Texas rural Conservative racism - Calvin Beckett in the movie American Violet.

[Cow Poke]

Or maybe Tassman's the smart one, because 'he'...

[MaxVel]

Not quite.

Epoetker’s arguments are skewed because they are based upon the ill-informed opinions of unqualified racist fanatics such as Theodore Beale, Mencius Moldbug, Steve Sailer and other ratbags whom he, in his ignorance, considers to be authoritative.

Firstly, I really doubt that you can support that claim with any kind of substantial analysis.

Secondly, piling more negative adjectives on to the ones you've already used does nothing to solve the problem: You're rejecting what Epoetker says because you claim he's sourcing it from people who - you claim -have 'bad' opinions on some things.

Thirdly, as an example, "racist" means "a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.", but I don't think that's what you mean by it. I think you mean 'someone who expresses unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)'.

[Cow Poke]

Thirdly, as an example, "racist" means "a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.", but I don't think that's what you mean by it. I think you mean 'someone who expresses unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)'.

What's the distinction with a difference here? Are you suggesting that a person who habitually "expresses unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)" does NOT believe in "the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others". Are you suggesting that it's NOT "racist" to denigrate one race unless, what... you're not doing it to others, as well?

[MaxVel]

What's the distinction with a difference here? Are you suggesting that a person who habitually "expresses unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)" does NOT believe in "the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others". Are you suggesting that it's NOT "racist" to denigrate one race unless, what... you're not doing it to others, as well?

Well, the first doesn't necessarily imply the second.

A person could say something like 'Group X are more likely to commit crimes' (which let's say is actually true, and supported by plenty of statistics) and not have any thought or belief that his race (or any race) is superior to Group X. I don't think that is at all a racist thing to say or believe.

Some people it seems to me, use 'racist' as a way of invalidating something someone is saying, especially when they're saying something that they don't like. But there's no necessary logical connection between someone being racist (if the accusation is even true) and their argument being false. Facts aren't racist, and logical conclusions drawn from true premises aren't racist either. But calling out 'racist' is a cheap way to cast doubt on what someone is saying.

[Cow Poke]

Well, the first doesn't necessarily imply the second.

Not necessarily, no.

A person could say something like 'Group X are more likely to commit crimes' (which let's say is actually true, and supported by plenty of statistics) and not have any thought or belief that his race (or any race) is superior to Group X. I don't think that is at all a racist thing to say or believe.

But stating FACT is way different than "express(ing) unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)", which is what I was questioning. (And, yes, even when you're stating fact, you can be accused of being a racist.)

Some people it seems to me, use 'racist' as a way of invalidating something someone is saying, especially when they're saying something that they don't like. But there's no necessary logical connection between someone being racist (if the accusation is even true) and their argument being false. Facts aren't racist, and logical conclusions drawn from true premises aren't racist either. But calling out 'racist' is a cheap way to cast doubt on what someone is saying.

Well, yeah, but if somebody is actually "express(ing) unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)", that's a lot more in the camp of "racism" than "stating facts" that can be backed up by statistics.

[MaxVel]

But stating FACT is way different than "express(ing) unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)", which is what I was questioning. (And, yes, even when you're stating fact, you can be accused of being a racist.)

Well, I see the problem as being that some people tend to rather easily conflate the two, and assume that anything unflattering said about particular racial groups (or people from those groups) is automatically racist. It's not. Thirty years or so ago, if someone was accused of being a racist, there usually was some substance behind the accusation - they usually had said or done something that probably indicated that they thought their race was superior to others. Nowadays it's often used when someone merely makes a negative observation about a group. It's often akin to accusations of 'homophobia' - code for 'some belief that doesn't fit with our agenda/liberal worldview'.

Well, yeah, but if somebody is actually "express(ing) unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)", that's a lot more in the camp of "racism" than "stating facts" that can be backed up by statistics.

But an unflattering opinion is not necessarily actually racist. It's easy to make the accusation and 'invalidate' the opinion, easier than actually showing it's wrong, or unfactual, or uninformed, etc

[Epoetker]

What's the distinction with a difference here? Are you suggesting that a person who habitually "expresses unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)" does NOT believe in "the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others". Are you suggesting that it's NOT "racist" to denigrate one race unless, what... you're not doing it to others, as well?

If I've skipped criticizing rich white (and Jewish) people who endlessly fulminate against an almost completely notional "racist redneck flyover country" while living in 99% white zip codes, let me know, as not everyone knows the code words.

[Tassman]

Firstly, I really doubt that you can support that claim with any kind of substantial analysis.

Secondly, piling more negative adjectives on to the ones you've already used does nothing to solve the problem: You're rejecting what Epoetker says because you claim he's sourcing it from people who - you claim -have 'bad' opinions on some things.

No!

Thirdly, as an example, "racist" means "a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.", but I don't think that's what you mean by it. I think you mean 'someone who expresses unflattering opinions about certain racial groups (mainly African Americans)'.

I believe Cow Poke is dealing more effectively with this than I could.

[MaxVel]

I believe Cow Poke is dealing more effectively with this than I could.

Why doesn't it surprise me that Cow Poke defends your positions better than you can...?

[Epoetker]

“Substantial analysis" is not required! Theodore Beale, Mencius Moldbug, Steve Sailer et al are demonstrably not sufficiently qualified in any specific discipline to express authoritative views.

Yes, all they do is work with icky numbers, instruments, and computers, but Tassman, Tassman is a master of psychology, a real discipline and a hard science. He has risen above mere math and physics, and realized that the true power is in sociology and networking.

He may not be entirely wrong, if the current crop of tolerated rulers is any indication. Really, did it take you till Ebola was in America to figure this out?

No! “Bad opinions” implies a value judgement whereas Epoetker’s sources are merely unqualified and ill-informed. That's the point.

If you had read any western literature, you might have run across a phrase that went "the lady doth protest too much" at some point. But since you haven't, please, continue to loudly and continually tell me about how feeble and weak the people you haven't addressed and won't because they're too feeble and weak to address are. It absolutely makes me trust you more and in no way transparently makes you look like you're compensating for something, or perhaps lack of something.

I believe Cow Poke is dealing more effectively with this than I could.

Nobody fights me directly, because the ones with half a brain already know I'm both right on the facts and merciless in crushing bad arguments, so they've mostly switched to glib sniping, whining to the mods, character assasination, and various other forms of DON'T TALK ABOUT THEM SO MUCH, IT HURTS US. As John Derbyshire, yet another individual more accomplished and more erudite than you, once said: "Humankind cannot take very much reality."

[Tassman]

Yes, all they do is work with icky numbers, instruments, and computers, but Tassman, Tassman is a master of psychology, a real discipline and a hard science. He has risen above mere math and physics, and realized that the true power is in sociology and networking.

He may not be entirely wrong, if the current crop of tolerated rulers is any indication. Really, did it take you till Ebola was in America to figure this out?

Precisely! None of your oft quoted racist, misogynist gurus have sufficient qualifications to offer any more than personal opinions rather than authoritative views. The rest of your mini-rant is mere character assignation.

If you had read any western literature, you might have run across a phrase that went "the lady doth protest too much" at some point. But since you haven't, please, continue to loudly and continually tell me about how feeble and weak the people you haven't addressed and won't because they're too feeble and weak to address are. It absolutely makes me trust you more and in no way transparently makes you look like you're compensating for something, or perhaps lack of something.

More unsubstantiated character assignation!

Nobody fights me directly, because the ones with half a brain already know I'm both right on the facts and merciless in crushing bad arguments, so they've mostly switched to glib sniping, whining to the mods, character assasination, and various other forms of DON'T TALK ABOUT THEM SO MUCH, IT HURTS US. As John Derbyshire, yet another individual more accomplished and more erudite than you, once said: "Humankind cannot take very much reality."

You're a laugh a minute EP.

Oh, and that's John Derbyshire the computer programmer is it?

Why doesn't it surprise me that Cow Poke defends your positions better than you can...?

So you now recognise that your argument had no substance. Good!

[Epoetker]

Precisely! None of your oft quoted racist, misogynist gurus have sufficient qualifications to offer any more than personal opinions rather than authoritative views.

Yes, because people with high IQs who make their living in finding out what people want and giving it to them in marketing campaign, novels, or software format are of course not going to be authorities on human motivation or thought patterns. I eagerly await your judgment on what constitutes an "authority" in these matters.

More unsubstantiated character assignation!

Your responses have been substantiation enough, methinks.

You're a laugh a minute EP.

Honest laughter is the first step toward truth, though forced laughter is often a cover for lies.

Oh, and that's John Derbyshire the computer programmer is it?

His best title is 'uncredited thug,' though I hear he occasionally, you know, writes things that may interest people of a mathematical bent. Not that scientific accomplishment or education is a measure of authority among you people, since denouncing James Watson, the discoverer of DNA, mirrors quite handily your RACE DOES NOT EXIST philosophy.

So you now recognise that your argument had no substance. Good!

Dunderheaded non-responses like this are exactly why you should be posting in emojis only.

[Tassman]

Yes, because people with high IQs who make their living in finding out what people want and giving it to them in marketing campaign, novels, or software format are of course not going to be authorities on human motivation or thought patterns. I eagerly await your judgment on what constitutes an "authority" in these matters.

[Epoetker]

When there's so much data and expertise available in areas like neurobiology, sociology, sociobiology, human psychology and the other behavioural sciences, plus emergence, evolution, and physics, etc. that actually can and will provide authoritative answers,

And which mine actually do reference, so, what were you attempting to accomplish by listing the subjects which they're actually pretty well versed in?

why would anybody bother with the smug pontifications of a computer programmer, or the like, with a hate agenda. Such individuals are entitled to their opinions, no matter how prejudiced, but they are not authoritative and cannot be regarded as such.

Translated: You ain't got nobody in your corner that I can't beat, so you yell SCIENCE WILL DEFEAT YOU and run.

Emojis only, Tassman. You're only embarrassing yourself further.

[Tassman]

And which mine actually do reference, so, what were you attempting to accomplish by listing the subjects which they're actually pretty well versed in?

Nonsense!

They cherry-pick and distort selected expert opinion in order to reinforce their own racist, misogynist hate agenda. And so do you.

Translated: You ain't got nobody in your corner that I can't beat, so you yell SCIENCE WILL DEFEAT YOU and run.

Incorrect translation!

Why bother with the distorted hate-site of a computer programmer, when one can go directly to the experts in the field for the actual facts? One doesn't need the filter of a rampant conspiracy theorist to tell you what to think.