In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Kimmel is vilified and pulled off air for making a completely innocuous statement, yet this guy is still on the air became of idiotic FCC rules, that most other developed countries don't have about cable news.Fox News' Jesse Watters Calls to 'Bomb' U.N., or 'Maybe Gas It,' After Broken Escalator and Teleprompter During Trump's VisitWatters characterized the malfunctions at the
elevators are inherently marxist, where do you think the concept of "social mobility" came from
It wasn’t a career move. He was chased out of an academic position he was more than qualified for by a mob of people angry that he exhibited wrongthink. Of course, they also happened to ruin his academic reputation and force him to sue the school.That’s not a career change that’s a witchhunt that succeeded.He was censored. Nobody thought that his work was unscientific, it was a
Plenty of people thought his work was unscientific. He had papers published and was a reviewer for OpenPsych, an online pseudoscientific journal owned by a far-right white supremecist (Emil Kirkegaarde) and founded at least in part to specifically allow the publication of race science. Kirkegaard himself, whose relevant qualifications amount to a BA in linguistics, was a reviewer of most of Carl's papers in the journal. While the papers weren't specifically about race and IQ they were overtly anti-immigrant and anti-Islam.
lol now kirkegaard is a "far right white supremacist", jfc you guys.
I am curious what will happen when actual far right white supremacists have to be talked about. You really think kirkegaard has anything to do with Fuentes?
Fuentes is unapologetically racist
Most people put on a mask to obfuscate
Luckily, Kierkegaard is a mask off pseudoscience racist so we don’t have to speculate
Fuentes is unapologetically racist
Most people put on a mask to obfuscate
Luckily, Kierkegaard is a mask off pseudoscience racist so we don’t have to speculate
I understand you are a negationist of science and you consider any scientific investigation in race differences taboo, but normal people (ie non leftist people, ie people who disagree with you, the majority in the USA) don't agree.
I understand these are religious level belief for you so there is no discussion to have. Just accept that the majority of people disagree with you.
Buddy, he said irrevocably, genetics cause violence in black people, without analyzing any specific gene group.
It’s not science it’s just a guy having a wank on his blog
I know that’s what YOU consider science but that isn’t what most people would consider science
I dunno, maybe we should leave genetics to the geneticists but the incentive to grift ******s is just too massive to pass up for these people
And it’s not lost on me that Luciom will come up with reasons why widely accepted gold standard scientific studies are wrong while giving water to **** tier blog posts whenever it fits his agenda
Almost religious with his pathology
Buddy, he said irrevocably, genetics cause violence in black people, without analyzing any specific gene group.
It’s not science it’s just a guy having a wank on his blog
I know that’s what YOU consider science but that isn’t what most people would consider science
i won't comment topics that are banned topics here.
I don't "consider science" random opinions. I don't consider science anything that leftists wrote though either , even if they found other leftists to "peer review" them that doesn't make it science.
And it’s not lost on me that Luciom will come up with reasons why widely accepted gold standard scientific studies are wrong while giving water to **** tier blog posts whenever it fits his agenda
Almost religious with his pathology
what would the "gold standard scientific studies" you think i reject be? keep in mind nothing in social science can be gold standard definitionally as it can't be replicated, those are "sciences" only very partially and nothing can be taken with the same degree of certainty that we can use for actual science. Ie the entire scientific literature in social sciences doesn't have a particularly high truth value, *and can't*, necessarily.
Plenty of people thought his work was unscientific. He had papers published and was a reviewer for OpenPsych, an online pseudoscientific journal owned by a far-right white supremecist (Emil Kirkegaarde) and founded at least in part to specifically allow the publication of race science. Kirkegaard himself, whose relevant qualifications amount to a BA in linguistics, was a review
A good portion of his work prior to 2018 was in respected, peer-reviewed journals. But I guess if he published some stuff in an open access journal founded by someone you don’t like, the contents of which had nothing to do with the offending topic except one ethics paper, it’s enough to smear him as a pseudoscientist.
Actually the left is forcing the education of the trans ideology on kindergarten to grade 6 students .
Fuentes is unapologetically racist
Most people put on a mask to obfuscate
Luckily, Kierkegaard is a mask off pseudoscience racist so we don’t have to speculate
This doesn’t come off as particularly racist to me. In fact he gives an explicit warning not to let these observations make you have prejudice against individuals. That’s the exact opposite of Fuentes, who advocates for segregation explicitly and tells black people they deserve the hate that they get.
I’m sure there are examples of him being a virulent racist though.
This doesn’t come off as particularly racist to me. In fact he gives an explicit warning not to let these observations make you have prejudice against individuals. That’s the exact opposite of Fuentes, who advocates for segregation explicitly and tells black people they deserve the hate that they get.
I’m sure there are examples of him being a virulent racist though.
remember that for cordie and his cult, it is racism even to suggest any measurable behavioural difference exists among ethnicities, with a genetical basis.
He insists that's the "socially agreed upon definition", but that's only because he exclusively interacts with other leftists in his life.
This doesn’t come off as particularly racist to me. In fact he gives an explicit warning not to let these observations make you have prejudice against individuals. That’s the exact opposite of Fuentes, who advocates for segregation explicitly and tells black people they deserve the hate that they get.I’m sure there are examples of him being a virulent racist t
You are referencing a quote from twitter that lead him to write the article and not words from the author
remember that for cordie and his cult, it is racism even to suggest any measurable behavioural difference exists among ethnicities, with a genetical basis.
He insists that's the "socially agreed upon definition", but that's only because he exclusively interacts with other leftists in his life.
I was just surprised that the proposed cause was higher levels of testosterone. That just seems like the most mild thing to connect it back to and something that if true could be worked through without much disruption to society.
You are referencing a quote from twitter that lead him to write the article and not words from the author
Well he said this:
It should be said that this theory is about average differences only, and any given African person may or may not be inclined to violence, in the same way which is true for any other group difference. Similarly, heritable race differences in criminality do not necessarily imply some overall 'superiority' or 'inferiority' index, as other trait differences could offset it.
Comey indicted. No clue about what but it doesn't matter. Who didn't see that coming.
I was just surprised that the proposed cause was higher levels of testosterone. That just seems like the most mild thing to connect it back to and something that if true could be worked through without much disruption to society.
I have no interest in discussing the specific scientific claim nor i think it is allowed per forum rule to do so.
But i can say that if an ethnicity can be provenly, genetically, be found to be more propense to use violence, that's absolutely not necessarily a bad thing.
We *do need* violent actors in society, and we can use the talents some groups have in excess to the median of the population, so if an ethnic group has more propensity to violence it would mean more of them will be in law enforcement , the militaries, security guards and so on. They will also be people easier to draft in an actual existential emergency against invaders, something which is really good to have as insurance for a country.
That's stuff we *NEED* as a society, desperately, in some amount, so there is no reason to think that propensity (if it can ever be measured as existing, genetically, with the causal elements proven beyond reasonable doubt) should get a "bad rap" at all.
Ofc that same group in that case would disproportionately find itself (compared to the % of the population) in jail for violent crimes as well, and we would just consider that the normal outcome given their higher propensity to violence.
I read he is "expected to be indicted" in the coming days (whatever that means).
If and when he is, we will read the indictment shall we? and of course if he is indicted, it means a grand jury of american citizens found the elements provided by the prosecution sufficient for indictment. Which would mean inherently that the indictment, in that case, would be proper.
Do you hate the rule of law biggerboat?
I was just surprised that the proposed cause was higher levels of testosterone. That just seems like the most mild thing to connect it back to and something that if true could be worked through without much disruption to society.
Well he said this:
Yeah I’m not sold on a disclaimer that amounts to “while I’m concluding that Africans are more violent than other races due to genetics and fully disqualifying socioeconomic factors, you shouldn’t use this information to discriminate”
Because what else would that theory be used for?
Yeah I’m not sold on a disclaimer that amounts to “while I’m concluding that Africans are more violent than other races due to genetics and fully disqualifying socioeconomic factors, you shouldn’t use this information to discriminate”
Because what else would that theory be used for?
to justify more of them are in jail for good reasons so that isn't proof of racism (for example).
That is, IF the explanation made sense and so on.
Reminder: liberals claims that black incarceration rates being disportionate is a PROOF of SYSTEMIC RACISM ok? that's the underlying claim
to justify more of them are in jail for good reasons so that isn't proof of racism (for example).
That is, IF the explanation made sense and so on.
Reminder: liberals claims that black incarceration rates being disportionate is a PROOF of SYSTEMIC RACISM ok? that's the underlying claim
Sounds pretty racist for a guy with a BA in linguistics to push a non scientific theory about genetics that could be used to put more black people in jail, just tbh
I understand you are a negationist of science and you consider any scientific investigation in race differences taboo, but normal people (ie non leftist people, ie people who disagree with you, the majority in the USA) don't agree.
I understand these are religious level belief for you so there is no discussion to have. Just accept that the majority of people disagree with you.
Most people in the US believe in God, and pretty strongly. Do you think that means that view is correct?
Sounds pretty racist for a guy with a BA in linguistics to push a non scientific theory about genetics that could be used to put more black people in jail, just tbh
no, it can't be used to put more black people in jail at all.
It can be used EX POST, when you count how many black people are in jail, to claim "well that's the expected outcome given their higher propensity for violence", to deny claims about systemic racism being necessary to explain the higher incarceration rates.
*that is, if those claims were true which i am not saying they necessarily are*
Most people in the US believe in God, and pretty strongly. Do you think that means that view is correct?
The belief in god equivalent is cordie position. cordie decides that something must be true necessarily and uses word to define that. He doesn't want any investigation about facts on those claims.
If cordie position became majoritarian, it would still be absurd, same as the belief in god.
BUT, if 80% of people believed in what cordie believes, then racism would mean what they claim. Because unlike the existence of god, or the perfect identical equality of all human groups genetically, words meaning *depend on the opinion of the population*.
Semantics aren't an inherent truth, semantics depend on what the people believe the meaning is.
