe force fed to my child.
Right next door to the Macalester bookstore was a retail bookstore owned by none other that Garrison Keilor.
The next visit will be Hillsdale College. Hillsdale is half the price and twice the education.
Time for parents to vote with their feet.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Olorin, @Chrisnonymous
Garrison Keillor did a nice tribute on Prairie Home Companion to how at St. Olaf, a Lutheran college, there is fine music being made everywhere: a relatively high amount of Bach, I would imagine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_KTT4lLn9o&list=PLiJnN4bTWJ101wiY1IQ8cMKS4jQW-BEIK
OT: Kris Kobach to vice-chair an independent commission looking into voter fraud in the recent election–leftist screams ensue, because of course there’s no need to investigate illegal alien voter fraud, but there’s a very pressing need to commission a special prosecutor to look under every bed for Russian hackers. Seriously, it’s good to see Kobach getting a job for the Trump administration, even if only temporary; hope it leads to something more permanent.
For example, when Trump mentioned "last night in Sweden" the media treated it as false because apparently something specific did not happen on the previous specific night in Sweden. The fact events had occurred before, or that a little riot occurred a couple days later in no way validated Trump's main assertion that Sweden was having problems with mass immigration.Replies: @Ivy, @MW
MSM – literal or figurative interpretation as needed for the cause.
From CBS News in Minneapolis today:
Racist Notes Unite Students At St. Olaf
From CBS News, Bob Schieffer, September 7, 2014:
Remembering 9/11, when Americans came together
It all seems so… familiar…
Someone should make an Internet Wall of Shame for Hate Hoaxers.
The pantheon of defamers who mug for attention.
Include photos of perpetrators and their deeds.
It’d be like the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame.
More from l’étoile du nord. OT (but close and oh so chock full of iStevey goodness).
Bach listeners, a fine time for the Brandenburg Concertos:
The Great Cultural Divergence continues…
“So lying, delusional thinking and false narratives are actually positive things. And much less hateful than the truth.”
Yes, the hate hoaxers–who should receive some sort of consequences for their actions–at this school have to keep up with Alt Right’s falsehoods, irrational thought processes, and bogus accounts. It’s a race to the bottom of the brain stem.
Each hoax makes it harder to get anyone to take real problems seriously. If you think there are no real racist outrages that need attention so they’ll be fixed, this is fine….
After the massive Jewish "synagogue threat" hoax perpetrated by an Israeli, former FBI director Comey gave a speech to the ADL in which he said, verbatim, that the FBI "loves" the ADL and the Holocaust was the most important event in history. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo traveled to Israel to inform the Jews that he was fighting the alleged anti-Semitism, and subsequently New York synagogues got $25 million in public money for additional security. And the late Trayvon Martin, of the "innocent boy buying Skittles" hoax, was just awarded a posthumous degree in -- get this -- aeronautical engineering.
Au contraire, my man.
It is clear that these folks aren’t reading Aesop’s Fables: The Boy Who Cried Wolf (that one was probably binned for sexism).
Yes, the hate hoaxers--who should receive some sort of consequences for their actions--at this school have to keep up with Alt Right's falsehoods, irrational thought processes, and bogus accounts. It's a race to the bottom of the brain stem.Replies: @res
We agree on something. Aren’t you bothered that it never seems to happen?
Perhaps some examples of those which show a connection to the incident in question (or hate hoaxes/frauds in general) would help us not to jump to the conclusion that you are bringing in irrelevancies?
Indeed. I think you are winning. Well done.
Absolutely.
"Perhaps some examples of those which show a connection to the incident in question (or hate hoaxes/frauds in general) would help us not to jump to the conclusion that you are bringing in irrelevancies?"
Completely relevant--my comment reflects the general actions taken by the Fringe Left and Fringe Right in order to move forward their agenda. The radical left has their Hate Hoaxes and Microaggression Spooks. The radical right has their Cultural Marxism Boogeyman and Race Realism Phantoms.
"Indeed. I think you are winning. Well done."
Ad hominem. Now you can check if off of your fallacy list with your fellow Unz competitors.Replies: @anon, @res
I’m the only true race-ist, and if anything, these ‘racist’ hoaxes prove the truth of race-ism. Races are different, and it’s true that blacks tend to be more self-centered, self-aggrandizing, egomaniacal, deceitful, pathological, psychopathic, infantile, un-reflective, and nasty. It’s no accident that so many of these stunts happened to be pulled by blacks.
True, there are these morons in all races. And we see them in government and media too.
But among ordinary people, blacks are more likely to lie, cheat, steal, and bulljive. Remember ‘hands up, don’t shoot’?
Black style is volume and hysteria. It’s not about who makes more sense. It’s about who gets more attention. It’s like black debating style at colleges.
Whites have fallen under a fallacy. Even progs must be aware of black problems. Their fallacy misinterprets cause-and-effect. They figure that, ‘Since blacks were once slaves and faced discrimination, that is why they have so many problems and issues.’
There is some degree of validity to this. History surely matters. But the MAIN reason is genetic, i.e. blacks were like this for 100,00o yrs due to evolution.
A puma is a dangerous and aggressive animal. It is what it is. Suppose a puma is placed in captivity and mistreated. Of course, that is bad, and of course, a puma can be damaged by ill-treatment. But that is not the reason why puma is an aggressive and dangerous creature. Evolution made it that way. So regardless of whether it’s wild or held in captivity, its innate nature is that of an aggressive hunter.
Black problematic nature existed before slavery. Slavery didn’t create it. Does anyone really believe the US would have the same problem if it had enslaved Japanese instead of West Africans? Blacks are a wild, unruly, childish, and out-of-control people.
We can capture, hold in captivity, and mistreat a wolverine and a wombat. Sure, the captivity and mistreatment will have some effect. But the wolverine will still be what it is because of its nature, and a wombat will still be what it is because of its nature.
So, while history is partly responsible for black culture, it is not for black nature. And if anything, black culture has been reverting to raw black nature since the Civil Rights Movement.
Elwistay Tubbs called me from Minnesota today. He went on and on about St. Olaf, and etc. Excerpts:
Dey be takin all of our safe space. Crackas all over the place here. Dis used to be our place. Back in the day, Minnesota was one big plantation. Cotton everywhere, six million black slaves, and one white Norwegian dude who owned the whole thing. Obama freed the slaves; but then mo crackas came and chase mos of de blacks away. Dey takin up all de space.
Some cracka say he “Luthrin”. I know what dat mean. I tell de cracka “Wha chu mean you a Luthrin? I’m on to you cracka.” And he tell me “Um, Lutheran . . . well, we . . . uh . . . have you ever heard of Martin Luther?” He say dat! He say dat to me, a black man! First the crackas kill Martin Luther, then they think we forget. Doz crackas better know dat we never gonna forget. Crackas be so stupid. Then he say that ain’t Martin Luther and that — I’m not makin dis up — Martin Luther be white. Doz crackas don’t quit. Dey whitewash everythang.
So doz “Luthrens”, I tell you who dey really be: they just wannabe skinheads who follow dat Norwegian skinhead Lex Luthor. Dat be the same dude who ran Minnesota when it was a big plantation. But doz cracka skoolz don’t teach bout dat, do dey? Dey jus whitewash everythang. Do you know what “Minnesota” mean in Swahili?
. . .
Then the operator asked for more money. I should have known better than to accept a collect call from Minnesota. I think that it was a wrong number; but who knows. Things are just getting more and more confusing for a dumb cracker like me. On the radio, they talked about the climate in Minnesota for ten whole minutes without mentioning ice, snow, or mosquitoes even once! Figure that out.
“We agree on something. Aren’t you bothered that it never seems to happen?”
Absolutely.
“Perhaps some examples of those which show a connection to the incident in question (or hate hoaxes/frauds in general) would help us not to jump to the conclusion that you are bringing in irrelevancies?”
Completely relevant–my comment reflects the general actions taken by the Fringe Left and Fringe Right in order to move forward their agenda. The radical left has their Hate Hoaxes and Microaggression Spooks. The radical right has their Cultural Marxism Boogeyman and Race Realism Phantoms.
“Indeed. I think you are winning. Well done.”
Ad hominem. Now you can check if off of your fallacy list with your fellow Unz competitors.
And speaking of fallacies, it looks like you are back to your current favorite: False Equivalence.Replies: @Corvinus
Ivy, MSM…Manufactured Shit Matters.
Racist Notes Unite Students At St. OlafFrom CBS News, Bob Schieffer, September 7, 2014:
Remembering 9/11, when Americans came togetherIt all seems so... familiar...Replies: @George Bernard D'Brickashaw
An earlier probable hoax in the Twin Cities area has resulted in more “consciousness raising”:
The dastardly perpetrators of the March attack have never been found. Sven Monahan is, of course, a person of interest and is being sought by authorities.
Absolutely.
"Perhaps some examples of those which show a connection to the incident in question (or hate hoaxes/frauds in general) would help us not to jump to the conclusion that you are bringing in irrelevancies?"
Completely relevant--my comment reflects the general actions taken by the Fringe Left and Fringe Right in order to move forward their agenda. The radical left has their Hate Hoaxes and Microaggression Spooks. The radical right has their Cultural Marxism Boogeyman and Race Realism Phantoms.
"Indeed. I think you are winning. Well done."
Ad hominem. Now you can check if off of your fallacy list with your fellow Unz competitors.Replies: @anon, @res
The radical right has their Cultural Marxism Boogeyman and Race Realism Phantoms
Corvinus, why can’t you just admit that you can’t come up with any examples, and just go away? Why do you keep doing this? You don’t even make sense. Do you think you’re ever going to convince anyone of anything?
If you do, why not explain how “Race Realism” is either a “Phantom” or a “hoax”?
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself? Note that I do not necessary agree with all of his premises, but I am using him as a starting point.
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realismReplies: @res, @anon, @Peterike, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @David In TN, @Daniel Chieh
Absolutely.
"Perhaps some examples of those which show a connection to the incident in question (or hate hoaxes/frauds in general) would help us not to jump to the conclusion that you are bringing in irrelevancies?"
Completely relevant--my comment reflects the general actions taken by the Fringe Left and Fringe Right in order to move forward their agenda. The radical left has their Hate Hoaxes and Microaggression Spooks. The radical right has their Cultural Marxism Boogeyman and Race Realism Phantoms.
"Indeed. I think you are winning. Well done."
Ad hominem. Now you can check if off of your fallacy list with your fellow Unz competitors.Replies: @anon, @res
I’ll take your lack of examples as conceding my original point. Thanks for making it obvious.
Well, the ad hominem fallacy is if I try to use that as a reason to discredit your argument. I was more trying to use the ad hominem as a gratuitous (but well deserved IMHO) shot at your shtick. So ad hominem but not a fallacy in that usage. Thanks for playing.
And speaking of fallacies, it looks like you are back to your current favorite: False Equivalence.
The examples are numerous. They have been right in front of you on this fine blog. Jews control the world. Fake news. Old white people should die. Grrl powr. All memes with little substance. Phrases that evoke Pavlovian responses by their acolytes. Both focus on the least common denominator, the bottom of the brainstem.
"Well, the ad hominem fallacy is if I try to use that as a reason to discredit your argument."
You attacked the character rather than the argument. Indeed, thanks for playing.
"And speaking of fallacies, it looks like you are back to your current favorite: False Equivalence."
The argument I offer is an accurate assessment of the Radical Left and Radical Right, the Coalition of the Fringes. Both have their mouthpieces and lackeys, both are equally skilled at manipulation, both are equally adept at promoting an agenda through propaganda.
"White privelege"? "Diversity + proximity = war"? Give me a frickin' break.Replies: @res, @Charles Erwin Wilson
I visited St. Olaf, Carleton and Macalester recently on college visits with my son. I always look at the books on the shelves in the student bookstores to evaluate the curriculum. St. Olaf by far had the largest selection of materials in history, religion, literature etc that I would consider part of the western canon. Included were also materials on the many religions, and peoples and languages of the world. There were your usual marxist, feminist, LGBT social justice materials. Most of this stuff is nonsense, but I don't mind it being covered, as part of a balanced education. Everybody can benefit from a critical analysis of Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations in the same semester. I also met a number of people in the classics department. Qualified, talented and most importantly, very good people. It seems the social justice warriors object to having an outlier institution like St. Olaf that has not been culturally cleansed, so the heat is on.
The campus at St. Olaf is small, but lovely. The physical plant was nicely planned and in good condition. The architecture was coherent and used lots of natural materials. It was not the jumble of hateful brutalist concrete you see at so many schools: and the choral program is out of this world. More notable was the high level of trust among the students. Students left all their book bags and computers in large metal racks prior to entering the dining hall. The hall itself was a large room with a high vaulted ceiling made of wooden beams, allowing a great deal of light.
Carleton had far fewer important works, but it was not a complete disaster, and Carleton did seem to take their hard sciences and mathematics seriously. The architecture of the school was less coherent, and not maintained in the tidy fashion of the Lutherans down the street and up the hill.
Macalester was truly horrific. There were practically no materials covering traditional history or viewpoints. The school has been culturally cleansed by the new church. The bookstore featured a number of publications written by the faculty. It was all social justice nonsense and the faculty appears to be infested with these types of people. I am unwilling to drop a cool $250k to have this tripe force fed to my child.
Right next door to the Macalester bookstore was a retail bookstore owned by none other that Garrison Keilor.
The next visit will be Hillsdale College. Hillsdale is half the price and twice the education.
Time for parents to vote with their feet.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Olorin, @Chrisnonymous
OT: Speaking of Hillsdale, I thought people here might enjoy this article from their latest newsletter: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/lefts-war-free-speech/
The five year old analogy was funny, but I am curious what others think about her tying all of this to Citizens United?
Was there any broken glass found? That seems to be his modus operandi.
Quite the opposite!!! Each hoax results in a new diversity training program and the hire of a new Diversity Commissar for about $200k. And each hoax makes law enforcement redouble its Orwellian efforts to stamp out dissent.
After the massive Jewish “synagogue threat” hoax perpetrated by an Israeli, former FBI director Comey gave a speech to the ADL in which he said, verbatim, that the FBI “loves” the ADL and the Holocaust was the most important event in history. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo traveled to Israel to inform the Jews that he was fighting the alleged anti-Semitism, and subsequently New York synagogues got $25 million in public money for additional security. And the late Trayvon Martin, of the “innocent boy buying Skittles” hoax, was just awarded a posthumous degree in — get this — aeronautical engineering.
Au contraire, my man.
The University of Missouri has taken a huge financial hit since the fiasco last year. Tuition and fees at St. Olaf run to over $54,600 *per year.* I’m sure there are plenty of cheaper state schools which provide an education equal to that of an insanely expensive private school.
If the administration gives in to a single demand made by these creeps and refuses to punish the student(s) responsible for the hoax then every conservative student at St. Olaf should transfer, and every conservative parent of a student at St. Olaf should refuse to fund their child’s education at the school any longer. It’s time we stopped financially supporting institutions that hate us. If we have no other choice then at least give them as little money as possible.
And speaking of fallacies, it looks like you are back to your current favorite: False Equivalence.Replies: @Corvinus
“I’ll take your lack of examples as conceding my original point. Thanks for making it obvious.”
The examples are numerous. They have been right in front of you on this fine blog. Jews control the world. Fake news. Old white people should die. Grrl powr. All memes with little substance. Phrases that evoke Pavlovian responses by their acolytes. Both focus on the least common denominator, the bottom of the brainstem.
“Well, the ad hominem fallacy is if I try to use that as a reason to discredit your argument.”
You attacked the character rather than the argument. Indeed, thanks for playing.
“And speaking of fallacies, it looks like you are back to your current favorite: False Equivalence.”
The argument I offer is an accurate assessment of the Radical Left and Radical Right, the Coalition of the Fringes. Both have their mouthpieces and lackeys, both are equally skilled at manipulation, both are equally adept at promoting an agenda through propaganda.
“White privelege”? “Diversity + proximity = war”? Give me a frickin’ break.
I couldn’t find a picture of Samantha. I am not on Facebook. She must be quite the heifer! A real prize cow. I like how the nitwit college president gave her back the note she wrote. She had a special “ceremony” to burn the note. Cleansing fire among the people of color?
Tampering with evidence,and being a sleazy,stupid slimey underhanded hustler. We’ll be hearing from her!
“If you do, why not explain how “Race Realism” is either a “Phantom” or a “hoax”?”
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself? Note that I do not necessary agree with all of his premises, but I am using him as a starting point.
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realism
Corvinus:Tim Wise:Let's start off with an ad hominem. What do you think, Corvinus, was that a fallacy or is he just dumping on his opponents like I was on you earlier. It's nice of you to hold us to one standard in your request when Tim failed that standard in his third paragraph.Since he then asserts: "I far and away believe that the four premises of the anti-hereditarian, anti-racialist position are much closer to the truth than those of the so-called racial realists." lets take them one at a time.
1. Not sure what defines "not a scientifically valid category of human differentiation", but in my world being able to differentiate races both forensically and genetically says otherwise.
2. The ~1SD (15 IQ points) difference in most intellectual tests between US blacks and whites is hardly meaningless.
3. Keep telling yourself that and maybe it will eventually be meaningful. For a more substantive response, perhaps we can talk about the success the US military has had with using an IQ-like test (the AFQT) for recruitment. Or the use of the SAT and ACT in college admissions.
4. Requires proof. Given that IQ is >50% heritable within whites and the frequencies of IQ SNPs found so far vary between races the likely result would be a non-zero genetic influence on between race differences in IQ.Can someone please explain to me what Tim Wise has done here other than eviscerate his own arguments?I guess if you get to make up definitions you can prove anything.I think someone might need to update his knowledge of genetics.I seem to remember mentioning something about IQ SNPs and differing racial frequencies. Tim Wise definitely needs to fast forward to the current year.What an argument. Can I call this the "putting my fingers in my ears and shouting la la la" fallacy?So if we don't like what science says we should just ignore it? Thanks for being explicit about that, Tim. I wonder if he feels the same about AGW (where the science is less compelling IMHO).But basing public policy on incorrectly assumed equality of all characteristics is required. Got it. Who is the arbiter of morality here? Tim Wise I guess. Got it.Fair enough. But don't tear down those at the top because you can't deal with never being able to create equality. Let's also be clear. Offering special programs for those at the top which cost less than programs offered to the others is not "favoring them."Really. So we are ignoring the research showing the correlation of IQ with outcomes (e.g. the SMPY and TIP)? Plus the AFQT mentioned earlier. And who says race realists fetishize intelligence? I think most also realize the importance of things like time discounting, aggressiveness, criminality, etc.
Sorry, I gave up at this point. Corvinus, how do you stand reading that dreck in detail?
Do you have any more fun for us? That one was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to which of Tim Wise's premises you do and don't agree with?Replies: @RaceRealist88
And then you site Tim Wise as the ideological enemy? TIM WISE?
Un-freakin-believable.Replies: @res
A block and a turn away was a golf course. There were several elderly white men playing.Replies: @Corvinus
However, it is adequate and useful, much like vision. Race is a more or less accurate stand in for population groups which have evolved to different environments(yes, environments) to have different genetic endowments. And as a result, there are differences in capability, including some which are worse than others at tasks.
And among those, include IQ. It doesn't mean that they are necessarily less worthwhile of existence, but understanding group differences allows for better policy implementation. Its like arguing that just because some children are more intelligent than adults, then no minors should require guardians.
Sheesh. One would think this should be plainly obvious.
I visited St. Olaf, Carleton and Macalester recently on college visits with my son. I always look at the books on the shelves in the student bookstores to evaluate the curriculum. St. Olaf by far had the largest selection of materials in history, religion, literature etc that I would consider part of the western canon. Included were also materials on the many religions, and peoples and languages of the world. There were your usual marxist, feminist, LGBT social justice materials. Most of this stuff is nonsense, but I don't mind it being covered, as part of a balanced education. Everybody can benefit from a critical analysis of Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations in the same semester. I also met a number of people in the classics department. Qualified, talented and most importantly, very good people. It seems the social justice warriors object to having an outlier institution like St. Olaf that has not been culturally cleansed, so the heat is on.
The campus at St. Olaf is small, but lovely. The physical plant was nicely planned and in good condition. The architecture was coherent and used lots of natural materials. It was not the jumble of hateful brutalist concrete you see at so many schools: and the choral program is out of this world. More notable was the high level of trust among the students. Students left all their book bags and computers in large metal racks prior to entering the dining hall. The hall itself was a large room with a high vaulted ceiling made of wooden beams, allowing a great deal of light.
Carleton had far fewer important works, but it was not a complete disaster, and Carleton did seem to take their hard sciences and mathematics seriously. The architecture of the school was less coherent, and not maintained in the tidy fashion of the Lutherans down the street and up the hill.
Macalester was truly horrific. There were practically no materials covering traditional history or viewpoints. The school has been culturally cleansed by the new church. The bookstore featured a number of publications written by the faculty. It was all social justice nonsense and the faculty appears to be infested with these types of people. I am unwilling to drop a cool $250k to have this tripe force fed to my child.
Right next door to the Macalester bookstore was a retail bookstore owned by none other that Garrison Keilor.
The next visit will be Hillsdale College. Hillsdale is half the price and twice the education.
Time for parents to vote with their feet.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Olorin, @Chrisnonymous
Thanks for this review of the MN schools, which unfortunately confirms many of my own worst fears. Gustavus Adolphus is another nice southern MN college; I looked at it myself in the days of yore. But it’s also recently been messed up in a hate hoax.
As we Calvinists start looking at college options as well, Hillsdale seems promising.
If your kid is headed for a hard profession like engineering, just go for rigor.
If your kid is headed for soft sciences or humanities and is strong-minded, go for networking.
If your kid is not well-formed, then "education" is the rationale and a school like Hillsdale is good.
The reason I put education in quotation marks is that my experience is that 80% of real education is interacting with other students, not what the institution offers. So it behooves you to expose your kid to the most intelligent and strident students. Only if you think your kid is not strong to survive this Screwtape-like onslaught should you expose them to lesser minds.
The examples are numerous. They have been right in front of you on this fine blog. Jews control the world. Fake news. Old white people should die. Grrl powr. All memes with little substance. Phrases that evoke Pavlovian responses by their acolytes. Both focus on the least common denominator, the bottom of the brainstem.
"Well, the ad hominem fallacy is if I try to use that as a reason to discredit your argument."
You attacked the character rather than the argument. Indeed, thanks for playing.
"And speaking of fallacies, it looks like you are back to your current favorite: False Equivalence."
The argument I offer is an accurate assessment of the Radical Left and Radical Right, the Coalition of the Fringes. Both have their mouthpieces and lackeys, both are equally skilled at manipulation, both are equally adept at promoting an agenda through propaganda.
"White privelege"? "Diversity + proximity = war"? Give me a frickin' break.Replies: @res, @Charles Erwin Wilson
Except I specifically asked for: “Perhaps some examples of those which show a connection to the incident in question (or hate hoaxes/frauds in general)”
Any matching that?
FTFY. Thanks for playing.
BTW, way to self rebut by offering “both are equally adept at promoting an agenda through propaganda” as a response to my false equivalence statement.
I wasn't responding to your comment that requires me to make this link. No need to go down your rabbit hole. Let's focus on the task at hand, which is my response to this statement by another poster--“So lying, delusional thinking and false narratives are actually positive things. And much less hateful than the truth.”
What is truth? It certainly is not the hate hoaxers here using underhanded tactics to get what they want at St. Olaf. It also is not the Alt Right who has their own blend of "delusional thinking" and "false narratives". Once you accept this reality, this truth, it sets you free. That is the gist of my statement. There is no false equivalency here.
"FTFY. Thanks for playing."
No, res. You attacked the character rather than the argument with this particular statement--
“Indeed. I think you are winning. Well done.” It's ok to own it. Both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and Left Fringe scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Once you accept this reality, this truth, it sets you free. Again, there is no false equivalency here.
"BTW, way to self rebut by offering “both are equally adept at promoting an agenda through propaganda” as a response to my false equivalence statement."
The train is fine, the train is fine.Replies: @res
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself? Note that I do not necessary agree with all of his premises, but I am using him as a starting point.
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realismReplies: @res, @anon, @Peterike, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @David In TN, @Daniel Chieh
Thanks for the fun exercise. Hope you don’t mind if I jump in.
Corvinus:
Tim Wise:
Let’s start off with an ad hominem. What do you think, Corvinus, was that a fallacy or is he just dumping on his opponents like I was on you earlier. It’s nice of you to hold us to one standard in your request when Tim failed that standard in his third paragraph.
Since he then asserts: “I far and away believe that the four premises of the anti-hereditarian, anti-racialist position are much closer to the truth than those of the so-called racial realists.” lets take them one at a time.
1. Not sure what defines “not a scientifically valid category of human differentiation”, but in my world being able to differentiate races both forensically and genetically says otherwise.
2. The ~1SD (15 IQ points) difference in most intellectual tests between US blacks and whites is hardly meaningless.
3. Keep telling yourself that and maybe it will eventually be meaningful. For a more substantive response, perhaps we can talk about the success the US military has had with using an IQ-like test (the AFQT) for recruitment. Or the use of the SAT and ACT in college admissions.
4. Requires proof. Given that IQ is >50% heritable within whites and the frequencies of IQ SNPs found so far vary between races the likely result would be a non-zero genetic influence on between race differences in IQ.
Can someone please explain to me what Tim Wise has done here other than eviscerate his own arguments?
I guess if you get to make up definitions you can prove anything.
I think someone might need to update his knowledge of genetics.
I seem to remember mentioning something about IQ SNPs and differing racial frequencies. Tim Wise definitely needs to fast forward to the current year.
What an argument. Can I call this the “putting my fingers in my ears and shouting la la la” fallacy?
So if we don’t like what science says we should just ignore it? Thanks for being explicit about that, Tim. I wonder if he feels the same about AGW (where the science is less compelling IMHO).
But basing public policy on incorrectly assumed equality of all characteristics is required. Got it. Who is the arbiter of morality here? Tim Wise I guess. Got it.
Fair enough. But don’t tear down those at the top because you can’t deal with never being able to create equality. Let’s also be clear. Offering special programs for those at the top which cost less than programs offered to the others is not “favoring them.”
Really. So we are ignoring the research showing the correlation of IQ with outcomes (e.g. the SMPY and TIP)? Plus the AFQT mentioned earlier. And who says race realists fetishize intelligence? I think most also realize the importance of things like time discounting, aggressiveness, criminality, etc.
Sorry, I gave up at this point. Corvinus, how do you stand reading that dreck in detail?
Do you have any more fun for us? That one was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to which of Tim Wise’s premises you do and don’t agree with?
I love watching Marxists get their ass handed to them. Great comment.Replies: @Corvinus
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself? Note that I do not necessary agree with all of his premises, but I am using him as a starting point.
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realismReplies: @res, @anon, @Peterike, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @David In TN, @Daniel Chieh
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Sure, I guess. The “how” is mostly by talking crap on the internet. The “why” is because it is literally so obviously true to everyone that they have to spend millions of dollars and uncountable man-hours trying to convince people that it isn’t true.
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy?
If there are, I’ve never heard them.
Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Corvinus. Buddy. Pal. Every piece of evidence there IS shows that people of different races differ, on average, in many ways.
And the thing is? Literally EVERYBODY realizes that. Anyone who has ever talked to both large numbers of black people and large numbers of white people knows that white people are smarter, on average. They’re told that it’s mean to point this out, so they spend their time coming up with increasingly tortured ways to deny it, but in the end, nobody really believes it.
That’s why this is so fun. And so easy, really. It’s a bunch of arguments I can win because I am right.
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself?
He’s wrong. And he has to work really, really, really hard at what he’s doing because he’s so obviously wrong. He does these idiotic sophistic arguments that are like trying to prove water isn’t wet. The only people who believe him are people who are simply desperate to believe him, because they WANT for him to be right. But he isn’t.
And, despite what you may think, I have heard literally everything he said in that link many, many times before.
Like, for example. He says that “race” isn’t a “scientific category”. This doesn’t even mean anything. A “scientific category” is one that differs and can be studied scientifically. Like, you could do a scientific study on the differences between tall people and short people, if you wanted to. Now, you would have to have some cutoff point between “tall” and “short”, and that would, in the end, be somewhat arbitrary. But so what? It’s still a category you can use. It doesn’t mean that a 7-foot-tall person is the same as a 4-foot-tall person.
Scientists still argue about whether some species of birds and fish are really a separate species, or if they’re just parts of the same species. This does not mean that “species” is not a “scientific category”. The only kind of person who would tell you that it is is someone who, like Tim Wise, is trying to pull a fast one on you.
You were given the task of telling me how “race realism” is a “phantom” or a “hoax”. You haven’t even tried to do so, so can I take this as an admission that you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, and will now go away?
The different between you and res is that at least res is thinking things through without dismissing it wholesale. You are an ideologue.
"If there are, I’ve never heard them."
More like, "I've heard of them, but refuse to acknowledge them".
"Anyone who has ever talked to both large numbers of black people and large numbers of white people knows that white people are smarter, on average."
Of course that is a fact, but how a person had arrived at that fact, and what conclusions drawn from those facts are the issues here.
"He’s wrong. And he has to work really, really, really hard at what he’s doing because he’s so obviously wrong."
The more I think about it, the more you lack the intellectual chops to handle such a discussion. Again, at least res is able to muster up an analysis.
"Like, for example. He says that “race” isn’t a “scientific category”".
This is where I disagree with Mr. Wise. Race is a biological and social construct. There are differences between the races, like bone density and taste. Could it be possible, however, that these differences are the result of adaptation to environment? But race is a term created by human beings to describe a particular characteristic. It wasn't as if race was inherently known by people since the age of time. They had to associate a term with it. Could it be possible, however, that racial features were indeed noticed but not articulated until people developed language, and that these categories are now able to be studied using the scientific method?
But, are scientists merely using race to overstate or understate these differences? To what end?Replies: @anon
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself? Note that I do not necessary agree with all of his premises, but I am using him as a starting point.
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realismReplies: @res, @anon, @Peterike, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @David In TN, @Daniel Chieh
“Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? ”
And then you site Tim Wise as the ideological enemy? TIM WISE?
Un-freakin-believable.
I couldn’t help but wonder how on earth it was not flying off her head in that stiff wind.
And then you site Tim Wise as the ideological enemy? TIM WISE?
Un-freakin-believable.Replies: @res
Perhaps you can enlighten me on Tim Wise? I have largely escaped hearing from or about him, but from reading that link it’s easy to see he’s a true believer. The interesting question is whether or not he believes his arguments really are persuasive.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/tim-wise-hysterical-emotionally-incontinent-pudgeball-manlet/Replies: @res
I visited St. Olaf, Carleton and Macalester recently on college visits with my son. I always look at the books on the shelves in the student bookstores to evaluate the curriculum. St. Olaf by far had the largest selection of materials in history, religion, literature etc that I would consider part of the western canon. Included were also materials on the many religions, and peoples and languages of the world. There were your usual marxist, feminist, LGBT social justice materials. Most of this stuff is nonsense, but I don't mind it being covered, as part of a balanced education. Everybody can benefit from a critical analysis of Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations in the same semester. I also met a number of people in the classics department. Qualified, talented and most importantly, very good people. It seems the social justice warriors object to having an outlier institution like St. Olaf that has not been culturally cleansed, so the heat is on.
The campus at St. Olaf is small, but lovely. The physical plant was nicely planned and in good condition. The architecture was coherent and used lots of natural materials. It was not the jumble of hateful brutalist concrete you see at so many schools: and the choral program is out of this world. More notable was the high level of trust among the students. Students left all their book bags and computers in large metal racks prior to entering the dining hall. The hall itself was a large room with a high vaulted ceiling made of wooden beams, allowing a great deal of light.
Carleton had far fewer important works, but it was not a complete disaster, and Carleton did seem to take their hard sciences and mathematics seriously. The architecture of the school was less coherent, and not maintained in the tidy fashion of the Lutherans down the street and up the hill.
Macalester was truly horrific. There were practically no materials covering traditional history or viewpoints. The school has been culturally cleansed by the new church. The bookstore featured a number of publications written by the faculty. It was all social justice nonsense and the faculty appears to be infested with these types of people. I am unwilling to drop a cool $250k to have this tripe force fed to my child.
Right next door to the Macalester bookstore was a retail bookstore owned by none other that Garrison Keilor.
The next visit will be Hillsdale College. Hillsdale is half the price and twice the education.
Time for parents to vote with their feet.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Olorin, @Chrisnonymous
Macalester is Reed with ice and snow.
Carleton is Evergreen without the nice trees.
I wouldn’t send my daughters or sons to any of them.
St. O is pretty good, which is part of why this false flag racial mugging happened there (no goodness is allowed to remain on its own terms; it must bow the neck).
I’d heard good things about Wheaton (IL). Center-right evangelical friends sent their beautiful daughter there. She came back a rabid Obama voter.
Friend asked me about Finlandia U (formerly Suomi College). Not having thought about it in ages, I checked their Web site. It’s got black guys embracing blonde white women, black football guys, and a black guy in the center of a photo with a bunch of white kids around the edge.
IOW it’s looking as melanin-saturated as the international Sons of Norway site did the previous-to-last time I’d checked it and found it wallpapered with Africans. (Though I note that, at present, there is no melanin on it whatever. A hint of Flight from Blight? We shall see.)
Here’s my unasked-for advice:
Depending on your son’s inclinations and physical fitness, consider the Coast Guard Academy. Swab Summer’s tough, first year too…but after that, one of the best public school educations available and a career path to anywhere.
Btw, the CGA 2017 Commencement speaker will be President DJ Trump.
I’m hoping this means he’ll be announcing USCG icebreaker newbuilds.
The new Legend-class frigates are gorgeous; security cutter Munro was commissioned in Seattle last month, where Polar Sea and Polar Star are home-ported. These heavy icebreakers were built in the late ’70s, and Sea‘s role now is to donate her parts to Star. Sad. The neglect of the Coast Guard fleet has been abominable as trillions are spent on proliferating and wrangling/farming dolts.
For example, when Trump mentioned "last night in Sweden" the media treated it as false because apparently something specific did not happen on the previous specific night in Sweden. The fact events had occurred before, or that a little riot occurred a couple days later in no way validated Trump's main assertion that Sweden was having problems with mass immigration.Replies: @Ivy, @MW
Speaking of contrast, try a Google search, with quotes, for “with no evidence.” For me, 8 of the top 10 hits are Trump related.
What a remarkable monopoly that one man has on evidence-free claims!
It’s also almost always a lie … few claims have no evidence. They have a little evidence, bad evidence, insufficient evidence to support a confident conclusion. But rarely no evidence at all.
The contrast with the St. Olaf hoaxer … wait, what’s her name? Ah, Samantha Wells, there it is in paragraph 6. Well, best to protect the identity of the victim, I guess. Anyway, when she claimed, with no evidence … oh, I guess she had some evidence … it was fabricated, but it was still evidence …
Man, this propaganda stuff is exhausting.
I could have written that CBS article. We need a right-wing Onion style parody website that pre-empts such articles as this—mocking them twice: at their ridiculousness and their predictability.
I suggest the name Slaton.
The examples are numerous. They have been right in front of you on this fine blog. Jews control the world. Fake news. Old white people should die. Grrl powr. All memes with little substance. Phrases that evoke Pavlovian responses by their acolytes. Both focus on the least common denominator, the bottom of the brainstem.
"Well, the ad hominem fallacy is if I try to use that as a reason to discredit your argument."
You attacked the character rather than the argument. Indeed, thanks for playing.
"And speaking of fallacies, it looks like you are back to your current favorite: False Equivalence."
The argument I offer is an accurate assessment of the Radical Left and Radical Right, the Coalition of the Fringes. Both have their mouthpieces and lackeys, both are equally skilled at manipulation, both are equally adept at promoting an agenda through propaganda.
"White privelege"? "Diversity + proximity = war"? Give me a frickin' break.Replies: @res, @Charles Erwin Wilson
No. But their influence is disproportionate, cf. US Supreme Court, representation in the US Congress, occupation of the commanding heights of culture, etc.
Did you read the St. Olaf story? Or read any story that cites the ACLU or SPLC?
Ezekiel Emmanuel.
Christina Hoff Sommers
Wrong again Corvinus. But your consistency in being wrong is admirable for a Leftist.
I cited him once to watch certain people spin like tops. Now, if you are a follower of John Derbyshire, who by the same metrics is a professional hater, it confirms your status as a white dindu.
"No. But their influence is disproportionate, cf. US Supreme Court, representation in the US Congress, occupation of the commanding heights of culture, etc."
No, their influence is right where it ought to be through hard work and charm.
"Did you read the St. Olaf story?"
I must have since I made several comments here.
"Ezekiel Emmanuel"
No, Ezekiel Elliot.
"Christina Hoff Sommers"
No, Susanna Hoffs.
"Wrong again Corvinus. But your consistency in being wrong is admirable for a Leftist."
Moderate, not leftist. And those memes are indeed worthless. But if you want to wear them as merit badges, be my guest.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself? Note that I do not necessary agree with all of his premises, but I am using him as a starting point.
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realismReplies: @res, @anon, @Peterike, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @David In TN, @Daniel Chieh
Tim Wise is a professional hater. Your repeated citation of him confirms your status as a Black Numenorean.
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself? Note that I do not necessary agree with all of his premises, but I am using him as a starting point.
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realismReplies: @res, @anon, @Peterike, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @David In TN, @Daniel Chieh
A few years ago, Wise’s home address in Nashville, Tennessee was put on the internet. Out of curiosity, I drove by. Wise lived in a mansion. It was in one of the whitest areas of Nashville. There wasn’t a black person in sight.
A block and a turn away was a golf course. There were several elderly white men playing.
Cool story, bro. Doesn't mean anything. Are you jealous because he used his high IQ as a white man to earn money as a race baiter? Maybe that should be your career...a former musician turned author who peddles the Alt Right and his brand of science fiction books. You would make a killing.Replies: @David In TN
As we Calvinists start looking at college options as well, Hillsdale seems promising.Replies: @Chrisnonymous
It all depends.
If your kid is headed for a hard profession like engineering, just go for rigor.
If your kid is headed for soft sciences or humanities and is strong-minded, go for networking.
If your kid is not well-formed, then “education” is the rationale and a school like Hillsdale is good.
The reason I put education in quotation marks is that my experience is that 80% of real education is interacting with other students, not what the institution offers. So it behooves you to expose your kid to the most intelligent and strident students. Only if you think your kid is not strong to survive this Screwtape-like onslaught should you expose them to lesser minds.
I visited St. Olaf, Carleton and Macalester recently on college visits with my son. I always look at the books on the shelves in the student bookstores to evaluate the curriculum. St. Olaf by far had the largest selection of materials in history, religion, literature etc that I would consider part of the western canon. Included were also materials on the many religions, and peoples and languages of the world. There were your usual marxist, feminist, LGBT social justice materials. Most of this stuff is nonsense, but I don't mind it being covered, as part of a balanced education. Everybody can benefit from a critical analysis of Das Kapital and The Wealth of Nations in the same semester. I also met a number of people in the classics department. Qualified, talented and most importantly, very good people. It seems the social justice warriors object to having an outlier institution like St. Olaf that has not been culturally cleansed, so the heat is on.
The campus at St. Olaf is small, but lovely. The physical plant was nicely planned and in good condition. The architecture was coherent and used lots of natural materials. It was not the jumble of hateful brutalist concrete you see at so many schools: and the choral program is out of this world. More notable was the high level of trust among the students. Students left all their book bags and computers in large metal racks prior to entering the dining hall. The hall itself was a large room with a high vaulted ceiling made of wooden beams, allowing a great deal of light.
Carleton had far fewer important works, but it was not a complete disaster, and Carleton did seem to take their hard sciences and mathematics seriously. The architecture of the school was less coherent, and not maintained in the tidy fashion of the Lutherans down the street and up the hill.
Macalester was truly horrific. There were practically no materials covering traditional history or viewpoints. The school has been culturally cleansed by the new church. The bookstore featured a number of publications written by the faculty. It was all social justice nonsense and the faculty appears to be infested with these types of people. I am unwilling to drop a cool $250k to have this tripe force fed to my child.
Right next door to the Macalester bookstore was a retail bookstore owned by none other that Garrison Keilor.
The next visit will be Hillsdale College. Hillsdale is half the price and twice the education.
Time for parents to vote with their feet.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Olorin, @Chrisnonymous
I considered St. Olaf for its Old Icelandic language program. Eventually decided in favor of a better-known Latin program. Sometimes wonder what could have been, and definitely would rather be in academic Scandinavian studies now than what I’m doing…
“Except I specifically asked for: “Perhaps some examples of those which show a connection to the incident in question (or hate hoaxes/frauds in general)”
I wasn’t responding to your comment that requires me to make this link. No need to go down your rabbit hole. Let’s focus on the task at hand, which is my response to this statement by another poster–“So lying, delusional thinking and false narratives are actually positive things. And much less hateful than the truth.”
What is truth? It certainly is not the hate hoaxers here using underhanded tactics to get what they want at St. Olaf. It also is not the Alt Right who has their own blend of “delusional thinking” and “false narratives”. Once you accept this reality, this truth, it sets you free. That is the gist of my statement. There is no false equivalency here.
“FTFY. Thanks for playing.”
No, res. You attacked the character rather than the argument with this particular statement–
“Indeed. I think you are winning. Well done.” It’s ok to own it. Both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and Left Fringe scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Once you accept this reality, this truth, it sets you free. Again, there is no false equivalency here.
“BTW, way to self rebut by offering “both are equally adept at promoting an agenda through propaganda” as a response to my false equivalence statement.”
The train is fine, the train is fine.
But I'm repeating myself. I think we both have written enough about this for other people to draw correct conclusions. Cheers.Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @Corvinus
(((Tim Wise))) is a rabid, anti-white racist, of the worst order. Heartiste carved him up a number of times, especially on his sadly banned Twitter account. But here’s one instance. Read the comments too.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/tim-wise-hysterical-emotionally-incontinent-pudgeball-manlet/
One weird find was this comment: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/white-on-white-war/#comment-430644
Is that our Corvinus advocating violence against Tim Wise? What has changed over the last four years?
“The “why” is because it is literally so obviously true to everyone that they have to spend millions of dollars and uncountable man-hours trying to convince people that it isn’t true.”
The different between you and res is that at least res is thinking things through without dismissing it wholesale. You are an ideologue.
“If there are, I’ve never heard them.”
More like, “I’ve heard of them, but refuse to acknowledge them”.
“Anyone who has ever talked to both large numbers of black people and large numbers of white people knows that white people are smarter, on average.”
Of course that is a fact, but how a person had arrived at that fact, and what conclusions drawn from those facts are the issues here.
“He’s wrong. And he has to work really, really, really hard at what he’s doing because he’s so obviously wrong.”
The more I think about it, the more you lack the intellectual chops to handle such a discussion. Again, at least res is able to muster up an analysis.
“Like, for example. He says that “race” isn’t a “scientific category””.
This is where I disagree with Mr. Wise. Race is a biological and social construct. There are differences between the races, like bone density and taste. Could it be possible, however, that these differences are the result of adaptation to environment? But race is a term created by human beings to describe a particular characteristic. It wasn’t as if race was inherently known by people since the age of time. They had to associate a term with it. Could it be possible, however, that racial features were indeed noticed but not articulated until people developed language, and that these categories are now able to be studied using the scientific method?
But, are scientists merely using race to overstate or understate these differences? To what end?
Uh huh. You're dismissing wholesale the obvious fact that, all over the world, for centuries, people have understood that black people are less intelligent than others.
You think people just don't notice that they can't do as well in school? That they haven't produced much at all in terms of intellectual achievements, despite having plenty of time to do so?
Do you think they don't notice that, everywhere in the world you go, black people are always on the bottom of the intellectual food chain? Even in places where black people are in charge. Even in the places where there really aren't any other races around, they still don't produce any intellectual content.
They have noticed. And you know they have. You just refuse to admit it. And then you call ME an "ideologue", which is hilarious.
More like, “I’ve heard of them, but refuse to acknowledge them”.
Oh, I acknowledge that they've made them, sure. I even said so. They spend tons of money and all kinds of time trying to convince people that all human groups are equal in every way. I just admit that they are wrong, unlike you.
Of course that is a fact, but how a person had arrived at that fact, and what conclusions drawn from those facts are the issues here.
You arrive at that fact by opening your eyes and being honest. This is something you cannot do. The conclusion is that "race realism" is real and not a hoax.
The more I think about it, the more you lack the intellectual chops to handle such a discussion. Again, at least res is able to muster up an analysis.
Ooh. Good argument.
Could it be possible, however, that these differences are the result of adaptation to environment?
Yes. Of COURSE they are. Adaptation to the environment where they lived for thousands of years. This is why some people's brains don't work as well as others. They didn't evolve to.
It wasn’t as if race was inherently known by people since the age of time.
Yes it was, which is why humans evolved to instinctively trust their own race more than others.
Race is a biological and social construct.
You realize that you just ADMITTED that "race realism" is true, don't you? Why did you call it a hoax earlier? Is your IQ around 85 or so?Replies: @Corvinus
A block and a turn away was a golf course. There were several elderly white men playing.Replies: @Corvinus
“A few years ago, Wise’s home address in Nashville, Tennessee was put on the internet. Out of curiosity, I drove by. Wise lived in a mansion. It was in one of the whitest areas of Nashville. There wasn’t a black person in sight. A block and a turn away was a golf course. There were several elderly white men playing.”
Cool story, bro. Doesn’t mean anything. Are you jealous because he used his high IQ as a white man to earn money as a race baiter? Maybe that should be your career…a former musician turned author who peddles the Alt Right and his brand of science fiction books. You would make a killing.
Yes, Wise's choice of residence DOES mean something, as it proves him to be a typical leftist/liberal hypocrite. You're not jealous of someone you hold in utter contempt.
Every white liberal I've ever known (or heard of) who professes to be for multiculturalism, integration, diversity, etc, etc, lives in the whitest neighborhood they can find. No exceptions in my experience.Replies: @Corvinus
I wasn't responding to your comment that requires me to make this link. No need to go down your rabbit hole. Let's focus on the task at hand, which is my response to this statement by another poster--“So lying, delusional thinking and false narratives are actually positive things. And much less hateful than the truth.”
What is truth? It certainly is not the hate hoaxers here using underhanded tactics to get what they want at St. Olaf. It also is not the Alt Right who has their own blend of "delusional thinking" and "false narratives". Once you accept this reality, this truth, it sets you free. That is the gist of my statement. There is no false equivalency here.
"FTFY. Thanks for playing."
No, res. You attacked the character rather than the argument with this particular statement--
“Indeed. I think you are winning. Well done.” It's ok to own it. Both the Coalition of the Right Fringe and Left Fringe scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Once you accept this reality, this truth, it sets you free. Again, there is no false equivalency here.
"BTW, way to self rebut by offering “both are equally adept at promoting an agenda through propaganda” as a response to my false equivalence statement."
The train is fine, the train is fine.Replies: @res
No kidding (despite it literally being a reply to that comment). That is exactly why I am calling you out on it.
That is true. That is what made my statement an ad hominem (as I acknowledged earlier). What I did not do is use that as an attack on your argument (that was what the earlier part of the comment was for) which is what is required for it to be an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
But I’m repeating myself. I think we both have written enough about this for other people to draw correct conclusions. Cheers.
Because your request was not relevant to my original comment.
"That is true. That is what made my statement an ad hominem (as I acknowledged earlier). What I did not do is use that as an attack on your argument (that was what the earlier part of the comment was for) which is what is required for it to be an example of the ad hominem fallacy."
It seems you are saying that ad hominem and ad hominem fallacy are different. I'm not so sure there.
https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem
https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2011/09/15/what-is-an-ad-hominem-what-isnt/
"But I’m repeating myself. I think we both have written enough about this for other people to draw correct conclusions. Cheers."
Have you accepted reality, that being that the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Left Fringe both push their agendas by scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel? The truth will set you free.Replies: @Anon
The different between you and res is that at least res is thinking things through without dismissing it wholesale. You are an ideologue.
"If there are, I’ve never heard them."
More like, "I've heard of them, but refuse to acknowledge them".
"Anyone who has ever talked to both large numbers of black people and large numbers of white people knows that white people are smarter, on average."
Of course that is a fact, but how a person had arrived at that fact, and what conclusions drawn from those facts are the issues here.
"He’s wrong. And he has to work really, really, really hard at what he’s doing because he’s so obviously wrong."
The more I think about it, the more you lack the intellectual chops to handle such a discussion. Again, at least res is able to muster up an analysis.
"Like, for example. He says that “race” isn’t a “scientific category”".
This is where I disagree with Mr. Wise. Race is a biological and social construct. There are differences between the races, like bone density and taste. Could it be possible, however, that these differences are the result of adaptation to environment? But race is a term created by human beings to describe a particular characteristic. It wasn't as if race was inherently known by people since the age of time. They had to associate a term with it. Could it be possible, however, that racial features were indeed noticed but not articulated until people developed language, and that these categories are now able to be studied using the scientific method?
But, are scientists merely using race to overstate or understate these differences? To what end?Replies: @anon
The different between you and res is that at least res is thinking things through without dismissing it wholesale. You are an ideologue.
Uh huh. You’re dismissing wholesale the obvious fact that, all over the world, for centuries, people have understood that black people are less intelligent than others.
You think people just don’t notice that they can’t do as well in school? That they haven’t produced much at all in terms of intellectual achievements, despite having plenty of time to do so?
Do you think they don’t notice that, everywhere in the world you go, black people are always on the bottom of the intellectual food chain? Even in places where black people are in charge. Even in the places where there really aren’t any other races around, they still don’t produce any intellectual content.
They have noticed. And you know they have. You just refuse to admit it. And then you call ME an “ideologue”, which is hilarious.
More like, “I’ve heard of them, but refuse to acknowledge them”.
Oh, I acknowledge that they’ve made them, sure. I even said so. They spend tons of money and all kinds of time trying to convince people that all human groups are equal in every way. I just admit that they are wrong, unlike you.
Of course that is a fact, but how a person had arrived at that fact, and what conclusions drawn from those facts are the issues here.
You arrive at that fact by opening your eyes and being honest. This is something you cannot do. The conclusion is that “race realism” is real and not a hoax.
The more I think about it, the more you lack the intellectual chops to handle such a discussion. Again, at least res is able to muster up an analysis.
Ooh. Good argument.
Could it be possible, however, that these differences are the result of adaptation to environment?
Yes. Of COURSE they are. Adaptation to the environment where they lived for thousands of years. This is why some people’s brains don’t work as well as others. They didn’t evolve to.
It wasn’t as if race was inherently known by people since the age of time.
Yes it was, which is why humans evolved to instinctively trust their own race more than others.
Race is a biological and social construct.
You realize that you just ADMITTED that “race realism” is true, don’t you? Why did you call it a hoax earlier? Is your IQ around 85 or so?
Corrected for accuracy --> All over the world, for centuries people have looked at other people and viewed them through their own cultural lens as being more or less intelligence.
"You think people just don’t notice that they can’t do as well in school? That they haven’t produced much at all in terms of intellectual achievements, despite having plenty of time to do so?"
We already covered this ground. You were wrong.
"Do you think they don’t notice that, everywhere in the world you go, black people are always on the bottom of the intellectual food chain? Even in places where black people are in charge. Even in the places where there really aren’t any other races around, they still don’t produce any intellectual content."
Son, when you use the word "any" or "never", you open up yourself up to failure. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois come to mind as producing "intellectual content". Why do you repeatedly put yourself in these situations?
"They have noticed. And you know they have. You just refuse to admit it. And then you call ME an “ideologue”, which is hilarious."
You fit the description as an ideologue. Hate fact, I know.
"Yes. Of COURSE they are. Adaptation to the environment where they lived for thousands of years. This is why some people’s brains don’t work as well as others."
If the different races were found to have created civilizations, some more technologically advanced then others, then there brains worked fine.
"Yes it was, which is why humans evolved to instinctively trust their own race more than others."
Then why did southern slave masters fornicate with them darkies, even though it was considered a social faux pas? I thought race mixing was sinful. Moreover, why would Europeans bring over Africans as slaves to work on plantations? They must have trusted them as laborers. Finally, why is it that there are a significant number of interracial marriages today?
You're really not that bright.
"You realize that you just ADMITTED that “race realism” is true, don’t you? Why did you call it a hoax earlier? Is your IQ around 85 or so?"
Race realism is the view that biological (genetic) human races exist as opposed to considering races arbitrary social constructs.
Race realism takes little heed to environment.
Dear, try again.Replies: @The True and Original David, @anon
Nothing like a good lynch mob to get people unified.
CBS-style unity:
But I'm repeating myself. I think we both have written enough about this for other people to draw correct conclusions. Cheers.Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @Corvinus
“You get dirty, and the pig enjoys it”
But I'm repeating myself. I think we both have written enough about this for other people to draw correct conclusions. Cheers.Replies: @Anonymous Nephew, @Corvinus
“No kidding (despite it literally being a reply to that comment). That is exactly why I am calling you out on it.”
Because your request was not relevant to my original comment.
“That is true. That is what made my statement an ad hominem (as I acknowledged earlier). What I did not do is use that as an attack on your argument (that was what the earlier part of the comment was for) which is what is required for it to be an example of the ad hominem fallacy.”
It seems you are saying that ad hominem and ad hominem fallacy are different. I’m not so sure there.
https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem
https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2011/09/15/what-is-an-ad-hominem-what-isnt/
“But I’m repeating myself. I think we both have written enough about this for other people to draw correct conclusions. Cheers.”
Have you accepted reality, that being that the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Left Fringe both push their agendas by scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel? The truth will set you free.
What are you talking about?
Coalition of the 'Left Fringe' is the establishment. It is, for example, the bogus BLM pushed by NYT. It is elite universities shutting down free speech about reality of race and other things. It's about colleges pushing nonsensical Rape Culture narrative with full backing of Obama and other scum.
The worst thing about the 'Left Fringe' is it really turns smart people into idiots. Elite colleges surely draw in smart people with higher IQ and better test scores. So, these are smart people who are capable of thinking. But PC works on them, and their intelligence is rendered useless because their emotions have been 'born-gain' by a combination of neo-religion and fear. PC icons like MLK and holy homos are worshiped as sacred... and if anyone deviates from this sanctimony, he or she is shunned. Even intelligent people have emotions, and they too can be overcome with emotions of fear and faith. So, the sad thing about the 'left' is that it destroys so many smart people. They intelligence is made submissive to their emotions molded like putty by PC.
And then, there are sharks among the smart people too. These people do see through the PC, but they see it as useful for maintaining their power through heart-control that leads to mind-control. Get the heart first, and the mind will follow. If someone is made to go weepy-poo over MLK and the Magic Negro, his emotions will control his intelligence even if his mind, based on empirical evidence, says otherwise.
The sad thing about the 'Left' is that there is almost no difference between the smarties and dummies since both are under the same emotional control of PC. It's like in a church, it doesn't matter if one's smart or dumb. All of the faithful believe in God as common shared truth.
Because PC dominates the 'left'(and even Conservatism Inc) and since PC is essentially a form of sacro-emotional control with holy icons ready-made for mindless devotion, intelligence is rendered useless. Faith is the great equalizer, and PC is a faith.
Things are different on the Right and especially the Alt Right. The Right, in general, is more anti-PC than the 'left' is. Since PC is the reigning ideology of the West and because the Right is more immune to it, there is more intellectual freedom on the Right.
However, there are many on the Right who prefer the faith of religion. So, they shut their minds off and don't much think. This is especially true of Evangelicals. Also, there are craven careerists on the 'right', just like there is on the 'left', and these toadies will just go along with whatever comes out of think tanks funded by rich donors. So, you're not going to get much free thinking from the religious right and Conservatism Inc.
That leaves the Alt Right, independent Right, and 14/88. And this is where the difference between the 'left' and the Alt Right becomes apparent. The 'left', smart or dumb, must stick to the same PC faith, which is their neo-religion.
But there are fewer sacred cows on the Alt Right. Among some elements of Alt Right, there are no sacred cows. This means there is more freedom of thought, and this means the gap between smarties and dummies become much more apparent. The dummies gravitate to 14/88 elements whereas smarties reject that and raise questions that no one dares to raise.
So, intelligence has genuine value in the Alt Right in the way that it doesn't on the 'left'. 'Left' pulls in lots of smart people but train them not to ask certain questions and not to think about certain matters.
Now, I believe that there are more high-IQ people on the 'left' and 'progressivism'. After all, elite colleges have lots of high-IQ people who are mostly on the 'left'. But PC wastes their intelligence. It hampers them from thinking freely since PC prioritizes the Three Holies --mindless worship of Jews, homos, and Negroes -- above all else.
Now, what good is intelligence IF cannot think or speak freely? What good is a Galileo if he must say the sun revolves around the earth?
So, even if Alt Right has fewer high IQ people than the 'left' does, it puts intelligence to better use because it has freedom of thought. Also, because there are few or no sacred cows, smart Alt Right people can just piss on the Dumb Right. In contrast, since PC enforces shared faith among everyone on the 'left', even the smarties must show deference to the dummies, like morons of BLM or the fraudster at Olaf.
Alt Right doesn't have to respect the lies of 14/88 garbage. But even the smartest person on the 'left' must pretend that BLM and 'gay marriage' not only make sense but are holy.
Ok. Name one.
Cool story, bro. Doesn't mean anything. Are you jealous because he used his high IQ as a white man to earn money as a race baiter? Maybe that should be your career...a former musician turned author who peddles the Alt Right and his brand of science fiction books. You would make a killing.Replies: @David In TN
Your arguments are totally demolished. And you don’t know a thing about me.
Yes, Wise’s choice of residence DOES mean something, as it proves him to be a typical leftist/liberal hypocrite. You’re not jealous of someone you hold in utter contempt.
Every white liberal I’ve ever known (or heard of) who professes to be for multiculturalism, integration, diversity, etc, etc, lives in the whitest neighborhood they can find. No exceptions in my experience.
Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.
"Yes, Wise’s choice of residence DOES mean something, as it proves him to be a typical leftist/liberal hypocrite."
So a white leftist/liberal is a hypocrite because they don't live in black areas? That the ideas they champion are only meaningful if they reside in ghettos? That makes ZERO sense. That would saying that those who espouse Alt Right views must live among only white people, or must have married only those of Anglo descent, or must completely embrace race realism.
"Every white liberal I’ve ever known (or heard of) who professes to be for multiculturalism, integration, diversity, etc, etc, lives in the whitest neighborhood they can find. No exceptions in my experience."
Of course white liberals, like white conservatives, will live in nice neighborhoods that may be lily white. But that is because of their socioeconomic standing. But there are also white liberals AND conservatives who also live in areas where there are "vibrants". Are not these people exercising their right to freedom of association?Replies: @anon, @Anon
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/10/12/tim-wise-hysterical-emotionally-incontinent-pudgeball-manlet/Replies: @res
Thanks. Here he is coming under “friendly” fire: http://www.gradientlair.com/post/61521224722/i-dont-need-tim-wise-as-an-ally
One weird find was this comment: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/white-on-white-war/#comment-430644
Is that our Corvinus advocating violence against Tim Wise? What has changed over the last four years?
Yes, Wise's choice of residence DOES mean something, as it proves him to be a typical leftist/liberal hypocrite. You're not jealous of someone you hold in utter contempt.
Every white liberal I've ever known (or heard of) who professes to be for multiculturalism, integration, diversity, etc, etc, lives in the whitest neighborhood they can find. No exceptions in my experience.Replies: @Corvinus
“Your arguments are totally demolished. And you don’t know a thing about me.”
Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.
“Yes, Wise’s choice of residence DOES mean something, as it proves him to be a typical leftist/liberal hypocrite.”
So a white leftist/liberal is a hypocrite because they don’t live in black areas? That the ideas they champion are only meaningful if they reside in ghettos? That makes ZERO sense. That would saying that those who espouse Alt Right views must live among only white people, or must have married only those of Anglo descent, or must completely embrace race realism.
“Every white liberal I’ve ever known (or heard of) who professes to be for multiculturalism, integration, diversity, etc, etc, lives in the whitest neighborhood they can find. No exceptions in my experience.”
Of course white liberals, like white conservatives, will live in nice neighborhoods that may be lily white. But that is because of their socioeconomic standing. But there are also white liberals AND conservatives who also live in areas where there are “vibrants”. Are not these people exercising their right to freedom of association?
Of course they are. But the point is, they're making that choice for a reason.
Look, if I spent all my time talking about how great plain oatmeal is, and how much I love it and how everyone should eat it every day, and you then followed me around and spied on everything I ate, and you noticed that I never ate any oatmeal of any kind, you'd probably begin to doubt my sincerity re: oatmeal. Get it?Replies: @Corvinus
You're missing the point.
A white prog doesn't have to live with blacks or non-whites to be a 'nice liberal'. One can be tolerant of and good-willed toward other peoples even if one doesn't live with them.
But there is a racial reason why lots of non-blacks(and not just whites) prefer not to live with blacks. It is because blacks are more aggressive, tougher, and more dangerous. So, race-ism is truth since racial differences do exist.
Now, white race-ists understand why white progs and other non-blacks prefer not to live with blacks. They know the reality. So, white race-ists(people who believe in the reality of race) don't condemn other whites and non-blacks for not wanting to live with blacks.
In contrast, white progs are always bleating about how 'racist' it is that non-blacks choose not to integrate with blacks. Worse, they are hypocrites because their own actions aren't much different from those of white race-ists and other non-blacks. Some of the most self-segregated cities tend to be 'liberal' ones.
Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.
"Yes, Wise’s choice of residence DOES mean something, as it proves him to be a typical leftist/liberal hypocrite."
So a white leftist/liberal is a hypocrite because they don't live in black areas? That the ideas they champion are only meaningful if they reside in ghettos? That makes ZERO sense. That would saying that those who espouse Alt Right views must live among only white people, or must have married only those of Anglo descent, or must completely embrace race realism.
"Every white liberal I’ve ever known (or heard of) who professes to be for multiculturalism, integration, diversity, etc, etc, lives in the whitest neighborhood they can find. No exceptions in my experience."
Of course white liberals, like white conservatives, will live in nice neighborhoods that may be lily white. But that is because of their socioeconomic standing. But there are also white liberals AND conservatives who also live in areas where there are "vibrants". Are not these people exercising their right to freedom of association?Replies: @anon, @Anon
Are not these people exercising their right to freedom of association?
Of course they are. But the point is, they’re making that choice for a reason.
Look, if I spent all my time talking about how great plain oatmeal is, and how much I love it and how everyone should eat it every day, and you then followed me around and spied on everything I ate, and you noticed that I never ate any oatmeal of any kind, you’d probably begin to doubt my sincerity re: oatmeal. Get it?
Yes, for social status. Thanks for agreeing for once.
"Look, if I spent all my time talking about how great plain oatmeal is, and how much I love it and how everyone should eat it every day, and you then followed me around and spied on everything I ate, and you noticed that I never ate any oatmeal of any kind, you’d probably begin to doubt my sincerity re: oatmeal. Get it?"
Except the flaw in your logic is that liberals today have black friends, and white friends, and Asian friends, and Indian (feather, not dot) friends. Whites need not live next to "prove" their friendship.
You're not really that bright.Replies: @anon
“Diversity + proximity = war”
Still waiting for a reason why this is a crazy statement.
It’s conventional wisdom as well. Every history book contends it, from all points on the “non-fringe” political spectrum. For example, a key reason why globalists (left, right, and middle) oppose national identity is that it allegedly leads to war, with the two World Wars being the most recent and salient examples cited. One who denies that view may be more alt-right than he realizes.
Uh huh. You're dismissing wholesale the obvious fact that, all over the world, for centuries, people have understood that black people are less intelligent than others.
You think people just don't notice that they can't do as well in school? That they haven't produced much at all in terms of intellectual achievements, despite having plenty of time to do so?
Do you think they don't notice that, everywhere in the world you go, black people are always on the bottom of the intellectual food chain? Even in places where black people are in charge. Even in the places where there really aren't any other races around, they still don't produce any intellectual content.
They have noticed. And you know they have. You just refuse to admit it. And then you call ME an "ideologue", which is hilarious.
More like, “I’ve heard of them, but refuse to acknowledge them”.
Oh, I acknowledge that they've made them, sure. I even said so. They spend tons of money and all kinds of time trying to convince people that all human groups are equal in every way. I just admit that they are wrong, unlike you.
Of course that is a fact, but how a person had arrived at that fact, and what conclusions drawn from those facts are the issues here.
You arrive at that fact by opening your eyes and being honest. This is something you cannot do. The conclusion is that "race realism" is real and not a hoax.
The more I think about it, the more you lack the intellectual chops to handle such a discussion. Again, at least res is able to muster up an analysis.
Ooh. Good argument.
Could it be possible, however, that these differences are the result of adaptation to environment?
Yes. Of COURSE they are. Adaptation to the environment where they lived for thousands of years. This is why some people's brains don't work as well as others. They didn't evolve to.
It wasn’t as if race was inherently known by people since the age of time.
Yes it was, which is why humans evolved to instinctively trust their own race more than others.
Race is a biological and social construct.
You realize that you just ADMITTED that "race realism" is true, don't you? Why did you call it a hoax earlier? Is your IQ around 85 or so?Replies: @Corvinus
“Uh huh. You’re dismissing wholesale the obvious fact that, all over the world, for centuries people have understood that black people are less intelligent than others.”
Corrected for accuracy –> All over the world, for centuries people have looked at other people and viewed them through their own cultural lens as being more or less intelligence.
“You think people just don’t notice that they can’t do as well in school? That they haven’t produced much at all in terms of intellectual achievements, despite having plenty of time to do so?”
We already covered this ground. You were wrong.
“Do you think they don’t notice that, everywhere in the world you go, black people are always on the bottom of the intellectual food chain? Even in places where black people are in charge. Even in the places where there really aren’t any other races around, they still don’t produce any intellectual content.”
Son, when you use the word “any” or “never”, you open up yourself up to failure. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois come to mind as producing “intellectual content”. Why do you repeatedly put yourself in these situations?
“They have noticed. And you know they have. You just refuse to admit it. And then you call ME an “ideologue”, which is hilarious.”
You fit the description as an ideologue. Hate fact, I know.
“Yes. Of COURSE they are. Adaptation to the environment where they lived for thousands of years. This is why some people’s brains don’t work as well as others.”
If the different races were found to have created civilizations, some more technologically advanced then others, then there brains worked fine.
“Yes it was, which is why humans evolved to instinctively trust their own race more than others.”
Then why did southern slave masters fornicate with them darkies, even though it was considered a social faux pas? I thought race mixing was sinful. Moreover, why would Europeans bring over Africans as slaves to work on plantations? They must have trusted them as laborers. Finally, why is it that there are a significant number of interracial marriages today?
You’re really not that bright.
“You realize that you just ADMITTED that “race realism” is true, don’t you? Why did you call it a hoax earlier? Is your IQ around 85 or so?”
Race realism is the view that biological (genetic) human races exist as opposed to considering races arbitrary social constructs.
Race realism takes little heed to environment.
Dear, try again.
Found the pony.
Does it pay too little heed to environment, is a good question to ask.
I imagine that people here think that genetics has been slighted in recent eras.
The typical study on "nature v. nurture" comes out anywhere between 60/40 and 40/60. We don't often see Pareto's 80/20.
But race realists are the ones doing those studies (they must think their object of study is real). Few if any environmental realists do them. They seem to think it's all one way. It isn't.
Well, Corvinus, because I like to give you the opportunity to show that you are capable of arguing in good faith. See, you knew perfectly well what I meant, and if you had any evidence that I was wrong, you could have put it out there. But you didn't. Instead, you just focused on the "exact words" thing like Greg Brady on that one episode of the Brady Bunch. Why? I can only suppose that you don't actually have any evidence.If the different races were found to have created civilizations, some more technologically advanced then others, then there brains worked fine.Well, their brains work fine if they stay in those civilizations, sure. Black peoples' brains work fine for a civilization where all you do is eat bugs and throw sticks at each other. And if they want to do that, then more power to them! The problem is, they're here now. In a place where you have to be able to think at least a little bit to get by.I mean, it's like saying that a person who grew up in the desert is perfectly evolved. And he is, if he doesn't die. But then, if you put him down in the middle of a tundra, how long do you think he's going to survive? He's not evolved for THAT.Then why did southern slave masters fornicate with them darkies, even though it was considered a social faux pas?I don't know. Moonshine?Corvinus, if I have to explain to you why it is that a guy might have sex with a woman, when it really isn't a good idea to have sex with her, then your IQ is even lower than I thought. I thought race mixing was sinful.I guess they probably thought so. Most people think murder is sinful too, but people still kill each other all the time (especially black people, who are really violent and have very poor impulse control).Do you think that what you just did counts as "making a point" or something? Moreover, why would Europeans bring over Africans as slaves to work on plantations? They must have trusted them as laborers.Right, well. Prisons use convicts as laborers too. That doesn't mean that, in a general sense, they find criminals to be trustworthy.
Finally, why is it that there are a significant number of interracial marriages today?Because people can overcome their instincts. Like, your instincts tell you that you should eat all the fat and sugar you can, because you evolved in an environment where you needed all the calories you can get. But, somehow or other, there are people who are able to resist that temptation.You’re really not that bright.I realize that you simply mean that I cannot breakdance, so I plead guilty as charged.Race realism is the view that biological (genetic) human races exist as opposed to considering races arbitrary social constructs.Well, that's not really true. "Race" is a concept used to explain the biological fact that some people are more closely related to each other than they are to other groups. And you agreed with that. Non-race-realists pretend that there is no biological differences between races AT ALL.Or are you so dumb you already forgot what you said earlier?Dear, try again.Sisyphus-like, I will, because I know you're going to come back with some more incredibly stupid bullshit.Corvinus, do you remember that time I told you about how, when black people went onto HBD comments sections, all the stuff they said was SO DUMB they actually ended up making the people there think LESS about blacks? Have you considered whether or not continuing to come here is such a good idea?Replies: @Corvinus
Of course they are. But the point is, they're making that choice for a reason.
Look, if I spent all my time talking about how great plain oatmeal is, and how much I love it and how everyone should eat it every day, and you then followed me around and spied on everything I ate, and you noticed that I never ate any oatmeal of any kind, you'd probably begin to doubt my sincerity re: oatmeal. Get it?Replies: @Corvinus
“Of course they are. But the point is, they’re making that choice for a reason.”
Yes, for social status. Thanks for agreeing for once.
“Look, if I spent all my time talking about how great plain oatmeal is, and how much I love it and how everyone should eat it every day, and you then followed me around and spied on everything I ate, and you noticed that I never ate any oatmeal of any kind, you’d probably begin to doubt my sincerity re: oatmeal. Get it?”
Except the flaw in your logic is that liberals today have black friends, and white friends, and Asian friends, and Indian (feather, not dot) friends. Whites need not live next to “prove” their friendship.
You’re not really that bright.
The flaw in YOUR attempt at logic is that, based on all the evidence we have, Tim Wise actually DOESN'T have those kinds of friends. Prove that he does, if you can.Replies: @Corvinus
Disqualify, disqualify, disqualify.
"Yes, Wise’s choice of residence DOES mean something, as it proves him to be a typical leftist/liberal hypocrite."
So a white leftist/liberal is a hypocrite because they don't live in black areas? That the ideas they champion are only meaningful if they reside in ghettos? That makes ZERO sense. That would saying that those who espouse Alt Right views must live among only white people, or must have married only those of Anglo descent, or must completely embrace race realism.
"Every white liberal I’ve ever known (or heard of) who professes to be for multiculturalism, integration, diversity, etc, etc, lives in the whitest neighborhood they can find. No exceptions in my experience."
Of course white liberals, like white conservatives, will live in nice neighborhoods that may be lily white. But that is because of their socioeconomic standing. But there are also white liberals AND conservatives who also live in areas where there are "vibrants". Are not these people exercising their right to freedom of association?Replies: @anon, @Anon
“So a white leftist/liberal is a hypocrite because they don’t live in black areas? That the ideas they champion are only meaningful if they reside in ghettos? That makes ZERO sense. That would saying that those who espouse Alt Right views must live among only white people, or must have married only those of Anglo descent, or must completely embrace race realism.”
You’re missing the point.
A white prog doesn’t have to live with blacks or non-whites to be a ‘nice liberal’. One can be tolerant of and good-willed toward other peoples even if one doesn’t live with them.
But there is a racial reason why lots of non-blacks(and not just whites) prefer not to live with blacks. It is because blacks are more aggressive, tougher, and more dangerous. So, race-ism is truth since racial differences do exist.
Now, white race-ists understand why white progs and other non-blacks prefer not to live with blacks. They know the reality. So, white race-ists(people who believe in the reality of race) don’t condemn other whites and non-blacks for not wanting to live with blacks.
In contrast, white progs are always bleating about how ‘racist’ it is that non-blacks choose not to integrate with blacks. Worse, they are hypocrites because their own actions aren’t much different from those of white race-ists and other non-blacks. Some of the most self-segregated cities tend to be ‘liberal’ ones.
“Tim Wise is a professional hater. Your repeated citation of him confirms your status as a Black Numenorean.”
I cited him once to watch certain people spin like tops. Now, if you are a follower of John Derbyshire, who by the same metrics is a professional hater, it confirms your status as a white dindu.
“No. But their influence is disproportionate, cf. US Supreme Court, representation in the US Congress, occupation of the commanding heights of culture, etc.”
No, their influence is right where it ought to be through hard work and charm.
“Did you read the St. Olaf story?”
I must have since I made several comments here.
“Ezekiel Emmanuel”
No, Ezekiel Elliot.
“Christina Hoff Sommers”
No, Susanna Hoffs.
“Wrong again Corvinus. But your consistency in being wrong is admirable for a Leftist.”
Moderate, not leftist. And those memes are indeed worthless. But if you want to wear them as merit badges, be my guest.
You should raise your game.Replies: @Corvinus
Because your request was not relevant to my original comment.
"That is true. That is what made my statement an ad hominem (as I acknowledged earlier). What I did not do is use that as an attack on your argument (that was what the earlier part of the comment was for) which is what is required for it to be an example of the ad hominem fallacy."
It seems you are saying that ad hominem and ad hominem fallacy are different. I'm not so sure there.
https://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem
https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2011/09/15/what-is-an-ad-hominem-what-isnt/
"But I’m repeating myself. I think we both have written enough about this for other people to draw correct conclusions. Cheers."
Have you accepted reality, that being that the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Left Fringe both push their agendas by scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel? The truth will set you free.Replies: @Anon
“Have you accepted reality, that being that the Coalition of the Right Fringe and the Coalition of the Left Fringe both push their agendas by scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel?”
What are you talking about?
Coalition of the ‘Left Fringe’ is the establishment. It is, for example, the bogus BLM pushed by NYT. It is elite universities shutting down free speech about reality of race and other things. It’s about colleges pushing nonsensical Rape Culture narrative with full backing of Obama and other scum.
The worst thing about the ‘Left Fringe’ is it really turns smart people into idiots. Elite colleges surely draw in smart people with higher IQ and better test scores. So, these are smart people who are capable of thinking. But PC works on them, and their intelligence is rendered useless because their emotions have been ‘born-gain’ by a combination of neo-religion and fear. PC icons like MLK and holy homos are worshiped as sacred… and if anyone deviates from this sanctimony, he or she is shunned. Even intelligent people have emotions, and they too can be overcome with emotions of fear and faith. So, the sad thing about the ‘left’ is that it destroys so many smart people. They intelligence is made submissive to their emotions molded like putty by PC.
And then, there are sharks among the smart people too. These people do see through the PC, but they see it as useful for maintaining their power through heart-control that leads to mind-control. Get the heart first, and the mind will follow. If someone is made to go weepy-poo over MLK and the Magic Negro, his emotions will control his intelligence even if his mind, based on empirical evidence, says otherwise.
The sad thing about the ‘Left’ is that there is almost no difference between the smarties and dummies since both are under the same emotional control of PC. It’s like in a church, it doesn’t matter if one’s smart or dumb. All of the faithful believe in God as common shared truth.
Because PC dominates the ‘left'(and even Conservatism Inc) and since PC is essentially a form of sacro-emotional control with holy icons ready-made for mindless devotion, intelligence is rendered useless. Faith is the great equalizer, and PC is a faith.
Things are different on the Right and especially the Alt Right. The Right, in general, is more anti-PC than the ‘left’ is. Since PC is the reigning ideology of the West and because the Right is more immune to it, there is more intellectual freedom on the Right.
However, there are many on the Right who prefer the faith of religion. So, they shut their minds off and don’t much think. This is especially true of Evangelicals. Also, there are craven careerists on the ‘right’, just like there is on the ‘left’, and these toadies will just go along with whatever comes out of think tanks funded by rich donors. So, you’re not going to get much free thinking from the religious right and Conservatism Inc.
That leaves the Alt Right, independent Right, and 14/88. And this is where the difference between the ‘left’ and the Alt Right becomes apparent. The ‘left’, smart or dumb, must stick to the same PC faith, which is their neo-religion.
But there are fewer sacred cows on the Alt Right. Among some elements of Alt Right, there are no sacred cows. This means there is more freedom of thought, and this means the gap between smarties and dummies become much more apparent. The dummies gravitate to 14/88 elements whereas smarties reject that and raise questions that no one dares to raise.
So, intelligence has genuine value in the Alt Right in the way that it doesn’t on the ‘left’. ‘Left’ pulls in lots of smart people but train them not to ask certain questions and not to think about certain matters.
Now, I believe that there are more high-IQ people on the ‘left’ and ‘progressivism’. After all, elite colleges have lots of high-IQ people who are mostly on the ‘left’. But PC wastes their intelligence. It hampers them from thinking freely since PC prioritizes the Three Holies –mindless worship of Jews, homos, and Negroes — above all else.
Now, what good is intelligence IF cannot think or speak freely? What good is a Galileo if he must say the sun revolves around the earth?
So, even if Alt Right has fewer high IQ people than the ‘left’ does, it puts intelligence to better use because it has freedom of thought. Also, because there are few or no sacred cows, smart Alt Right people can just piss on the Dumb Right. In contrast, since PC enforces shared faith among everyone on the ‘left’, even the smarties must show deference to the dummies, like morons of BLM or the fraudster at Olaf.
Alt Right doesn’t have to respect the lies of 14/88 garbage. But even the smartest person on the ‘left’ must pretend that BLM and ‘gay marriage’ not only make sense but are holy.
Corrected for accuracy --> All over the world, for centuries people have looked at other people and viewed them through their own cultural lens as being more or less intelligence.
"You think people just don’t notice that they can’t do as well in school? That they haven’t produced much at all in terms of intellectual achievements, despite having plenty of time to do so?"
We already covered this ground. You were wrong.
"Do you think they don’t notice that, everywhere in the world you go, black people are always on the bottom of the intellectual food chain? Even in places where black people are in charge. Even in the places where there really aren’t any other races around, they still don’t produce any intellectual content."
Son, when you use the word "any" or "never", you open up yourself up to failure. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois come to mind as producing "intellectual content". Why do you repeatedly put yourself in these situations?
"They have noticed. And you know they have. You just refuse to admit it. And then you call ME an “ideologue”, which is hilarious."
You fit the description as an ideologue. Hate fact, I know.
"Yes. Of COURSE they are. Adaptation to the environment where they lived for thousands of years. This is why some people’s brains don’t work as well as others."
If the different races were found to have created civilizations, some more technologically advanced then others, then there brains worked fine.
"Yes it was, which is why humans evolved to instinctively trust their own race more than others."
Then why did southern slave masters fornicate with them darkies, even though it was considered a social faux pas? I thought race mixing was sinful. Moreover, why would Europeans bring over Africans as slaves to work on plantations? They must have trusted them as laborers. Finally, why is it that there are a significant number of interracial marriages today?
You're really not that bright.
"You realize that you just ADMITTED that “race realism” is true, don’t you? Why did you call it a hoax earlier? Is your IQ around 85 or so?"
Race realism is the view that biological (genetic) human races exist as opposed to considering races arbitrary social constructs.
Race realism takes little heed to environment.
Dear, try again.Replies: @The True and Original David, @anon
“Race realism takes little heed to environment.”
Found the pony.
Does it pay too little heed to environment, is a good question to ask.
I imagine that people here think that genetics has been slighted in recent eras.
The typical study on “nature v. nurture” comes out anywhere between 60/40 and 40/60. We don’t often see Pareto’s 80/20.
But race realists are the ones doing those studies (they must think their object of study is real). Few if any environmental realists do them. They seem to think it’s all one way. It isn’t.
Would be funnier if it weren’t so accurate.
Yes, for social status. Thanks for agreeing for once.
"Look, if I spent all my time talking about how great plain oatmeal is, and how much I love it and how everyone should eat it every day, and you then followed me around and spied on everything I ate, and you noticed that I never ate any oatmeal of any kind, you’d probably begin to doubt my sincerity re: oatmeal. Get it?"
Except the flaw in your logic is that liberals today have black friends, and white friends, and Asian friends, and Indian (feather, not dot) friends. Whites need not live next to "prove" their friendship.
You're not really that bright.Replies: @anon
Except the flaw in your logic is that liberals today have black friends, and white friends, and Asian friends, and Indian (feather, not dot) friends.
The flaw in YOUR attempt at logic is that, based on all the evidence we have, Tim Wise actually DOESN’T have those kinds of friends. Prove that he does, if you can.
All you have to do is go to his twitter page. You lose, again.
"And if you can find me anyone who ever looked at black people, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and ever said “Man, those black people sure do have a lot of cognitive power!”..."
You have a knack for making up hoops to jump through. Of course white people have looked at black people and referred to their intellectual abilities.
"But there is a racial reason why lots of non-blacks(and not just whites) prefer not to live with blacks."
In some cases, sure. In other cases, no.
"It is because blacks are more aggressive, tougher, and more dangerous."
Some blacks, absolutely.
"Now, white race-ists understand why white progs and other non-blacks prefer not to live with blacks. They know the reality."
You mean alter-reality.
"Some of the most self-segregated cities tend to be ‘liberal’ ones."
In large part due to socio-economic conditions.
"Coalition of the ‘Left Fringe’ is the establishment..."
No, it is not. It is separate from the establishment. Nice try.Replies: @anon
Darn. Ron changed the software so I can’t both LOL and Agree via the buttons. So Agree and LOL.
Corrected for accuracy --> All over the world, for centuries people have looked at other people and viewed them through their own cultural lens as being more or less intelligence.
"You think people just don’t notice that they can’t do as well in school? That they haven’t produced much at all in terms of intellectual achievements, despite having plenty of time to do so?"
We already covered this ground. You were wrong.
"Do you think they don’t notice that, everywhere in the world you go, black people are always on the bottom of the intellectual food chain? Even in places where black people are in charge. Even in the places where there really aren’t any other races around, they still don’t produce any intellectual content."
Son, when you use the word "any" or "never", you open up yourself up to failure. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois come to mind as producing "intellectual content". Why do you repeatedly put yourself in these situations?
"They have noticed. And you know they have. You just refuse to admit it. And then you call ME an “ideologue”, which is hilarious."
You fit the description as an ideologue. Hate fact, I know.
"Yes. Of COURSE they are. Adaptation to the environment where they lived for thousands of years. This is why some people’s brains don’t work as well as others."
If the different races were found to have created civilizations, some more technologically advanced then others, then there brains worked fine.
"Yes it was, which is why humans evolved to instinctively trust their own race more than others."
Then why did southern slave masters fornicate with them darkies, even though it was considered a social faux pas? I thought race mixing was sinful. Moreover, why would Europeans bring over Africans as slaves to work on plantations? They must have trusted them as laborers. Finally, why is it that there are a significant number of interracial marriages today?
You're really not that bright.
"You realize that you just ADMITTED that “race realism” is true, don’t you? Why did you call it a hoax earlier? Is your IQ around 85 or so?"
Race realism is the view that biological (genetic) human races exist as opposed to considering races arbitrary social constructs.
Race realism takes little heed to environment.
Dear, try again.Replies: @The True and Original David, @anon
Corrected for accuracy –> All over the world, for centuries people have looked at other people and viewed them through their own cultural lens as being more or less intelligence.
Well, Corvy, I suppose this could be true. Black people probably define “intelligence” as “the ability to breakdance”, which is why they are able to think of themselves as intelligent.
Of course, this really doesn’t change the fact that most societies have had words for what WE mean by “intelligence”, such as “cognitive efficiency” and “decision-making ability”. And if you can find me anyone who ever looked at black people, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and ever said “Man, those black people sure do have a lot of cognitive power!”, I would love to hear it.
But, you see. This is one of the ways you can tell that I am right. When I say things like “Black people are less intelligent than white people, on average.”, neither Tim Wise nor you nor anyone else ever tries to come up with evidence that I am actually WRONG. No, instead, you just play word games like “Well, there’s no such thing as a black person!” or “There’s no such thing as intelligence!”. Even though we both know what we mean by intelligence, and by “black person”. Your IQ is so low that you actually believe playing with the definitions of these things changes the actual facts.
If you had evidence I was wrong, you wouldn’t have to rely on this kind of crap.
We already covered this ground. You were wrong.
Hmm. Nope. ‘Fraid we didn’t. You mentioned one time about how smart South American Indians are because one of them found a bit of resin from a tree and put it into his mouth and chewed it (as a toddler might), thereby “inventing” chewing gum. But we never discussed black people or the fact that they are the ones with the least intellectual output in the world, with the possible exception of Australian aborigines.
Son, when you use the word “any” or “never”, you open up yourself up to failure. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois come to mind as producing “intellectual content”.
Well. Nothing either of them wrote is exactly Principia Mathematica, now is it?
Why do you repeatedly put yourself in these situations?
Well, Corvinus, because I like to give you the opportunity to show that you are capable of arguing in good faith. See, you knew perfectly well what I meant, and if you had any evidence that I was wrong, you could have put it out there. But you didn’t. Instead, you just focused on the “exact words” thing like Greg Brady on that one episode of the Brady Bunch. Why?
I can only suppose that you don’t actually have any evidence.
If the different races were found to have created civilizations, some more technologically advanced then others, then there brains worked fine.
Well, their brains work fine if they stay in those civilizations, sure. Black peoples’ brains work fine for a civilization where all you do is eat bugs and throw sticks at each other. And if they want to do that, then more power to them! The problem is, they’re here now. In a place where you have to be able to think at least a little bit to get by.
I mean, it’s like saying that a person who grew up in the desert is perfectly evolved. And he is, if he doesn’t die. But then, if you put him down in the middle of a tundra, how long do you think he’s going to survive? He’s not evolved for THAT.
Then why did southern slave masters fornicate with them darkies, even though it was considered a social faux pas?
I don’t know. Moonshine?
Corvinus, if I have to explain to you why it is that a guy might have sex with a woman, when it really isn’t a good idea to have sex with her, then your IQ is even lower than I thought.
I thought race mixing was sinful.
I guess they probably thought so. Most people think murder is sinful too, but people still kill each other all the time (especially black people, who are really violent and have very poor impulse control).
Do you think that what you just did counts as “making a point” or something?
Moreover, why would Europeans bring over Africans as slaves to work on plantations? They must have trusted them as laborers.
Right, well. Prisons use convicts as laborers too. That doesn’t mean that, in a general sense, they find criminals to be trustworthy.
Finally, why is it that there are a significant number of interracial marriages today?
Because people can overcome their instincts. Like, your instincts tell you that you should eat all the fat and sugar you can, because you evolved in an environment where you needed all the calories you can get. But, somehow or other, there are people who are able to resist that temptation.
You’re really not that bright.
I realize that you simply mean that I cannot breakdance, so I plead guilty as charged.
Race realism is the view that biological (genetic) human races exist as opposed to considering races arbitrary social constructs.
Well, that’s not really true. “Race” is a concept used to explain the biological fact that some people are more closely related to each other than they are to other groups. And you agreed with that.
Non-race-realists pretend that there is no biological differences between races AT ALL.
Or are you so dumb you already forgot what you said earlier?
Dear, try again.
Sisyphus-like, I will, because I know you’re going to come back with some more incredibly stupid bullshit.
Corvinus, do you remember that time I told you about how, when black people went onto HBD comments sections, all the stuff they said was SO DUMB they actually ended up making the people there think LESS about blacks? Have you considered whether or not continuing to come here is such a good idea?
We broached the topic.
https://www.unz.com/imercer/africa-bcac-before-and-after-colonialism/#comment-1817311
"Well, their brains work fine if they stay in those civilizations, sure."
They are here because greedy white people sought their labor. Regardless, the darkies aren't going to leave the United States.
"Black peoples’ brains work fine for a civilization where all you do is eat bugs and throw sticks at each other. And if they want to do that, then more power to them! The problem is, they’re here now."
You watched too many Johnny Weissmuller movies.
"I don’t know. Moonshine?"
No, low impulse control by white slave masters. Genetics.
"Corvinus, if I have to explain to you why it is that a guy might have sex with a woman, when it really isn’t a good idea to have sex with her..."
False equivalence. This situation refers to a one-to-one relationship. You had implied that it is other than desirable for white men, as a group, to have sexual relations with black women, as a group, because you assume that it is not a good idea.
"Because people can overcome their instincts."
The instinct is for men and women to procreate. The conscious decision is who to procreate with. The choice involves whether or not to procreate within one's race or outside one's race.
I have a hunch that your daughter made the choice to have children with dindunuffins and that is why you are bitter.
"“Race” is a concept used to explain the biological fact that some people are more closely related to each other than they are to other groups."
Because people labeled different skin tones. Biological facts do not exist in and of themselves. Humans had to perceive their environment and make distinctions. Thus, they developed ways of communicating what they saw by offering descriptions to certain phenomenon. "Race" didn't just appear magically to people's consciousness--"Oh, that's a black man. Look, there's an Oriental". Humans generated markers for themselves, with these markers eventually becoming commonplace and common knowledge. You do realize this fact, right?
"Non-race-realists pretend that there is no biological differences between races AT ALL."
Some, yes. But remember that a number of race realists downplay environmental effects.
"Corvinus, do you remember that time I told you about how, when black people went onto HBD comments sections, all the stuff they said was SO DUMB they actually ended up making the people there think LESS about blacks?"
Yes, and I told you that you have to say those things to make yourself appear smarter and feel good about yourself.
Again, you're not that bright.Replies: @anon
Corvinus:Tim Wise:Let's start off with an ad hominem. What do you think, Corvinus, was that a fallacy or is he just dumping on his opponents like I was on you earlier. It's nice of you to hold us to one standard in your request when Tim failed that standard in his third paragraph.Since he then asserts: "I far and away believe that the four premises of the anti-hereditarian, anti-racialist position are much closer to the truth than those of the so-called racial realists." lets take them one at a time.
1. Not sure what defines "not a scientifically valid category of human differentiation", but in my world being able to differentiate races both forensically and genetically says otherwise.
2. The ~1SD (15 IQ points) difference in most intellectual tests between US blacks and whites is hardly meaningless.
3. Keep telling yourself that and maybe it will eventually be meaningful. For a more substantive response, perhaps we can talk about the success the US military has had with using an IQ-like test (the AFQT) for recruitment. Or the use of the SAT and ACT in college admissions.
4. Requires proof. Given that IQ is >50% heritable within whites and the frequencies of IQ SNPs found so far vary between races the likely result would be a non-zero genetic influence on between race differences in IQ.Can someone please explain to me what Tim Wise has done here other than eviscerate his own arguments?I guess if you get to make up definitions you can prove anything.I think someone might need to update his knowledge of genetics.I seem to remember mentioning something about IQ SNPs and differing racial frequencies. Tim Wise definitely needs to fast forward to the current year.What an argument. Can I call this the "putting my fingers in my ears and shouting la la la" fallacy?So if we don't like what science says we should just ignore it? Thanks for being explicit about that, Tim. I wonder if he feels the same about AGW (where the science is less compelling IMHO).But basing public policy on incorrectly assumed equality of all characteristics is required. Got it. Who is the arbiter of morality here? Tim Wise I guess. Got it.Fair enough. But don't tear down those at the top because you can't deal with never being able to create equality. Let's also be clear. Offering special programs for those at the top which cost less than programs offered to the others is not "favoring them."Really. So we are ignoring the research showing the correlation of IQ with outcomes (e.g. the SMPY and TIP)? Plus the AFQT mentioned earlier. And who says race realists fetishize intelligence? I think most also realize the importance of things like time discounting, aggressiveness, criminality, etc.
Sorry, I gave up at this point. Corvinus, how do you stand reading that dreck in detail?
Do you have any more fun for us? That one was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to which of Tim Wise's premises you do and don't agree with?Replies: @RaceRealist88
You should shoot Mr. Tim Wise an email of your comment.
I love watching Marxists get their ass handed to them. Great comment.
I wouldn't talk. You peddle absolute drivel called r/k selection theory.
They are holy, so even when they do wrong, it must be spun in ways that blames everything but them.
Remember David Schraub? The Jewish guy who pulled that stunt to defame whites and Christians is an 'anti-Semite'. And ADL adds those incidents on list of 'antisemitism'.
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/228149/yes-the-jew-who-called-in-bomb-threats-was-anti-semiticReplies: @anonymous
It’s never the fault of the “victim.”
I cited him once to watch certain people spin like tops. Now, if you are a follower of John Derbyshire, who by the same metrics is a professional hater, it confirms your status as a white dindu.
"No. But their influence is disproportionate, cf. US Supreme Court, representation in the US Congress, occupation of the commanding heights of culture, etc."
No, their influence is right where it ought to be through hard work and charm.
"Did you read the St. Olaf story?"
I must have since I made several comments here.
"Ezekiel Emmanuel"
No, Ezekiel Elliot.
"Christina Hoff Sommers"
No, Susanna Hoffs.
"Wrong again Corvinus. But your consistency in being wrong is admirable for a Leftist."
Moderate, not leftist. And those memes are indeed worthless. But if you want to wear them as merit badges, be my guest.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
That is pathetic Corvinus. I am pleased you post here. Really I am. Because you are a hard-working Leftist, repeatedly offering absurd propositions no one with a sense of justice, fairness or honesty would accept. But you don’t have the reflexive, regurgitative, and idiotic tic of an imbecile like Tiny Duck. Still, you must admit that your response isn’t worthy of your intelligence, your wit and your service to the all-seeing Eye.
You should raise your game.
So, to you, only those people who take umbrage to my positions possess those traits? Wow, just wow. Talk about absurd.Replies: @anon
The flaw in YOUR attempt at logic is that, based on all the evidence we have, Tim Wise actually DOESN'T have those kinds of friends. Prove that he does, if you can.Replies: @Corvinus
“Tim Wise actually DOESN’T have those kinds of friends. Prove that he does, if you can.”
All you have to do is go to his twitter page. You lose, again.
“And if you can find me anyone who ever looked at black people, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and ever said “Man, those black people sure do have a lot of cognitive power!”…”
You have a knack for making up hoops to jump through. Of course white people have looked at black people and referred to their intellectual abilities.
“But there is a racial reason why lots of non-blacks(and not just whites) prefer not to live with blacks.”
In some cases, sure. In other cases, no.
“It is because blacks are more aggressive, tougher, and more dangerous.”
Some blacks, absolutely.
“Now, white race-ists understand why white progs and other non-blacks prefer not to live with blacks. They know the reality.”
You mean alter-reality.
“Some of the most self-segregated cities tend to be ‘liberal’ ones.”
In large part due to socio-economic conditions.
“Coalition of the ‘Left Fringe’ is the establishment…”
No, it is not. It is separate from the establishment. Nice try.
And, if you had looked at my most recent Twitter account before it was shut down, you'd see that I was friends with Lady Miss Kier from Deee-lite. Want to see if your 85 IQ can find the flaw in that statement?
Of course white people have looked at black people and referred to their intellectual abilities.
Yes, of course they have. Just not really positively, overall. If you can find me a group of whites or Asians ever being really impressed with black cognitive ability, I'm all ears.
No, it is not. It is separate from the establishment.
Yeah, right. That's why the establishment media is so hesitant to promote these hate hoaxes.
You should raise your game.Replies: @Corvinus
“Because you are a hard-working Leftist, repeatedly offering absurd propositions no one with a sense of justice, fairness or honesty would accept.”
So, to you, only those people who take umbrage to my positions possess those traits? Wow, just wow. Talk about absurd.
See, he thinks you have the brainpower to know better than to say something so egregiously dumb. I, on the other hand, know the truth.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
Well, Corvinus, because I like to give you the opportunity to show that you are capable of arguing in good faith. See, you knew perfectly well what I meant, and if you had any evidence that I was wrong, you could have put it out there. But you didn't. Instead, you just focused on the "exact words" thing like Greg Brady on that one episode of the Brady Bunch. Why? I can only suppose that you don't actually have any evidence.If the different races were found to have created civilizations, some more technologically advanced then others, then there brains worked fine.Well, their brains work fine if they stay in those civilizations, sure. Black peoples' brains work fine for a civilization where all you do is eat bugs and throw sticks at each other. And if they want to do that, then more power to them! The problem is, they're here now. In a place where you have to be able to think at least a little bit to get by.I mean, it's like saying that a person who grew up in the desert is perfectly evolved. And he is, if he doesn't die. But then, if you put him down in the middle of a tundra, how long do you think he's going to survive? He's not evolved for THAT.Then why did southern slave masters fornicate with them darkies, even though it was considered a social faux pas?I don't know. Moonshine?Corvinus, if I have to explain to you why it is that a guy might have sex with a woman, when it really isn't a good idea to have sex with her, then your IQ is even lower than I thought. I thought race mixing was sinful.I guess they probably thought so. Most people think murder is sinful too, but people still kill each other all the time (especially black people, who are really violent and have very poor impulse control).Do you think that what you just did counts as "making a point" or something? Moreover, why would Europeans bring over Africans as slaves to work on plantations? They must have trusted them as laborers.Right, well. Prisons use convicts as laborers too. That doesn't mean that, in a general sense, they find criminals to be trustworthy.
Finally, why is it that there are a significant number of interracial marriages today?Because people can overcome their instincts. Like, your instincts tell you that you should eat all the fat and sugar you can, because you evolved in an environment where you needed all the calories you can get. But, somehow or other, there are people who are able to resist that temptation.You’re really not that bright.I realize that you simply mean that I cannot breakdance, so I plead guilty as charged.Race realism is the view that biological (genetic) human races exist as opposed to considering races arbitrary social constructs.Well, that's not really true. "Race" is a concept used to explain the biological fact that some people are more closely related to each other than they are to other groups. And you agreed with that. Non-race-realists pretend that there is no biological differences between races AT ALL.Or are you so dumb you already forgot what you said earlier?Dear, try again.Sisyphus-like, I will, because I know you're going to come back with some more incredibly stupid bullshit.Corvinus, do you remember that time I told you about how, when black people went onto HBD comments sections, all the stuff they said was SO DUMB they actually ended up making the people there think LESS about blacks? Have you considered whether or not continuing to come here is such a good idea?Replies: @Corvinus
“But we never discussed black people or the fact that they are the ones with the least intellectual output in the world, with the possible exception of Australian aborigines.”
We broached the topic.
https://www.unz.com/imercer/africa-bcac-before-and-after-colonialism/#comment-1817311
“Well, their brains work fine if they stay in those civilizations, sure.”
They are here because greedy white people sought their labor. Regardless, the darkies aren’t going to leave the United States.
“Black peoples’ brains work fine for a civilization where all you do is eat bugs and throw sticks at each other. And if they want to do that, then more power to them! The problem is, they’re here now.”
You watched too many Johnny Weissmuller movies.
“I don’t know. Moonshine?”
No, low impulse control by white slave masters. Genetics.
“Corvinus, if I have to explain to you why it is that a guy might have sex with a woman, when it really isn’t a good idea to have sex with her…”
False equivalence. This situation refers to a one-to-one relationship. You had implied that it is other than desirable for white men, as a group, to have sexual relations with black women, as a group, because you assume that it is not a good idea.
“Because people can overcome their instincts.”
The instinct is for men and women to procreate. The conscious decision is who to procreate with. The choice involves whether or not to procreate within one’s race or outside one’s race.
I have a hunch that your daughter made the choice to have children with dindunuffins and that is why you are bitter.
““Race” is a concept used to explain the biological fact that some people are more closely related to each other than they are to other groups.”
Because people labeled different skin tones. Biological facts do not exist in and of themselves. Humans had to perceive their environment and make distinctions. Thus, they developed ways of communicating what they saw by offering descriptions to certain phenomenon. “Race” didn’t just appear magically to people’s consciousness–“Oh, that’s a black man. Look, there’s an Oriental”. Humans generated markers for themselves, with these markers eventually becoming commonplace and common knowledge. You do realize this fact, right?
“Non-race-realists pretend that there is no biological differences between races AT ALL.”
Some, yes. But remember that a number of race realists downplay environmental effects.
“Corvinus, do you remember that time I told you about how, when black people went onto HBD comments sections, all the stuff they said was SO DUMB they actually ended up making the people there think LESS about blacks?”
Yes, and I told you that you have to say those things to make yourself appear smarter and feel good about yourself.
Again, you’re not that bright.
That wasn't me. My "a" is lower-case.
Regardless, the darkies aren’t going to leave the United States.
Yeah, I know they're not. You know why that is? Because as much as they pretend to be "oppressed", they know they're better off here, with white people to take care of them, than they would be on their own.
You watched too many Johnny Weissmuller movies.
You read too many "We Wuz Kangs" websites.
False equivalence. This situation refers to a one-to-one relationship. You had implied that it is other than desirable for white men, as a group, to have sexual relations with black women, as a group, because you assume that it is not a good idea.
Well, I had assumed that it wouldn't be considered a good idea by the slave women themselves. But that isn't really the point. You were claiming that, because white men sometimes had sex with black women, there must not be an instinctual desire to stay with your own group. This ignores basically all observable knowledge about men, and how sometimes their penises desire things that their higher cognition doesn't.
The instinct is for men and women to procreate. The conscious decision is who to procreate with. The choice involves whether or not to procreate within one’s race or outside one’s race.
I have a hunch that your daughter made the choice to have children with dindunuffins and that is why you are bitter.
This is all very fascinating, but do you have any actual arguments to make about how I was wrong?
Biological facts do not exist in and of themselves.
Now you're just being stupid.
“Race” didn’t just appear magically to people’s consciousness–”Oh, that’s a black man. Look, there’s an Oriental”.
Sure they did. Babies can tell people apart by race.
Some, yes. But remember that a number of race realists downplay environmental effects.
According to you, who pretends that all races are of equal intelligence, that's true. But you have never provided any evidence of this claim. Nobody has.
Yes, and I told you that you have to say those things to make yourself appear smarter and feel good about yourself.
Actually, I don't feel that good about it. I mean, beating up on you is fun for awhile. But eventually, it feels like picking on a kid with a disability.
I liked the unspoken agreement we used to have with blacks when I was younger. We'll quit pointing out your flaws, and you quit blaming us for everything you fail at.
Well, blacks didn't hold up their end of the bargain. They keep claimingnwe oppress them, when the obvious evidence is that we actually HELP black people have decent lives. What are we supposed to do? We can't MAKE them be our equals. There's just no way. So, all we can do is just point out to them that it's not our fault they're not as successful as we are. They were born this way.
Again, you’re not that bright.
Again, you're using the black definition of "bright", which means I'm not good at basketball or something. I really don't care about that.Replies: @Corvinus, @res
I love watching Marxists get their ass handed to them. Great comment.Replies: @Corvinus
“I love watching Marxists get their ass handed to them. Great comment.”
I wouldn’t talk. You peddle absolute drivel called r/k selection theory.
All you have to do is go to his twitter page. You lose, again.
"And if you can find me anyone who ever looked at black people, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, and ever said “Man, those black people sure do have a lot of cognitive power!”..."
You have a knack for making up hoops to jump through. Of course white people have looked at black people and referred to their intellectual abilities.
"But there is a racial reason why lots of non-blacks(and not just whites) prefer not to live with blacks."
In some cases, sure. In other cases, no.
"It is because blacks are more aggressive, tougher, and more dangerous."
Some blacks, absolutely.
"Now, white race-ists understand why white progs and other non-blacks prefer not to live with blacks. They know the reality."
You mean alter-reality.
"Some of the most self-segregated cities tend to be ‘liberal’ ones."
In large part due to socio-economic conditions.
"Coalition of the ‘Left Fringe’ is the establishment..."
No, it is not. It is separate from the establishment. Nice try.Replies: @anon
All you have to do is go to his twitter page. You lose, again.
And, if you had looked at my most recent Twitter account before it was shut down, you’d see that I was friends with Lady Miss Kier from Deee-lite. Want to see if your 85 IQ can find the flaw in that statement?
Of course white people have looked at black people and referred to their intellectual abilities.
Yes, of course they have. Just not really positively, overall. If you can find me a group of whites or Asians ever being really impressed with black cognitive ability, I’m all ears.
No, it is not. It is separate from the establishment.
Yeah, right. That’s why the establishment media is so hesitant to promote these hate hoaxes.
We broached the topic.
https://www.unz.com/imercer/africa-bcac-before-and-after-colonialism/#comment-1817311
"Well, their brains work fine if they stay in those civilizations, sure."
They are here because greedy white people sought their labor. Regardless, the darkies aren't going to leave the United States.
"Black peoples’ brains work fine for a civilization where all you do is eat bugs and throw sticks at each other. And if they want to do that, then more power to them! The problem is, they’re here now."
You watched too many Johnny Weissmuller movies.
"I don’t know. Moonshine?"
No, low impulse control by white slave masters. Genetics.
"Corvinus, if I have to explain to you why it is that a guy might have sex with a woman, when it really isn’t a good idea to have sex with her..."
False equivalence. This situation refers to a one-to-one relationship. You had implied that it is other than desirable for white men, as a group, to have sexual relations with black women, as a group, because you assume that it is not a good idea.
"Because people can overcome their instincts."
The instinct is for men and women to procreate. The conscious decision is who to procreate with. The choice involves whether or not to procreate within one's race or outside one's race.
I have a hunch that your daughter made the choice to have children with dindunuffins and that is why you are bitter.
"“Race” is a concept used to explain the biological fact that some people are more closely related to each other than they are to other groups."
Because people labeled different skin tones. Biological facts do not exist in and of themselves. Humans had to perceive their environment and make distinctions. Thus, they developed ways of communicating what they saw by offering descriptions to certain phenomenon. "Race" didn't just appear magically to people's consciousness--"Oh, that's a black man. Look, there's an Oriental". Humans generated markers for themselves, with these markers eventually becoming commonplace and common knowledge. You do realize this fact, right?
"Non-race-realists pretend that there is no biological differences between races AT ALL."
Some, yes. But remember that a number of race realists downplay environmental effects.
"Corvinus, do you remember that time I told you about how, when black people went onto HBD comments sections, all the stuff they said was SO DUMB they actually ended up making the people there think LESS about blacks?"
Yes, and I told you that you have to say those things to make yourself appear smarter and feel good about yourself.
Again, you're not that bright.Replies: @anon
We broached the topic.
That wasn’t me. My “a” is lower-case.
Regardless, the darkies aren’t going to leave the United States.
Yeah, I know they’re not. You know why that is? Because as much as they pretend to be “oppressed”, they know they’re better off here, with white people to take care of them, than they would be on their own.
You watched too many Johnny Weissmuller movies.
You read too many “We Wuz Kangs” websites.
False equivalence. This situation refers to a one-to-one relationship. You had implied that it is other than desirable for white men, as a group, to have sexual relations with black women, as a group, because you assume that it is not a good idea.
Well, I had assumed that it wouldn’t be considered a good idea by the slave women themselves. But that isn’t really the point. You were claiming that, because white men sometimes had sex with black women, there must not be an instinctual desire to stay with your own group. This ignores basically all observable knowledge about men, and how sometimes their penises desire things that their higher cognition doesn’t.
The instinct is for men and women to procreate. The conscious decision is who to procreate with. The choice involves whether or not to procreate within one’s race or outside one’s race.
I have a hunch that your daughter made the choice to have children with dindunuffins and that is why you are bitter.
This is all very fascinating, but do you have any actual arguments to make about how I was wrong?
Biological facts do not exist in and of themselves.
Now you’re just being stupid.
“Race” didn’t just appear magically to people’s consciousness–”Oh, that’s a black man. Look, there’s an Oriental”.
Sure they did. Babies can tell people apart by race.
Some, yes. But remember that a number of race realists downplay environmental effects.
According to you, who pretends that all races are of equal intelligence, that’s true. But you have never provided any evidence of this claim. Nobody has.
Yes, and I told you that you have to say those things to make yourself appear smarter and feel good about yourself.
Actually, I don’t feel that good about it. I mean, beating up on you is fun for awhile. But eventually, it feels like picking on a kid with a disability.
I liked the unspoken agreement we used to have with blacks when I was younger. We’ll quit pointing out your flaws, and you quit blaming us for everything you fail at.
Well, blacks didn’t hold up their end of the bargain. They keep claimingnwe oppress them, when the obvious evidence is that we actually HELP black people have decent lives. What are we supposed to do? We can’t MAKE them be our equals. There’s just no way. So, all we can do is just point out to them that it’s not our fault they’re not as successful as we are. They were born this way.
Again, you’re not that bright.
Again, you’re using the black definition of “bright”, which means I’m not good at basketball or something. I really don’t care about that.
No, it's you. You have a sockpuppet. You are Anon -and- anon.
"You were claiming that, because white men sometimes had sex with black women, there must not be an instinctual desire to stay with your own group. This ignores basically all observable knowledge about men and how sometimes their penises desire things that their higher cognition doesn’t."
The truth is men will have sex with women. They care not about the race. That is the higher cognition in action. They know exactly what they are doing. There is no "instinct" here to remain in their group.
"Sure they did. Babies can tell people apart by race."
Infants used basic distinctions, including race, to start to cleave the world apart by groups of what they are and aren’t a part of. But again, the designation of "black, brown, red, and yellow" was assigned directly by humans. Babies do NOT know the specific name for that race, they merely see a color, which had been given a name by people. Remember, people created concepts; the concepts were not self-evident. In other words, a man a million years ago when walking through a forest said "Look, a tree". No, he described its characteristics and, over time, generated a label for it. In a similar fashion, different groups came into contact with one another, delineated their features, and came up with a name representative of those traits.
"But eventually, it feels like picking on a kid with a disability."
And that is why you are a savage if indeed you lack any remorse and keep "picking" on me. Lower than any non-white in this regard. But you keep telling yourself that you are Charlie Sheen "winning", Stuart Smalley!
"So, all we can do is just point out to them that it’s not our fault they’re not as successful as we are. They were born this way."
You just admitted that you keep "picking" on "lesser" people. Again, that would make a savage and other than successful. You were born that way. Again, you're just not that bright.Replies: @anon
1. If the kid was running around with a hammer whacking people on the shins with it.
2. I'm pretty sure it's more shtick than stupid.
P.S. Corvinus' comments are much more fun to read if you make the assumption they are entirely projection. Not completely accurate of course, but I suspect that uncovers kernels of truth sometimes.
So, to you, only those people who take umbrage to my positions possess those traits? Wow, just wow. Talk about absurd.Replies: @anon
I think he was probably pointing out that it is actually perfectly possible to post comments on an article without actually reading it. People do it all the time, in fact. I’ve done it myself.
See, he thinks you have the brainpower to know better than to say something so egregiously dumb. I, on the other hand, know the truth.
Are you an advocate of race realism? How? Why?
Would you be able to admit that there actually are cogent points made from your ideological enemy? Would you be able to admit that your own frame of reference may have to be altered in light of contradictory evidence?
Try this on for size. How do you respond to his arguments, not the person himself? Note that I do not necessary agree with all of his premises, but I am using him as a starting point.
http://www.timwise.org/2011/08/race-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-science-reflections-on-the-moral-absurdity-of-racial-realismReplies: @res, @anon, @Peterike, @Charles Erwin Wilson, @David In TN, @Daniel Chieh
What nonsense. Race realism, like all other models, isn’t perfect representation of reality. All models are inaccurate to some extent insofar that even eyesight is simply a recreation of reality through the brain.
However, it is adequate and useful, much like vision. Race is a more or less accurate stand in for population groups which have evolved to different environments(yes, environments) to have different genetic endowments. And as a result, there are differences in capability, including some which are worse than others at tasks.
And among those, include IQ. It doesn’t mean that they are necessarily less worthwhile of existence, but understanding group differences allows for better policy implementation. Its like arguing that just because some children are more intelligent than adults, then no minors should require guardians.
Sheesh. One would think this should be plainly obvious.
That wasn't me. My "a" is lower-case.
Regardless, the darkies aren’t going to leave the United States.
Yeah, I know they're not. You know why that is? Because as much as they pretend to be "oppressed", they know they're better off here, with white people to take care of them, than they would be on their own.
You watched too many Johnny Weissmuller movies.
You read too many "We Wuz Kangs" websites.
False equivalence. This situation refers to a one-to-one relationship. You had implied that it is other than desirable for white men, as a group, to have sexual relations with black women, as a group, because you assume that it is not a good idea.
Well, I had assumed that it wouldn't be considered a good idea by the slave women themselves. But that isn't really the point. You were claiming that, because white men sometimes had sex with black women, there must not be an instinctual desire to stay with your own group. This ignores basically all observable knowledge about men, and how sometimes their penises desire things that their higher cognition doesn't.
The instinct is for men and women to procreate. The conscious decision is who to procreate with. The choice involves whether or not to procreate within one’s race or outside one’s race.
I have a hunch that your daughter made the choice to have children with dindunuffins and that is why you are bitter.
This is all very fascinating, but do you have any actual arguments to make about how I was wrong?
Biological facts do not exist in and of themselves.
Now you're just being stupid.
“Race” didn’t just appear magically to people’s consciousness–”Oh, that’s a black man. Look, there’s an Oriental”.
Sure they did. Babies can tell people apart by race.
Some, yes. But remember that a number of race realists downplay environmental effects.
According to you, who pretends that all races are of equal intelligence, that's true. But you have never provided any evidence of this claim. Nobody has.
Yes, and I told you that you have to say those things to make yourself appear smarter and feel good about yourself.
Actually, I don't feel that good about it. I mean, beating up on you is fun for awhile. But eventually, it feels like picking on a kid with a disability.
I liked the unspoken agreement we used to have with blacks when I was younger. We'll quit pointing out your flaws, and you quit blaming us for everything you fail at.
Well, blacks didn't hold up their end of the bargain. They keep claimingnwe oppress them, when the obvious evidence is that we actually HELP black people have decent lives. What are we supposed to do? We can't MAKE them be our equals. There's just no way. So, all we can do is just point out to them that it's not our fault they're not as successful as we are. They were born this way.
Again, you’re not that bright.
Again, you're using the black definition of "bright", which means I'm not good at basketball or something. I really don't care about that.Replies: @Corvinus, @res
“That wasn’t me. My “a” is lower-case.”
No, it’s you. You have a sockpuppet. You are Anon -and- anon.
“You were claiming that, because white men sometimes had sex with black women, there must not be an instinctual desire to stay with your own group. This ignores basically all observable knowledge about men and how sometimes their penises desire things that their higher cognition doesn’t.”
The truth is men will have sex with women. They care not about the race. That is the higher cognition in action. They know exactly what they are doing. There is no “instinct” here to remain in their group.
“Sure they did. Babies can tell people apart by race.”
Infants used basic distinctions, including race, to start to cleave the world apart by groups of what they are and aren’t a part of. But again, the designation of “black, brown, red, and yellow” was assigned directly by humans. Babies do NOT know the specific name for that race, they merely see a color, which had been given a name by people. Remember, people created concepts; the concepts were not self-evident. In other words, a man a million years ago when walking through a forest said “Look, a tree”. No, he described its characteristics and, over time, generated a label for it. In a similar fashion, different groups came into contact with one another, delineated their features, and came up with a name representative of those traits.
“But eventually, it feels like picking on a kid with a disability.”
And that is why you are a savage if indeed you lack any remorse and keep “picking” on me. Lower than any non-white in this regard. But you keep telling yourself that you are Charlie Sheen “winning”, Stuart Smalley!
“So, all we can do is just point out to them that it’s not our fault they’re not as successful as we are. They were born this way.”
You just admitted that you keep “picking” on “lesser” people. Again, that would make a savage and other than successful. You were born that way. Again, you’re just not that bright.
Oh, OK. I didn't realize that. I wonder what else I do when my other personalities take over. I should probably consult a psychiatrist.
The truth is men will have sex with women. They care not about the race. That is the higher cognition in action. They know exactly what they are doing. There is no “instinct” here to remain in their group.
You know, sometimes men will have sex with animals. Nowadays, there's a whole industry based around the fact that men will have sex with pieces of silicone rubber that are encased in something resembling a flashlight, if that's all they have easy access to. I guess you think this means that there is no instinct towards procreating with an actual woman.
Babies do NOT know the specific name for that race, they merely see a color, which had been given a name by people.
No shit, Sherlock. Babies don't know the specific names that separate a "cat" from a "dog" either. That doesn't mean they can't tell the difference, or that there actually isn't a difference between a cat and a dog.
And that is why you are a savage if indeed you lack any remorse and keep “picking” on me.
If you don't like it, you're free to stop doing this at any time.
Are you actually admitting, though, that you're so intellectually deficient that I really should stop engaging with you?
But you keep telling yourself that you are Charlie Sheen “winning”, Stuart Smalley!
It's sad that you think this poor attempt at a joke made sense.
You just admitted that you keep “picking” on “lesser” people. Again, that would make a savage and other than successful.
Well. I would be "successful" if people of your nature were able to comprehend when their arguments failed. Sadly, this is not the case. You are too dumb. And I do feel bad about the fact that I attempted to engage you as an equal. I should have known better. You're not my equal. Not even close. I do feel bad about making that mistake, honestly.Replies: @Corvinus
No, it's you. You have a sockpuppet. You are Anon -and- anon.
"You were claiming that, because white men sometimes had sex with black women, there must not be an instinctual desire to stay with your own group. This ignores basically all observable knowledge about men and how sometimes their penises desire things that their higher cognition doesn’t."
The truth is men will have sex with women. They care not about the race. That is the higher cognition in action. They know exactly what they are doing. There is no "instinct" here to remain in their group.
"Sure they did. Babies can tell people apart by race."
Infants used basic distinctions, including race, to start to cleave the world apart by groups of what they are and aren’t a part of. But again, the designation of "black, brown, red, and yellow" was assigned directly by humans. Babies do NOT know the specific name for that race, they merely see a color, which had been given a name by people. Remember, people created concepts; the concepts were not self-evident. In other words, a man a million years ago when walking through a forest said "Look, a tree". No, he described its characteristics and, over time, generated a label for it. In a similar fashion, different groups came into contact with one another, delineated their features, and came up with a name representative of those traits.
"But eventually, it feels like picking on a kid with a disability."
And that is why you are a savage if indeed you lack any remorse and keep "picking" on me. Lower than any non-white in this regard. But you keep telling yourself that you are Charlie Sheen "winning", Stuart Smalley!
"So, all we can do is just point out to them that it’s not our fault they’re not as successful as we are. They were born this way."
You just admitted that you keep "picking" on "lesser" people. Again, that would make a savage and other than successful. You were born that way. Again, you're just not that bright.Replies: @anon
No, it’s you. You have a sockpuppet. You are Anon -and- anon.
Oh, OK. I didn’t realize that. I wonder what else I do when my other personalities take over. I should probably consult a psychiatrist.
The truth is men will have sex with women. They care not about the race. That is the higher cognition in action. They know exactly what they are doing. There is no “instinct” here to remain in their group.
You know, sometimes men will have sex with animals. Nowadays, there’s a whole industry based around the fact that men will have sex with pieces of silicone rubber that are encased in something resembling a flashlight, if that’s all they have easy access to. I guess you think this means that there is no instinct towards procreating with an actual woman.
Babies do NOT know the specific name for that race, they merely see a color, which had been given a name by people.
No shit, Sherlock. Babies don’t know the specific names that separate a “cat” from a “dog” either. That doesn’t mean they can’t tell the difference, or that there actually isn’t a difference between a cat and a dog.
And that is why you are a savage if indeed you lack any remorse and keep “picking” on me.
If you don’t like it, you’re free to stop doing this at any time.
Are you actually admitting, though, that you’re so intellectually deficient that I really should stop engaging with you?
But you keep telling yourself that you are Charlie Sheen “winning”, Stuart Smalley!
It’s sad that you think this poor attempt at a joke made sense.
You just admitted that you keep “picking” on “lesser” people. Again, that would make a savage and other than successful.
Well. I would be “successful” if people of your nature were able to comprehend when their arguments failed. Sadly, this is not the case. You are too dumb. And I do feel bad about the fact that I attempted to engage you as an equal. I should have known better. You’re not my equal. Not even close. I do feel bad about making that mistake, honestly.
Babies LEARN the difference between a cat and a dog, just they like they LEARN the different racial categories. Again, you are missing the point. People created these terms to describe their world around them. It wasn't as if "dog" or "cat" or "Negro" magically appeared and human beings automatically understood them. They had to develop names for the phenomenon of their environment.
"Well. I would be “successful” if people of your nature were able to comprehend when their arguments failed. Sadly, this is not the case. You are too dumb."
You reek of solipsism and confirmation bias.
"And I do feel bad about the fact that I attempted to engage you as an equal."
No, you do not feel bad. You are a savage. It's in-born. In this regard, you are just like those darkie gang leaders.
"I should have known better. You’re not my equal. Not even close."
We are white men. We are American. We are equal. There is no denying it.Replies: @res
That wasn't me. My "a" is lower-case.
Regardless, the darkies aren’t going to leave the United States.
Yeah, I know they're not. You know why that is? Because as much as they pretend to be "oppressed", they know they're better off here, with white people to take care of them, than they would be on their own.
You watched too many Johnny Weissmuller movies.
You read too many "We Wuz Kangs" websites.
False equivalence. This situation refers to a one-to-one relationship. You had implied that it is other than desirable for white men, as a group, to have sexual relations with black women, as a group, because you assume that it is not a good idea.
Well, I had assumed that it wouldn't be considered a good idea by the slave women themselves. But that isn't really the point. You were claiming that, because white men sometimes had sex with black women, there must not be an instinctual desire to stay with your own group. This ignores basically all observable knowledge about men, and how sometimes their penises desire things that their higher cognition doesn't.
The instinct is for men and women to procreate. The conscious decision is who to procreate with. The choice involves whether or not to procreate within one’s race or outside one’s race.
I have a hunch that your daughter made the choice to have children with dindunuffins and that is why you are bitter.
This is all very fascinating, but do you have any actual arguments to make about how I was wrong?
Biological facts do not exist in and of themselves.
Now you're just being stupid.
“Race” didn’t just appear magically to people’s consciousness–”Oh, that’s a black man. Look, there’s an Oriental”.
Sure they did. Babies can tell people apart by race.
Some, yes. But remember that a number of race realists downplay environmental effects.
According to you, who pretends that all races are of equal intelligence, that's true. But you have never provided any evidence of this claim. Nobody has.
Yes, and I told you that you have to say those things to make yourself appear smarter and feel good about yourself.
Actually, I don't feel that good about it. I mean, beating up on you is fun for awhile. But eventually, it feels like picking on a kid with a disability.
I liked the unspoken agreement we used to have with blacks when I was younger. We'll quit pointing out your flaws, and you quit blaming us for everything you fail at.
Well, blacks didn't hold up their end of the bargain. They keep claimingnwe oppress them, when the obvious evidence is that we actually HELP black people have decent lives. What are we supposed to do? We can't MAKE them be our equals. There's just no way. So, all we can do is just point out to them that it's not our fault they're not as successful as we are. They were born this way.
Again, you’re not that bright.
Again, you're using the black definition of "bright", which means I'm not good at basketball or something. I really don't care about that.Replies: @Corvinus, @res
anon, first, see comment 90.
I feel like that sometimes too, but two thoughts:
1. If the kid was running around with a hammer whacking people on the shins with it.
2. I’m pretty sure it’s more shtick than stupid.
P.S. Corvinus’ comments are much more fun to read if you make the assumption they are entirely projection. Not completely accurate of course, but I suspect that uncovers kernels of truth sometimes.
Oh, OK. I didn't realize that. I wonder what else I do when my other personalities take over. I should probably consult a psychiatrist.
The truth is men will have sex with women. They care not about the race. That is the higher cognition in action. They know exactly what they are doing. There is no “instinct” here to remain in their group.
You know, sometimes men will have sex with animals. Nowadays, there's a whole industry based around the fact that men will have sex with pieces of silicone rubber that are encased in something resembling a flashlight, if that's all they have easy access to. I guess you think this means that there is no instinct towards procreating with an actual woman.
Babies do NOT know the specific name for that race, they merely see a color, which had been given a name by people.
No shit, Sherlock. Babies don't know the specific names that separate a "cat" from a "dog" either. That doesn't mean they can't tell the difference, or that there actually isn't a difference between a cat and a dog.
And that is why you are a savage if indeed you lack any remorse and keep “picking” on me.
If you don't like it, you're free to stop doing this at any time.
Are you actually admitting, though, that you're so intellectually deficient that I really should stop engaging with you?
But you keep telling yourself that you are Charlie Sheen “winning”, Stuart Smalley!
It's sad that you think this poor attempt at a joke made sense.
You just admitted that you keep “picking” on “lesser” people. Again, that would make a savage and other than successful.
Well. I would be "successful" if people of your nature were able to comprehend when their arguments failed. Sadly, this is not the case. You are too dumb. And I do feel bad about the fact that I attempted to engage you as an equal. I should have known better. You're not my equal. Not even close. I do feel bad about making that mistake, honestly.Replies: @Corvinus
“No shit, Sherlock. Babies don’t know the specific names that separate a “cat” from a “dog” either. That doesn’t mean they can’t tell the difference, or that there actually isn’t a difference between a cat and a dog.”
Babies LEARN the difference between a cat and a dog, just they like they LEARN the different racial categories. Again, you are missing the point. People created these terms to describe their world around them. It wasn’t as if “dog” or “cat” or “Negro” magically appeared and human beings automatically understood them. They had to develop names for the phenomenon of their environment.
“Well. I would be “successful” if people of your nature were able to comprehend when their arguments failed. Sadly, this is not the case. You are too dumb.”
You reek of solipsism and confirmation bias.
“And I do feel bad about the fact that I attempted to engage you as an equal.”
No, you do not feel bad. You are a savage. It’s in-born. In this regard, you are just like those darkie gang leaders.
“I should have known better. You’re not my equal. Not even close.”
We are white men. We are American. We are equal. There is no denying it.
You are learning. But my theory was you misspelled it before because you are busy wreaking havoc.
See, he thinks you have the brainpower to know better than to say something so egregiously dumb. I, on the other hand, know the truth.Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
Touche anon.
Babies LEARN the difference between a cat and a dog, just they like they LEARN the different racial categories. Again, you are missing the point. People created these terms to describe their world around them. It wasn't as if "dog" or "cat" or "Negro" magically appeared and human beings automatically understood them. They had to develop names for the phenomenon of their environment.
"Well. I would be “successful” if people of your nature were able to comprehend when their arguments failed. Sadly, this is not the case. You are too dumb."
You reek of solipsism and confirmation bias.
"And I do feel bad about the fact that I attempted to engage you as an equal."
No, you do not feel bad. You are a savage. It's in-born. In this regard, you are just like those darkie gang leaders.
"I should have known better. You’re not my equal. Not even close."
We are white men. We are American. We are equal. There is no denying it.Replies: @res
https://www.unz.com/freed/sally-cone-hits-the-dating-scene/#comment-1870866
You are learning. But my theory was you misspelled it before because you are busy wreaking havoc.
Worse, white self-huggers gotta have their virtue-meth. They gotta get their fix to feel so high and noble with 'white guilt', and they can't pass this up. After all, they were raised on TKAMB(To Kill a..) and that movie with mountain-sized Negro with little white mouse.
The supremacism of these whites have been subsumed into self-righteous vanity.Replies: @Anonymous
What ever race you are, you are not more awesome than me. Check my website. Ole alum.