Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by bad_teammate

  1. Quote

    So what, pray tell, was the point of these comments if not to highlight a difference between our positions?Ā Ā Just random musings of a crazy person?Ā Ā You're smarter than that.

    We absolutely have differences of opinion, but you are outright lying about what I have said. Ā At no point did I say you said blacks are worse off today than during slavery. At no point did I say that blacks were better off in 1968 than they were today. Youā€™re lying. Stop doing that.

    Here is what you said that I am mocking:
    ā€œI honestly believe that giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them.ā€

    These are words you chose to write on purpose and itā€™s amazing and funny.

    And then you double-down with this:

    Quote

    Do you know what the biggest drivers behind the abolition of slavery were?Ā Ā It was the Industrial Revolution and changing public opinion.Ā 

    The biggest driver behind the abolition of slavery was the 13th amendment.

    Reading Grand 'Ole South romantic apologetics in 2018 is a real treat.

  2. America bragging about its homicide rate dropping faster than Australia's is like a 400lbĀ man bragging about losing weight faster than a 160lbĀ man once they start a diet together.

  3. 42 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Hey Swam, please point to the post where I said blacks are worse off today than during slavery.

    I never said you said that.

    Quote

    Ā Ā Or perhaps you could point to the post where I said blacks were better off in 1968 than they are today?

    I never said you said that.

    I don't know why you are so dishonest, but it makes this conversation tedious. I quote your own words back to you and you get really defensive and upset. It's weird. It's almost like your worldview is ignorant and reprehensible.

    Quote

    My problem with the CRA is that it immediately made blacks (and other minorities to a lesser extent) the "other".Ā 

    Blacks in America weren't considered "the other" BEFORE the CRA? Are you mentally fucking retarded?

    Quote

    I don't know what your ancestry is, but if you're non-English like me, your family likely faced discrimination upon landing in America.Ā  Obviously not to the extent of black Americans, but bear with me for a moment.Ā  Let's say you were anĀ Irish American in the early 19th centuryĀ and the US passed a law giving you special status to help you succeed.Ā  Do you think that would have helped you overcome the sterotype of being ignorant and lazy (which is how Irish were portrayed) in the eyes of the folks who were discriminating against you?Ā  Or do you think it would have further entrenched that belief in them?Ā  And how would you, as the child in an Irish household have felt if you were told the only reason you were succeeding was because you got "special treatment"?Ā  Would that help or hurt your self worth?

    Regarding the bolded part... why would I care?

    If I am being chained to a post and whipped, I care about the whipping, not the secret heart of the man holding the whip.

    It's fucking hilarious that you have managed to make the issue of black civil emancipation an issue of whether or not it cured the white soul. Holy shit you're broken.

    Quote

    One of my partners, Uri, in particular wrote a moving letter to friends thanking them for their support.Ā  He was the first among the first black students at his law school and in the letter he detailed some of the abhorrent treatment he received from some of his law school classmates who called him a token, claimed he was taking a spot from "more qualified" students (aka white folk), and ever received death threats.Ā  This was in the 90's!Ā 

    Racism? In MY America!?

    • Like 2
  4. Just now, krutov said:

    uh, they were journalists and editors of national standing discussing how to shape and present facts in a coordinated fashion for partisan effect.

    What does "of national standing" even mean? There were about 400 journalists, policy talking heads, and various other randos on an e-mail list. They argued about how to cover things. Some tried to convince others to cover things certain ways. These are the exact same conversations journalists and everyone else have all the time.

    The journolist scandal boils down to: "Liberals are talking to each other!"

    The only actual problem was that it was full of lazy thinkers who purposefully cultivate a thought protection bubble, but we're talking about op-ed writers for liberal magazines. It's like finding out that Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity talk to each other sometimes, "OH MY GOD!!!"

    And no, it's not fucking worse than a massive corporation forcing journalists to read off a centralized script.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  5. Wait, you're telling me that these MSD kids want more than bump stock ban? It's almost like... it's almost like they've been openly calling for gun regulations beyond the bump stocks ban!

    They've been very clear that they also want universal background checks and age restrictions on weapons purchases, an assault weapons ban, and ban on high-cap mags.

    So secretive!

  6. Gonna lol when Democrats nominate a center-right piece of shit (like Hillary) because they don't want to alienate people who would never vote Democrat anyway.

    "Don't run Warren, she polls terribly among racist old whites on the Internet!!!!" - Million-Dollar Dem Strategists

  7. 58 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    His entire article is an apologeticĀ against researching racial differences.Ā  He may only nameĀ Reich twice, but his entire article is a response.Ā  I don't know how you can read it any other way.

    I can read it that way because Klein directly addresses the different people he is talking about and mentions them by name constantly.

    Here's the title of Klein's op-ed:Ā Sam Harris, Charles Murray, and the allure of race science

    His article is about Sam Harris and Charles Murray, and was written because Sam Harris tried to start a Twitter fight with him about it all.

    If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, scroll through and look.

    Harris mentions: 49
    Murray mentions: 63
    Reich mentions: 4

    And I've already posted the 4 Reich mentions, which are all neutral or positive. And Klein isn't shy about attacking; he is extremely negative throughout his 112 mentions of Harris and Murray.

    Klein: "To put this simply: You cannot discuss this topic without discussing its toxic past and the way that shapes our present."

    Reich: "I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made ā€” and we truly have no idea yet what they will be ā€” will be cited as ā€œscientific proofā€ that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims."

    Your takeaway from all this is that Klein disagrees with Reich? lol fuck offĀ 

    • Like 1
  8. 1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

    Do you realize how racist you sound?Ā  You're completely making my point, but you're too arrogant and condescending to even realize it.

    I guess in your mind the only way black people can be successful is if whitey helps them.Ā  It certainly couldn't be that they are intelligent, hard working, and good at what they do.Ā Ā 

    This is exactly the kind of thinking/judgement black people face every day, and why, on balance, many people think the Civil Rights Act did more harm than good.

    So instead of attacking me and my friends, why don't you respond to the two articles I posted and give us your thoughts on why African Americans (on average) have made less progress in the 50 years since 1968, than the did in the preceding 30 years.

    I can't wait.

    I mean, the CRA only has 98% positive/neutral rating among blacks.

    So yes, I guess I am being very racist against your completely and totally real (and very much multiple) super-wealthy black friends who think that the CRA is the worst thing that has happened to minorities. And I'm sorry.Ā I apologize to those completely real and not-at-all fake people that 100% exist in your life without a doubt.

    I also apologize to your Canadian supermodel girlfriend. I hope all of these real people that actually are alive in the worldĀ can forgive me.

    It's me, the real racist who thinks slavery was worse than the CRA. #GalaxyRightWingBrain

    But to address the issue of black progress, what actual metric are you using when you say, "African Americans (on average) have made less progress in the 50 years since 1968, than the(y) did in the preceding 30 years"? What is it you mean by that, specifically? I'll be happy to respond once I know what you're talking about.

  9. 26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    That's not what the newsletter says.

    Journolist was basically friends talking to each other, completely free to either stay on message or not. What's happening here are corporate overlords forcing employees to read a script and pretend it's genuine.

    They're extremely different.

  10. Dude neg all you want, I think it's fun to point out how the right-wing troll babies here work.

    47 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    And how I read it Klein does object to Reich's work. I posted this above:Ā that he thinks race-based studies haveĀ racist effects whether intendedĀ or not.Ā  I even quoted what I feel is the summaryĀ conclusion of his article to put it in his own words.

    What you quoted has NOTHING to do with Reich's work. He's talking about Harris and Murray (not geneticists), as he mentions in the next paragraph that you do not quote for some not-at-all-mysterious reason.

    Quote

    Black children grow up in a country that, over and over again, signals that it expects less of them, believes less in them, and fears more from them. This is, in part, the result of deep-seated racism in American life ā€” a racism that often manifests less through hatred than through underestimation and dismissal; a racism that draws on centuries of belief in black inferiority.

    Harris and Murray are clear that for all their discussion of group differences, people should be judged on their singular merits. ā€œTo have political equality, you have to treat people as individuals,ā€ says Harris. ā€œItā€™s ethically and politically prudent to do this, and hereā€™s the crucial point, itā€™s actually rational to do this because the differences between groups are not so large that there isnā€™t a substantial overlap between them for every trait we care about.ā€

    By the way, here is Robert Reich himself expressing concern with how actual science (i.e. - the shit he does and that Murray, Harris, and Sullivan DO NOT do) can be used for racist ends...

    Quote

    I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made ā€” and we truly have no idea yet what they will be ā€” will be cited as ā€œscientific proofā€ that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims.

    That sounds precisely like Klein's point and that's from the Reich op-ed that Sullivan is partially talking about andĀ that I'm guessing neither you nor Tahoe actually read.

    So to repeat:
    Klein has no beef with the actual scientist (Reich).
    Klein has a beef with the demagogue non-scientists (Murray, Sullivan,Ā and to an extent, Harris)

    Keep negging because your arguments are shit.

    edit

    Here are all paragraphs in which Klein mentions Reich.

    Quote

    Harris is touting a New York Times op-ed by David Reich arguing that ā€œit is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among ā€˜races.ā€™ā€ Reich is careful in his claims about what is known as of yet. He says that ā€œif scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrongā€ ā€” a level of humility often absent in this discussion. He goes on to slam researchers who, discussing race and intelligence, claim ā€œthey know what those differences are and that they correspond to racist stereotypes.ā€ I do not find this column as troubling as Harris seems to think I will.

    &Ā 

    This is also, notably, Reichā€™s conclusion in the op-ed Harris enthusiastically promotes and uses for his jab at me. ā€œWhatever discoveries are made,ā€ Reich says, ā€œwe truly have no idea yet what they will be.ā€ If that had been the tenor of Harrisā€™s conversation with Murray ā€” if they had simply observed the existence of a racial IQ gap (that has already closed substantially over time), hypothesized that advances in genetics might one day reveal group differences, and then cautioned that no one knows anything yet ā€” there would be no controversy.

    That's it. That's literally the two paragraphs out of the dozens in Klein's op-ed in which he discusses Reich at all, and none of it could be reasonably construed as anything but neutral or positive.

    • Like 2
  11. 5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    I know, right, who has black friends...they must be make believe.Ā 

    I believe you, dude, you have multiple super rich black friends who have told you "that giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them."

    Absolutely. Mhmm. Yes.

    Definitely.

  12. 6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    What I'm suggesting is that the gains would have been more pronounced if they were gained via economics and societal change as opposed to legislative decree.

    Is that what you're very-real-and-not-fake-at-all black friends told you?

  13. lFWLzMq.png

    lol why are Shaggy right-wingers so pathetic? Can't argue shit so they release their cannonade of bitch-negs. #sad

    16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    I've alreasy posted on it twice, and you on the other hand have about a half dozen posts andĀ have yet to address the issue.

    There is one article linked in the OP, and it is absolutely NOT "a 10,000ish-word complaint against genetic population studies" as you said. Andrew Sullivan is a huge fan of race science and has been for years. He loves it.

    I can only speculate that you're talking about the Ezra Klein article that Sullivan is responding to (which is, itself, a response to Sam Harris speculating about what Ezra Klein must think of Reich's op-ed). Klein's article is not linked in the OP, probably because Tahoe didn't read it, but also perhaps because Klein has no objection to Reich's work.

    Klein (rightfully) objects to idiots like Andrew Sullivan, Sam Harris, and Charles Murray taking legitimate science like Reich's work and using it to pursue socio-political agendas.

    You're full of shit and wrong. I hope you re-charge your neg cannons and make yourself feel better with them tomorrow.

    • Like 2
  14. 15 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    David Reich is a geneticist and author of theĀ  article thatĀ Klein is responding to.

    And how does Klein feel about Reich's article?

    And you're wrong. He's responding to Harris who presumed what Klein would think about Reich.

    • Fuck You 1
  15. 27 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Since you guys have so much trouble finding links here is a direct one, it is in the OP but you have to read past theĀ first paragraph to find it:

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve

    Ā 

    I had already postedĀ the quote above already for a tl:dr.

    Dude I've been talking about Klein's article since Page 1. Harris and Murray are not geneticists. When someone tells them to shut the hell up about geneticism, they aren't shaming genetic scientists. They're shaming talking head morons.

    • Fuck You 1
  16. Ā 

    10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    I don't name anybody on this board except public figures.Ā  And you wouldn't know them anyway.

    My girlfriend is a model, but she's Canadian. You wouldn't know her.

    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 1
  17. 18 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Why are peopleĀ ignoring the fact that there's a 10,000ish-wordĀ complaint against genetic population studies linked on the OP?

    If you thinkĀ thatĀ opinionĀ is fringe shit and not worth a thread, just say so.Ā  But you can't say that it doesn't exist.

    Sullivan's article (which is the only thing linked in the OP) is a 10k-ish word complaint against genetic population studies? What?

    44 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Sullivan's thesis, and mine, is that the Left doesn't want such research.Ā  What about you?

    Literally no one here, and no one Sullivan can point to, has attacked Reich's research. I have no idea who from "the Left" you're using as an example.

    Who is attacking Reich's research? Please tell us.

    Quote

    Do you support genetics research like Reich is conducting?Ā  What about Murray's research?

    You do realize, don't you, that Charles Murray is not a geneticist?

    Quote

    If you're not among those who attacked Murray for doing his research.Ā  If you differed with his conclusions based on different science I have no quarrel with you.Ā  (I don't know the science.)Ā  If you screamed "racism" and said "he shouldn't be allowed to say that without being personally attacked (versus attacking his conclusions), then you're somebody I'm addressing.

    Charles Murray is not a serious scientist and is a political and racial demagogue. He sucks and it's funny that the kids at Middlebury shouted at him until he ran away. Good for them. His "research" doesn't exist and all he did in his famous-among-racists book was take other people's research and draw racist conclusions from it.

    He's a political scientist. Comparing him to Reich is laughable.

    Quote

    Examine this thread and identify the posts which included an ad hominem attack.Ā  It's a sure sign of a bad argument.

    Ad hominem is evidence of nothing except the person using it wanting to attack you personally. I can handle attacking both your shitty arguments and the shitty person that made them.

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  18. 51 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

    Nobody is discussing the article.Ā  And I knew it.Ā  As I predicted.Ā 

    I read the entirety of Sullivan's article and the Ezra Klein article he referenced and commented specifically, even fucking quoting Sullivan and the article from Ezra Klein that he referenced. You are completely pathetic.

    I will do so at more length now.

    Quote

    And so I waited eagerly for a response to Reich from ā€œblank slateā€ left-liberals. They were quiet for a while, flummoxed perhaps, until Ezra KleinĀ delivered an encyclical, rallying the faithful, in Vox.

    Here Sullivan admits to waiting for a response he wants to see. Like Tahoe, he assigns a motive (Sullivan thinks the libs are "flummoxed" by Reich when, in reality, they are shrugging their shoulders) when he cannot find what he is looking for. Immediately afterwards, he admits he doesn't see what he wants in Klein's article, so he resorts to arguing against what Klein "seems" to be arguing.

    Quote

    What was Kleinā€™s response to the actual scientific argument that genetics have a significant part to play (heritability ranges fromĀ 0.4 to 0.8) in explaining different racial outcomes in intelligence tests? Iā€™ve read his essay several times and Iā€™m afraid I canā€™t find a satisfying one. He notes that Reich is careful not to state anything categorical about racial differences and their origins, and that this humility appeals to him (agreed). (The point, of course, would apply to Murray as well, who has remained resolutely ā€œagnosticā€ about the ultimate outcome of the debate since 1994. This is precisely what he stated inĀ The New RepublicĀ and the book.) As to genetic influences on IQ? Klein only addresses those parts of Reichā€™s argument he agrees with, and hypes instead the fact (that no one disputes) that the environment has a big impact as well. This is, to put it gently, more like an act of intellectual dodging, rather than full engagement.

    In fact, Klein seems to back a truly extreme position: thatĀ onlyĀ the environment affects IQ scores, and genes play no part in group differences in human intelligence.

    Like the Very Dishonest Tahoe, the Very Dishonest Sullivan does not deal with the actual arguments, but instead relies on strawmanning his opponent's argument.

    It does not surprise me that a race science hack like Andrew Sullivan impresses you, Tahoe, because he meets you at your dishonest and ignorant level.

    • Like 1
  19. 3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Assuming the property in question is not receiving public funding, I'd say yes, but it has nothing to do with the potential tenant's race, or religion.Ā  I believe it is a fundamental right of property ownership to choose who you allow to occupy it.Ā 

    Thank you for finally answering.Ā If you're so uncomfortable with what you believe that you have to dodge straightforward yes/no questions you should examine your beliefs instead of trying to dance and dodge so much.

    Cool, good, you believe that it's OK to oppress minorities since they're in the minority. Good, I have the information I need to figure out how much attention to pay to your arguments.

    Thank you.

Ɨ
Ɨ
  • Create New...