***Official H&F LC Thread***

Hey Melk,

I know you've prob been furiously learning the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, along with what is a proper noun. But since you're still belaboring this idiotic view (along with a weirdly racist view on sunscreen and skin color), lets touch back on something you clearly ignored.

1) Trump voters v Cum-ala voters. Estimated IQ and certainty.
2) Blacks v Whites. Same thing.

Look forward to your brain breaking again, and you ignoring "facts" that don't fit your worldview.

Yes, that's my point, big brain. When it comes to things you want to believe you'll accept other things besides unbiased, rigorous studies with statistically significant results. Random videos, articles with virtually zero stats related to the thing you're supposedly proving. All that constitutes proof. When it's "Dumber people tend to vote Trump", suddenly the only thing you will accept is a rigorous study with a statistically significant result. And you've basically said you won't even accept that because only biased people would do such a study.

I realize that the inconsistency and the unfalsifiable beliefs aren't really a problem for you. That's what makes this so hilarious.

WTF are you talking about? Of course, I've looked at such data. It's one thing to make up facts, which you are great at. But making up stuff that other people post is kind of ridiculous, don't you think?

See, here's the thing. Same thing should apply to you. You haven't proved anything (by the very standards you've laid out), it's merely your opinion. Which makes your entire effort a complete waste of time. Of course, you don't acknowledge this and claim to have proven all sorts of stuff.

But let's say by some miracle, you actually realize, "yeah, by my standards, everything I say is really just an opinion too" .
Then, you could have just done this and saved us the AIDS.

Melk: Dumber people tend to vote Trump
Rich Muny: Maybe, maybe not

Hi Thremp,

I hope you have recovered from all of that goalpost shifting. Those things can be heavy sometimes. Anyway, I already responded to your inquiry above. Perhaps you should consult a resource on the definitions of "clearly" and "ignored". I will allow you to use any reasonable source.

I know that you've spent some quality time on 22, so finding my response should not be that difficult. I'll give you a couple of days and if you can't find it, I'll quote the post for you. I don't want to go searching for it amidst the text walls right now. But I assure you it's there and because I strive to be helpful, if you can't find it, I'll dig it up for you when time permits.

Helpfully,

Melk

All words and no data, plus lots of you repeating yourself. I'll go ahead and take the W again.

Do you mean this post? Where you ignored my question posed to you 17 days ago and then responded to a post to someone else?

Let me summarize for you:

Shitskin Man: random retarded bloviation
Thremp: ...

But go on and keep gaslighting. One day you'll get a dictionary and spare yourself some humiliation.

I won't even touch on the fact you're so deeply racist you abhor EBM.

Just gonna leave this study here:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17037466/

PubMed

Association of race and color with mean IQ across nations - PubMed

Since we are talking about "facts", right?

Do beings who lack self-awareness even grasp it? Do they realize they're essentially puppets incapable of independent thought? These are the questions I ask myself.

How could someone who isn't self-aware grasp they are not self-aware? If they did, wouldn't that make them self-aware?

This is something Jordan Peterson (a career psychologist who studied personality traits) has talked about a lot. Personality research indicates that generally intelligence is correlated with what we would call openness and liberal attitudes.

But it is also true in US political polarization the Democratic tent encompasses demographics that are not particularly intelligent, psychologically open or liberal; and historically vote Democrat for other reasons.

And as Thremp is pointing out, educated Western liberals like Melkerson like to dunk on "dumb Republican whites" for illiberal psychological "deficits"; without acknowledging that very obvious that "dumb" people in every other racial/cultural group are decidedly more illiberal.

In truth it really boils down to Western liberals being actual "white supremacists" (in the sense of racism of low expectations); and assuming whites (even dumb ones) have moral agency and should behave better, while they attribute no moral agency to anyone else really.

And this is a point I have been making for years and years, but if western liberals really thought they were going to create a more liberal, tolerant society by importing low SES people from other cultures; than they were always destined to be in for a very rude surprise.

Dun,

Agree with basically all of that. One point to note is that most studies regard social views and not fiscal views. Many people who are classically liberal fall under the definition of liberal (IE I personally support marriages between any willing participants of legal age. Bring on the polycule. If you want 7 wives and 3 husbands, you can be as miserable as you want.) Further there are issues with people registered and actual voters. If we narrow this down to the claim that people who voted for Kamala have a higher IQ than people who voted for Trump, I would think this is prob 2-3 points based on underlying information on voting groups. But there is little evidence and this is based on some pretty flimsy guess work. Trump's inroads with minority voters may make the effect bigger than previously since they are well known to be lower IQ.

But maybe it is all light skinned blacks: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27503798

We don't really know. But something we are very sure of is that there is a fairly strong correlation between skin color and IQ, but Melkerson's brain can't comprehend holding this view which is why he ignored my original post and the followup. He finds it "problematic" to accept that if we took a random person with dark skin and a random person with light skin, you should assume the light skinned person is more intelligent in terms of IQ. It is pretty well studied and despite the insane ramblings of the ivy tower shitlibs, the science is sound. Dark skin is correlated with lower IQ.

I actually just had a convo where I told a white shitlib Eurotard that the most racist people I've met were almost always dark skinned people from the third world (Africa/SE Asia/etc) who hold deeply dehumanizing views on Western folks. Now these are mostly poor people, and there are a variety of confounding factors. But compared to the amount of avowed racists I've met in the West (northern Europe and Southeast US are bastions for skin color racism) it is vastly more widespread. But far be it from me as a POC to ever point out that brown people are racist as fk.

most racist people i've ever met by a long shot as a group are asians followed closely arabs - have not yet been to sub saharan africa but the way my ultra liberal sisters describe their time living there it sounds like it'd be #1 with a bullet

appearance is the first impression, whenever you have fairly homogenous groups that can tell at a glance whether or not someone belongs to their tribe that initial thought is going to dominate things

i also think there's a stark difference between racism and reality

for example, i don't consider myself racist in the slightest (ie my opinion of op has not changed since the race reveal, but i think my understanding of him has increased)

while i'm very aware that the black people approaching me asking me for money or trying to sell me something (guy literally tried to sell me cocaine at 2pm at the entrance to chelsea market 3 days ago) are not representative of the norm but rather the dregs of their racial cohort - that is still a lived experience of mine

not once have i been threatened or harassed by any other race but as someone who walks a lot (will casually do 1 hour walks over 15 min subway rides) and rides subways when not walking in urban areas - i know as a fact of life that i'm going to be approached numerous times each day by black people - at best it's asking me for some money then walking away, at worst it's something less benign and easily avoidable

so every time i meet a black person on the street, i instantly raise my guard and am prepared to react

this doesn't happen to black people i meet at conferences, supermarkets, poker forums, etc, it is specifically whenever i bump into strangers on the sidewalk and subway platforms and I don't think it's at all racist to wish to avoid them at all because at best, nothing happens, there's literally no upside at all to avoiding black people i come across on sidewalks so it encourages me to avoid those same people i'd enjoy the company of had i met them in a less public setting and that's a shame, but i think it's the best path

i say this a guy who is 6'2" 220 (usually, blew up to 255 in covid and now 225 and probs 230 after holidays, still need to lose some weight and gain some more muscle) and played rugby in college and in general is overly confident that i would be a favorable matchup against any rando if no weapons involved - so i imagine for women and most other guys it is much more extreme

rick,

Are you gonna make some other absurdly bigoted comment like you're more likely to get raped by a man than a woman?

https://transformationoffice.mandela.ac....

I generally agree with "libs" that it isn't a good idea to talk about innate race differences, especially wrt intelligence. The downsides of talking about this topic is always going to outweigh the upsides.

But at the same time, pretending everything is environmental (eg. institutional racism) and using disparate impact/DEI legislature to force equity is taking things too far the other way.

AS a society we probably need to find a happy medium where we dont talk about race differences, but also take a reasonable approach to work on increasing equality of opportunity for all without trying to engineer equity of outcomes based on melanin pigmentation, or even chromosome shape for that matter.

Ah, Thremp where is that dictionary you seem to love so much? You really need to look up what "clearly" and "ignore" mean. Sorry you didn't like the response. But definitely not ignoring and certainly not clearly. Like I said, feel free to use a dictionary, encyclopedia, google or any other resource you like to understand what those words mean. Even a helpful English-speaking child would be adequate here.

Also please touch on what you think my deeply racist position happens to be. Pretty please. I have got to hear this. Given your absurdly poor reading comprehension, this is going to be facking amazing! Please proceed.

LOL the king of no data, accuses me of no data. That's awesome. The guy who keeps ducking posting evidence of anything because "I'm not gonna do a research paper", is crying no "data" when I've sourced every claim I've made. If you want some data, just ask. Unlike you, I will actually post it. It's not hard at all.

Here's the thing: you not only don't post data, you don't even read data. You don't even read the links you post yourself.

You don't remember these masterpieces of Rich Muny logic and fact dealing:

Melk: Here's a survey that showed that self-identified people who don't follow the news closely don't vote Trump
Rich: Well they didn't post the questions or the raw data, so we can't really assess. We don't even know how many people that is.
Melk: Yes, all of those things are in the link. Just click and read. It says 15% self-identified that way
Rich: LOL, you think 85% of people follow the news closely
Melk: No, genius, that's not what it said if you would actually click the link and read it, it would be obvious to you.

Or Rich Muny on Texas punishing criminals more severely than CA:

Melk: Here's an article that shows you have to steal way more stuff in TX for it to be considered a felony than in CA. So what is your evidence that TX punishes shoplifting more harshly than CA?
Rich: Just trust me bro, it's obvious
Melk: Well if it's so obvious, maybe just one link with some actual stats or numbers of any kind would be great!
Rich: Hey man, that's research paper level effort. You can't expect me to do that.

This isn't even your most hilarious work. But keep 'em coming this is great!

Dun,

The thing is that we're not really sure that it is innate. Until we have actual research on what the actual causes are, which requires actual research we're just kinda throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks policy wise. Maybe we do find out that people with darker skin are stupider. We have accepted that there is a correlation between height and IQ. Somehow I don't see people rioting and burning down their neighborhoods for "Short Lives Matter". Regardless, in many academic circles race and intelligence research is viewed like human vivisection, so until something radically changes we simply know that while darker people have a lower IQ we have no idea why and spend untold hours theory crafting on why and how to potentially address an unknown cause(s).

My overarching point is that this is a well proven and fact based view as opposed to the random guess work needed to conclude IQ estimates of Trump v Kamala voters. It would take a rational person a few seconds to figure out that the body of evidence of showing darker skin people have lower IQs is much stronger and the effect size is much larger than what is being shown for voting preferences. (Weirdly dark skinned people also track very socially conservative.) But what is really being said when people make these arguments is virtually identical. You could basically replace Melk's entire rant with black/white and repost it on Stormfront and it'd be a banger over there.

But dunking on Melk's worldview is pretty trivial, since it isn't rational or logically driven, and instead of mishmash of shitlib fantasy with a healthy dose of self-delusion. What is possibly problematic about skin cancer avoidance based on actual science? Is it that everyone is such an absurd bigot that advising lighter skin kids to be more careful with direct sun exposure as opposed to darker skinned kids that we need to risk Vitamin D deficiency or various potential side effects from a needless preventative treatment?

Melk,

Please quote my post and your response. I'm obviously too stupid.

You sound obsessed, bro. Weird.

Not sure what you're talking about man. This is facking hilarious. The guy who goes on about smart he is and how he "deals in facts" has the reasoning capabilities of the average 8-year-old. It's not something you see every day.

Glad to help, buddy.

Here's the post that I suppose best characterizes my position:

Since your reading comprehension is poor, I'll try to break it further. My position is that it doesn't make sense to have the same sunscreen recommendations for a light skinned person and an aboriginal person with very dark skin.

Then you said:

and also this:

So, there you have it. Again my question is the same. Please explain the racist view that you think I have and why it is racist. I'm not expecting Rich Muny-level loltasticness, but who knows, maybe you'll surprise me.

Melk,

Watching your brain break in real time is amazing. In case it was unclear let me formulate this for a third time to you, since you might actually be deluded enough to think you addressed this.

What is the purported difference in IQ between Kamala/Trump voters ? And how sure are you of this estimate. Feel free to give a range or a 1-10 scale.

Same question but whites v black in America.

I know you'll evade this one as well. But I'm not here to convince anyone. I'm simply here to make fun of absurdly fucking dishonest you are.

LOL, Thremp. I don't know when it is that you apparently became unable to read. I'm sure you're not reading the wall of text between Muny and I, so I'm disregarding what it is you think we're discussing (hint: we left the topic of whether dumber voters for Trump pages ago, and we have moved on to Rich Muny's double standards for proving stuff). However, when it's posts where I'm directly responding to you. I assumed that you were capable of reading and understanding them. My mistake.

They say that retirees tend to lose their mental acuity because they aren't using their brains as much as they used to. Perhaps something to consider. You've got a long life ahead of you.

As you know, I already answered this and you even quoted it. I see you're confused, so I'll try to make it real easy for you

You said this:

And I responded with this:

Sorry if that didn't register for you. Anyway, I look forward to more posts on how I "clearly ignored" you, despite the fact that it's right there.

To make it even clearer I think that it depends on what you mean by dumber (I have discussed this point already in this AIDSfest). If you mean average IQ, then I think the difference is small. If you mean on average how informed they are, then I think that the difference is also small, but larger than the IQ difference. I also would agree that it is difficult to prove, but based on the evidence that we do have, the proposition that dumber voters tend to vote Trump is more likely to be true than not true. I'd say my confidence on that is a 7/10.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please explain what you think my opinion on sunscreen use is and why it is supposedly racist? I was very much looking forward to that.

I already made my points. It's not my problem that you're too dense to get it.

Melk,

Maybe your brain switched off after the first question, but it was a 2 parter. On the first we have "small" and 7/10. Now finish with whites v blacks on IQ and the confidence. You can even use the N word if you want, I won't hold it against you. You are a renowned bigot after all.

You also seem to be forgetting that you've dodged this question for over 2 weeks and this is the 4th time it is directly being posed. So the comments about "current discussion" are rather asinine and indicative of your continued attempts to channel your inner Donald and "flood the zone".

Since you answered the first part, you can use some sort of number to quantify the amounts of small that you think represents the IQ difference between whites and blacks compared to Kamala v Trump voters. (3 Smalls, 2 Smalls, .5 Smalls etc) And then where on the 1-10 confidence scale you are with this view.

I'm sure we will trigger the shitlib circuit breaker in your brain and you'll write another wall of text with random snippets from irrelevant responses, and more weird personal insults while yet again, completely ignoring the question.

the Brits and Germans took a break from hostilities on Christmas Day to play soccer in No Man's Land

I wonder whether this thread's combatants will do the same?

I love it. The dude that gives us this masterpiece is calling others dense? That, um, rich.

Yup, this Rich Muny is most definitely not dense!