Feel free to report it if you think it is trolling.
Advertisement
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:00 am
by Bombadil » Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:09 am
Darussalam wrote:Bombadil wrote:
I think there is historical context for the distaste of such studies. Perhaps the studies themselves are genuinely undertaken by behavioural scientists and/or the like. Yet more often than not they're used to justify opinions that precede the data. Even The Bell Curve was filled with caveats, regardless of the issues within, about the conclusions but the debate was very much misused on both sides.
It's a bit like polling data, there's variances but people focus on the hard figure. So Brexit, for example, was 52-48 but with enough statistical variance to make it either way. Same with these studies, there's all sorts of caveats yet people jump on the conclusion that fits their agenda.
I don't know that people demand to shut down these studies so much as argue as to the conclusions formed by people with a prior belief.
You can say that for literally every scientific research ever. Generally, ideologically motivated results will reveal themselves - it is hard to replicate them. And indeed social sciences seem to be plagued by replication problems. Hereditarian results, meanwhile, tend to be fairly robust.
Speakers have been shut down from college campuses for this.
by Jakker » Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:21 am
The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:49 am
Liriena wrote:Excuse me, OP, but are you trying to "subtly" peddle "race realism" or some shit? Because unless you are gonna specify a bit more, your bloggy as fuck opening post reeks of dog-whistling.
by Caracasus » Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:56 am
by Vassenor » Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:08 am
Caracasus wrote:
OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.
Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.
by USS Monitor » Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:14 am
Vassenor wrote:Caracasus wrote:
OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.
Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.
So race realism in a nutshell then.
by Caracasus » Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:27 am
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:48 am
Caracasus wrote:
OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.
Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:49 am
Holomodoria wrote:Caracasus wrote:
OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.
Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.
"Going by the other thread?"
You can't address the argument X presented here, so you attack the author because of argument Y elsewhere.
Bad form. Lots of attacking the poster and not his argument here. That's weak.
Burn the heretic lol
by Caracasus » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:57 am
Holomodoria wrote:Caracasus wrote:
OP was non ironically arguing that South Africa and Zimbabwe were better off under colonial rule in another thread. I think this entire thing falls under "stuff there's no point arguing" to be honest. It's like a racist flavour of moon landing hoax or loch ness monster.
Going by the other thread, what this poster is doing is creating a nonsense strawman "leftist" position and then inferring their own racist and clearly nonsense opinion. That way, it appears as if people arguing with them are supporting the aforementioned nonsense strawman.
"Going by the other thread?"
You can't address the argument X presented here, so you attack the author because of argument Y elsewhere.
Bad form. Lots of attacking the poster and not his argument here. That's weak.
Burn the heretic lol
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:05 am
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:08 am
Vassenor wrote:So race realism in a nutshell then.
Conserative Morality wrote:Anything to present the poor widdle racists as the oppressed minority. =^^^^(
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:11 am
Caracasus wrote:Not really, more like don't let someone with a track record of arguing dishonestly set the conditions for a debate. Once someone starts seriously suggesting "race realism" it's an indicator that they're talking out of their arse, which is why there's all this bullshit window dressing. I'd no more engage with that as a serious debate than I would engage with someone who insisted the moon landings were faked or that the Loch Ness monster was real. There's no point when someone is clearly deluded or outright lying. It's why I didn't bother posting in the other thread and engaging when it became apparent it was thinly veiled Apartheid apologia. Here I am simply pointing out the dishonest strategy the OP is using and has used previously.
by An Alan Smithee Nation » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:11 am
by Kilobugya » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:12 am
by Conserative Morality » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:18 am
Darussalam wrote:Vassenor wrote:So race realism in a nutshell then.
Maybe. It's not "trolling", at the very least.Conserative Morality wrote:Anything to present the poor widdle racists as the oppressed minority. =^^^^(
You might lack sympathy to people who are actively, irrationally prejudiced against other races and worked to undermine them. I'm not blaming you for that, and it is quite reasonable to see why it's ridiculous to designate them as an oppressed minority. But it is no reason to shame and belittle all individuals who happen to arrive at ""racial realist"" conclusion, let alone hereditarian conclusion.
Is Steven Pinker a racist to be shamed?
Pinker is a Whig prophet so he got off easy, but I don't think it's far-fetched to say that people who merely present empirical evidences with potential hereditarian or racialist implication aren't exactly being tolerated, let alone being engaged with, let alone being paraded around like the blank-slate fraudster that was Stephen Jay Gould.
by Caracasus » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:27 am
Holomodoria wrote:Caracasus wrote:
Not really, more like don't let someone with a track record of arguing dishonestly set the conditions for a debate. Once someone starts seriously suggesting "race realism" it's an indicator that they're talking out of their arse, which is why there's all this bullshit window dressing. I'd no more engage with that as a serious debate than I would engage with someone who insisted the moon landings were faked or that the Loch Ness monster was real. There's no point when someone is clearly deluded or outright lying. It's why I didn't bother posting in the other thread and engaging when it became apparent it was thinly veiled Apartheid apologia. Here I am simply pointing out the dishonest strategy the OP is using and has used previously.
You're still attacking the poster and not his argument. Considering the OP indicts the left as having anti-science, quasi-religious bias against facts that do not conform to their beliefs, your reactions to the OP is just more "see I told ya" fuel.
Got you lynching a tarbaby, and when the fight's over, you're still covered in tar.
by Darussalam » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:29 am
Kilobugya wrote:Hrm, I'm not sure you're aware, but Marx defined Communism as "from everyone according to his abilities, to everyone according to his needs". The "left" never pretended that people don't have different abilities and needs, quite the opposite. The Declaration of Human Rights says "people are born equal _in dignity and in rights_". The whole purpose of the left is actually making that true - that people have the same (real, actual) rights, to a decent life, to education, to healthcare, to freedom of movement and speech, to ... _despite_ not necessarily being completely equal in term of biology (from disabilities to just minor variations in health, strength, senses, or various part intellect).
Kilobugya wrote:The "tabula rasa", the "blank state" only applies to more high-level phenomena, such people people not being born as thieves or rapists or murderers, but their life history, their education, their family environment, the society they grew up in, ... being the main factor behind those. And if anything science is on the side of left here.
Kilobugya wrote:What do many sicentists consider the decision taken in the 20st century in the US that contributed the most to the reduction of crime ? The ban on lead in paints and fuels. Because lead is a poison that damages the brain and increases aggressiveness. That's the kind of things the "blank state" refers to - external conditions affecting what people become and how they act, and that as a society we should focus on affecting those conditions (granting everyone a clean, sane environment to grow in, free from pollution but also from exploitation, alienation, violence, misery, bullying, discrimination, ...) rather than on things like punishing the "bad persons".
Conserative Morality wrote:It absolutely is.
Conserative Morality wrote:Considering that Pinker is infamous for his lack of rigor and constant misuse of data? I don't know about racist, but certainly to be shamed.
Conserative Morality wrote:Good.
by Conserative Morality » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:31 am
Darussalam wrote:And why is that?
by Kyrinasaj » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:32 am
by Page » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:32 am
by Caracasus » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:35 am
Kyrinasaj wrote:Kind of a stretch to peddle one entire flank as science deniers because of ''race realism'' which by the way the majority of the modern ''right'' doesn't believe in either. It's just a select group of the right that believes in it and want to base policy around it.
And most right-wingers would be opposed to social darwinism, which you seem to be advocating for
by LiberNovusAmericae » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:40 am
by Bombadil » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:40 am
Darussalam wrote:True. On the other hand, Stolen Generations - an attempt to improve certain individuals by improving their environment, failed. There is still a large disparity in cognitive ability between median African-American and a median American even as living standard is converging. Many attempts at social reform that do not account for biology fail.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bovad, Choson Minjujuui, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ethel mermania, Fartsniffage, Hidrandia, HISPIDA, Jupiter Holst, Kaumudeen, Liberal Malaysia, The Two Jerseys, The Xenopolis Confederation, Valyxias
Advertisement