Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

No I didn't. I quoted numerous studies that show IQ is mostly genetic; as well as many behaviours and other mental attitudes

You don't know what "mostly genetic" means, in that sentence. Take a class, online there are MOOCs - it's a bit tricky, but with concentrated effort you could probably get yourself straightened out in a few weeks.

Above is an example of incorrect reasoning:

You meant "below", not "above".

And it is an example of your reasoning, not anybody else's. Other people aren't as confused in this matter as you are.

Meanwhile, nothing you say about Asians (even if it were sensible) can justify your denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

 

[Michael]

Cultural bias

Firstly, there's plenty of IQ tests that have no cultural bias, there's non-verbal, some that can be explained using motions like pointing, others that measure reflex timing. There are fMRI and other imaging technology that can measure brain function. Soon there will be genetic tests that can predict IQ.

It seems odd that a E. Asians living in England would score higher on a sub-section of the IQ test (spatial reasoning) when compared to White Irish and White English (110, vs 100). Whereas all groups scored 100 on verbal reasoning.

Anyway, these are not 'my' arguments. This is the data that has been published in the top peer-reviewed science journals in the world. Like Science for example. Or Nature Genetics. Etc....

Again, are you blind?

Those "little Asian school girls" are more likely to attempt suicide or complete a suicide than most other groups in her sex and age group.

Maybe I missed the citation. The data suggests white males commit suicide at a significantly higher rate than Asian females (per 100,000). VERY higher. They're the highest. While Blacks are in fact, the lowest.

According to (some) Progressives the reason why White Males commit suicide at such a higher rate is of course due to "White Racism". You know, where Progressive's live, in Absurdistan.

Or, we can look into the science: Genetic Factors and Suicidal Behavior.

Looking at the data, and coming away with the notion 'blacks are dominating whites', because black Americans have a different predisposition towards suicide would be absurd.

Further, no one is suggesting traumatic childhood experiences have no correlation in suicide rates. Or that society plays no role at all. What the data suggests is that individuals have brains are different genetically (which affected their development), and those white males are more likely to commit suicide due to those genetic differences.

What would be insane, would be to suggest this isn't the case, because of a sobbing parent or partner etc... is upset at the idea there was a genetic difference. Yet, this is what we have going on, right now, in this thread. Worse still, it's racist. The racism is 'okay' because it's directed at Whites (mainly males) - that's inappropriate. Not when the science suggests other causes are more likely to be the result of 'the effects' observed.

 

[Michael]

Let me be clear about IQ.

You may be interpreting IQ as 'superior' or 'dominate' or whatever. I'm not. IQ is a measure of brain function. Different brains, function differently. IQ is a crude test. What IQ allows us to do is recategorize people and then measure socioeconomic differences according to IQ group. Once this is done, it's quite clear that high IQ people of ANY color make more money when compared to low IQ people of ANY color. It should also be noted the largest group of low IQ people, in the USA, is White People. They're also the poorest by total number. Which makes sense, given they're the largest number of low-IQ people.

So, instead of pretending White Racism is making Asians richer.
Or pretending that everyone is the same.

We should address the real root problem - Progressive Socialism. These policies are harming low-IQ people. That's not fair. It's like kicking a person when they are down. It's sick. If we want to give low-IQ people a fighting chance, then we need FREE markets. It doesn't take an IQ of 130 to practice medicine. It doesn't take an IQ of 110 to sell butter. People of IQ 95 can easily work at GPs and do quite well at - even much better, than people of IQ 125. Simply by caring more. Or even having had to work harder for what they have. Anyone can sell butter. Jesus, what kind of Police State must one live in where you cannot legally sell butter??? Such a shit-hole is doomed.

America is Dead
Long Live The U.S.A.

We can continue to ignore the science, because the conclusions make us unhappy: Particularly when we had so much hope and so much personal psychology invested in the sun revolving around the Earth (and wasn't 72 virgins in heaven the whole point?) and continue to chase red herrings so middle-class White Males can virtue signal to other Progressives (mostly average to high IQ) while the poor remain trapped in hyper-regulated unfree-markets and live life as poorly paid labor-cogs in our Progressive Regulatory-Captured Socialistic Paradise.


I'd prefer to go with the science myself. History suggests to do otherwise doesn't end well.

And I've stated the solution:
1. Sound money (market derived)
2. Common Law
3. Free-Markets (free-people)

In addition, Peaceful Parenting where reason and evidence is combined with peaceful modeling. This is the path forward. The other road, Progressive State Authoritarianism, that road leads to utter death and destruction.

It's the road we're on now. With no signs of even looking back.

 

[Michael]

Meanwhile, nothing you say about Asians (even if it were sensible) can justify your denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

LOL
Repeating yourself ad nausiumisn is not an argument.

Define what you mean by 'white racism'.
Example what you mean by 'its effects".
Provide good evidence.

Science itself isn't that hard to do.
The biggest problem is you'll find your cherished ideas were mostly (or completely) incorrect. Which is why you continue to use sophistry as opposed to simply defining your terms, making an argument, gathering evidence, analyzing it, and drawing a conclusion about your argument. Instead, you just repeat yourself over and over and over. Nonsensically. The exact opposite of "Reason" AND "Evidence".

Which is why we have the words "Reason" and "Evidence" as opposed to "Rinse" and "Repeat".

 

[iceaura]

Firstly, there's plenty of IQ tests that have no cultural bias, there's non-verbal, some that can be explained using motions like pointing, others that measure reflex timing. There are fMRI and other imaging technology that can measure brain function. Soon there will be genetic tests that can predict IQ.

None of those have been calibrated against even one of the major known environmental variables in the US.

What IQ allows us to do is recategorize people and then measure socioeconomic differences according to IQ group.

That's a basic error in reasoning. A blunder.

The fact that the existence of IQ scores not only allows but positively encourages and abets that blunder is one of its unfortunate effects - some people have argued that effect is so commonly injurious to reason and analysis that we would be better off without the damn tests in the first place. And watching you post and repost that crap in order to somehow create a self-delusion that you are ok when you deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US, watching it suck in others, I can see their point.

 

[Michael]

None of those have been calibrated against even one of the major known environmental variables in the US.

Oh good, you're finally going to cite some sources. Great. Do so.

The fact that the existence of IQ scores not only allows but positively encourages and abets that blunder is one of its unfortunate effects - some people have argued that effect is so commonly injurious to reason and analysis that we would be better off without the damn tests in the first place. And watching you post and repost that crap in order to somehow create a self-delusion that you are ok when you deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US, watching it suck in others, I can see their point.

LOL
Repeating yourself ad nausiumisn is still not an argument.

Define what you mean by 'white racism'.
Example what you mean by 'its effects".
Provide good evidence.

Science really isn't that hard to do.

Here are some possible 'effects' of 'White Racism' in the U.S.A.:
1. It has resulted in an overrepresentation of Black Americans in the NBA.
2. Asians make 20,000 more per year on average than Whites and are WAY overrepresented in the IT field.
3. The huge number of White Males committing suicide, due to their racism.

Or, maybe, Blacks are just better at basketball, Asians are smarter, and White Males carry genes that predispose them to suicide. Oh, wait, but that no good, where's fun virtual signaling to other middle-class white people and high-IQ middle-class minorities


This is interesting:

The 39-year-old suspect, identified as Kori Ali Muhammad, is also suspected in the fatal shooting of a security guard outside a Motel 6 in central Fresno Thursday. He is facing four counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder, Dyer said. He said Muhammad had expressed dislike of whites in Facebook posts; all of the victims were white. Dyer called it a “random act of violence.” Two of the people shot outside Catholic Charities may have been clients of the social service agency, not employees, Dyer said. The third victim was a passenger in a Pacific Gas & Electric truck. A fourth man was shot at but not injured.​

Looks like The Narrative has plenty of traction. Too bad for those innocent white people, oh wait, they weren't 'really' innocent were they? I mean, they were white and therefore the 'effects' of their 'white racism' probably played a role in their deaths.

 

[iceaura]

Or, maybe, Blacks are just better at basketball, Asians are smarter, and White Males carry genes that predispose them to suicide. - -

White racism and its effects on black people in the US doesn't vanish from all of history and present circumstances because of genetics - any genetics, even legitimately established and measured genetic influences, let alone your sillystring stuff.

For example, having good basketball, football, or baseball genetics was one way for a poor family's male children to get a free college education in the US during the long American prosperity boom that ended around 1980 - the time when college paid off the best, even indifferent quality college educations obtained by guys who weren't that intellectually oriented, as they say. That social mobility lead to a legacy of wealth accumulation and established middle class status we live with today, a significant thread of influence worked into the American landscape and all its communities.

For white people only, of course.

Anyway, these are not 'my' arguments. This is the data that has been published in the top peer-reviewed science journals in the world. Like Science for example. Or Nature Genetics. Etc....

Data does not make your argument for you. Your argument sucks, because you don't understand your evidence and because you have a ridiculous agenda in making the argument in the first place.

 

[Michael]

White racism and its effects on black people in the US doesn't .....

doesn't magically poof into existence just because you continue to repeat yourself ad nauseam. Repeating the claim the Earth is flat, doesn't make the Earth flat. Repeating a claim there's an afterlife, isn't evidence of an afterlife. Me saying I do not believe in an afterlife ALSO isn't evidence for an afterlife.

Further, your argument isn't just weak, it's in the wrong form. You are formally making a claim that is categorically incorrect. Are there white and black people who are racist? Yes. Do they affect some people around them? Yes. So what? What matters (for YOUR argument) is if there is a significant effect of a specific form of racism, and what those effects are. Running around like a chicken with his head cut off claiming the sky is going to fall is just pathetic. Either define your terms, define your categories, provide good evidence, analyse the data impartially (double blind if possible) and ask someone who's a little less emotionally connected to draw a conclusion for you.

Or, get out of the deep end of the pool

Blacks are overrepresented in the NBA. According to Progressives, these NBA-oligarchs, basketball elitists, must be overrepresented because they're screwing over Asians. According to your reasoning, this is 'an effect' of 'Black Racism'. And suggesting jump height, coordination and speed are the real factors, is yet MORE evidence to you of 'Black Racism. This is your argument. It's that asinine.

 

[Schmelzer]

No. And we see you posted that immediately after a post in which you claimed it was I, not you, who was continually inventing positions not held by the other, and misrepresenting their posts. So a mildly funny joke, but you make it too often.

Only if one ignores a key difference, namely that I have asked a question, instead of making a false statement. If you would ask me questions, instead of postulating nonsense, that would be a huge progress.

And I pointed to the basic flaw in that, as you employed it here to attempt as justification of this collection of absurd denials. Again:
You continue to assume
1) there is a "party" involved, it has a "position", and the position has a "line"
2) you know what the party, the position, and the line are.
Neither of those holds, in these cases of absurdist denial (or in quite a bit of your posting otherwise, as well).

The "party" is, quite obviously, the politically correct mainstream. The position of the mainstream is quite clear and obvious, to you as well as to me, given that "denial" is not a neutral word, and "absurd denial" is even worse.

These denials are famously absurd precisely because there is not, fundamentally, a reasonably "neutral" stance of skepticism lasting for more than twenty minutes of even the simplest of investigation, available to support them. What they deny is not a "line". There is no "party". The world it belongs to is not made up of competing claims.

And, again, you completely ignore my explanation what I mean with "neutral": It is simply a non-prejudiced starting position, a position which does not care about what is supported by the party line (replace it with "mainstream" or "government" if you have a problem with "party line"). It does not mean that the result of such a neutral evaluation cannot be support of the party line in that particular question. Your version, again, assumes that such a neutral stance cannot give the same result as what the party line tells us. So, now yet another question, not a "maybe" followed by some imaginable possibility, given that you will misrepresent this as a claim, but a simple question: "Why do you think that the result of a neutral and skeptical evaluation cannot give the same result as the party line?"

Perhaps your example will work better to explain things to you:
Of course one can be skeptical, and question the "party line", about matters such who was behind 9/11 and how it was carried out, and what happened.
But:
if you claim that airplanes full of passengers were not hijacked and did not crash into the World Trade Center Towers, probably the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania on that day;
if you start comparing the couple of thousand people killed to the total numbers killed in plane crashes and building fires and falling from heights in other places, in arguing against the special significance of 9/11;
if you claim that 9/11 had little or nothing to do with subsequent political events in the US, because the US already had an army and a national security State, and because similar events have happened throughout history and long before 9/11;
and this position of yours lasts for more than twenty minutes, and becomes your public stance and defended position;
you are not adopting a position of neutrality or skepticism with regard to some party line. You are denying the physical and historical basis of all reasonable "lines", party and otherwise.

What is the point of your example? I don't get it. A large part of 9/11 "conspiracy" is simply criticism of the official version. Of course, if one, as a result of this criticism, rejects the official version, this is a quite reasonable position. But in this case the natural question appears about what has really happened. And here one would expect that a layman will simply err. Whatever he invents will have a lot of problems itself, many even more absurd than the original government version, because they are a guess of an uneducated layman, while the government version is the creation of a lot of well-paid well-educated liars. And, note, all but at most one particular version will be wrong, as wrong as the government version.
So, what is your point of naming one particular version, which has, by its nature, a high probability of being wrong, close to being absurd, and then to blame it as completely absurd?

 

[iceaura]

You are formally making a claim that is categorically incorrect.

I am formally making the claim that you are denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US. That claim is once more reinforced by evidence provided by you. It is about as well verified as a claim can get around here.

Only if one ignores a key difference, namely that I have asked a question, instead of making a false statement.

As I believe you are fully aware, false assumptions and misrepresentations don't vary by punctuation. Your rhetorical technique is irrelevant.

The "party" is, quite obviously, the politically correct mainstream.

As I noted: No "politically correct mainstream" (I used your term "party", above) is involved, in the case of the absurdist denial.

And, again, you completely ignore my explanation what I mean with "neutral": It is simply a non-prejudiced starting position, a position which does not care about what is supported by the party line

No, I don't. I specifically deal with it. I also deal with your presumption of a "party line", and your presumption of its being "obvious". Explicitly.

So, what is your point of naming one particular version, which has, by its nature, a high probability of being wrong, close to being absurd, and then to blame it as completely absurd?

I didn't. I described entire categories of denial of 9/11, encompassing potentially hundreds of versions or even no version of all of what did happen, which would be absurd.

It doesn't matter at all, for example, what "version" of American history and politics anyone who denies white racism and its effects on black people adopts. The denial remains absurd, farcical.

 

[Michael]

I am formally making the claim that you

LOL
"Formal" refers to the 'form of the argument'. So, if you want to, then do it. So far, you're just paddling.

Note: Your argument has nothing to do with 'me'. My existence is irrelevant. Your claim was that: 'white racism' has 'effects' on 'Black People' in the U.S.A. We have no idea if these effects are positive - such as lowering the SAT scores for Blacks and Whites and raising them for Asians and thereby restricting Asian American Citizens from entry to University (this is structural racism by the way), or the overrepresentation of Blacks in the NBA. Or what.


Hey, more evidence of the 'effects' of "White Racism": Asian workers dominate Silicon Valley tech jobs.

Asian workers comprise over 50% of the IT professionals (white racists comprise 40%).
​

This was interesting: Tech giants argue that there simply are not enough students of color, in particular black and Hispanic students, graduating with bachelor’s or advanced degrees in computer science or related fields.

Isn't it fascinating that Hispanics are white ..... sometimes, but become 'students of color' when working in IT. Oh how the Progressive Narrative twists and turns. Progressive Socialists are nothing, if not full of sh*t.

 

[iceaura]

"Formal" refers to the 'form of the argument'.

Still no dictionary at your house.

Note: Your argument has nothing to do with 'me'. My existence is irrelevant. Your claim was that: 'white racism' has 'effects' on 'Black People' in the U.S.A

My claim is and has always been that you are denying that.

The absurdity of such a denial, like that of Holocaust denial or AGW denial, is simply assumed. Part of reality.

 

[Schmelzer]

I am formally making the claim that you are denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US. That claim is once more reinforced by evidence provided by you. It is about as well verified as a claim can get around here.

Michael is neither denying white racism (he mentions it together with black racism, in a form which makes obvious to everybody that he thinks above exist), nor does he deny that there exist some effects of white racism. He criticizes that you have not specified which effects you think are important, and that you don't support your claims with any scientific papers, so that, as far as your presented evidence shows, there is nothing about these effects which is relevant and nothing supported by scientific evidence.

As I believe you are fully aware, false assumptions and misrepresentations don't vary by punctuation. Your rhetorical technique is irrelevant.

The formal rules of courtesy and politeness are far from being irrelevant. What is irrelevant are your ideas about "false assumptions and misrepresentations". Sorry, no, they are not irrelevant, they have an extremely negative influence on discussions with you.

As I noted: No "politically correct mainstream" (I used your term "party", above) is involved, in the case of the absurdist denial.
No, I don't. I specifically deal with it. I also deal with your presumption of a "party line", and your presumption of its being "obvious". Explicitly.

Claims without evidence. Whatever, given that you know that "neutral", in my explanation, means that one can, after the evaluation, end up in agreement with the mainstream/party line/government/whatever, why you write obvious nonsense like "because there is not, fundamentally, a reasonably "neutral" stance of skepticism lasting for more than twenty minutes of even the simplest of investigation, available to support them". Once the neutral position can end up with every position - including that of the mainstream/government, it would logically follow that the position of the mainstream/government is not lasting for more than twenty minutes of even the simplest of investigation, available to support them. Which is clearly not what you want to say.

I didn't. I described entire categories of denial of 9/11, encompassing potentially hundreds of versions or even no version of all of what did happen, which would be absurd.

So what? This does not answer my question, what is the point of this description. We are all used to the fact that if you name something "absurd", it does not mean much, certainly not that it would be really absurd, but simply you don't like it. Moreover, as I have explained, if one searches for truth in this particular case, as an isolated layman, without having a lot of special knowledge, the result will be probably wrong, and can be easily absurd. The official version is absurd enough too.

Whatever, you seem to shift your style of argumentation toward even more unbased and unsupported name-calling, with "absurd" being your preferred insult.

 

[iceaura]

Michael is neither denying white racism (he mentions it together with black racism, in a form which makes obvious to everybody that he thinks above exist), nor does he deny that there exist some effects of white racism. He criticizes that you have not specified which effects you think are important, and that you don't support your claims with any scientific papers, so that, as far as your presented evidence shows, there is nothing about these effects which is relevant and nothing supported by scientific evidence.

First you claim that he is not denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US, then you repeat the demands for evidence and argument and scientific research and so forth which is the form of his denial. ?

What is irrelevant are your ideas about "false assumptions and misrepresentations".

Quit making them, and I will quit referring to them.

Whatever, given that you know that "neutral", in my explanation, means that one can, after the evaluation, end up in agreement with the mainstream/party line/government/whatever

I already called you on the invalidity of your presumption of any such thing. You have yet to justify your continuing to make it.

Once the neutral position can end up with every position

The "neutral position" is what is being denied. Hence the absurdity of the denial - it is of the basis of reality from which all "lines" and reasoning must extend. Jews were systematically rounded up and murdered in the millions by the Nazi government; planes full of passengers were hijacked and deliberately flown into buildings; the combustion of fossil fuels has created a buildup of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, trapping more heat underneath it and acidifying the liquid water in contact with that atmosphere; the lives of millions of black people have been systematically blighted for generations by white people acting according to their perceived race.

So what? This does not answer my question, what is the point of this description

What description? Be explicit, and your question will answer itself. Continue to dissemble, and there is no answer.

 

[Schmelzer]

First you claim that he is not denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US, then you repeat the demands for evidence and argument and scientific research and so forth which is the form of his denial. ?

You are unaware that there is a difference between the existence of some effects and scientific results about well-specified significant effects?

If you are aware of the difference, feel free to accuse him of denial of well-established scientific results about well-specified significant effects, with reference to the well-established scientific results.

Denial of A is not a form of denial of B if A and B are different claims. The situation is, of course, different if "denial" is not an emotional exaggeration of a simple rejection of A resp. B, but simply the word used to blame politically incorrect thinking, if it is (as in this case) clearly visible in A as well as B.

Quit making them, and I will quit referring to them.

All I want is that you start to refer to my claims correctly, without distorting them.

I already called you on the invalidity of your presumption of any such thing. You have yet to justify your continuing to make it.

I was unable to identify any such argument. So, quote or repeat it.

Here, the argument again: For example, Stalin (and his party line) supported in many (even if not all) questions of natural sciences the scientific mainstream. Therefore, a neutral (scientific) evaluation could, in these cases, end up supporting Stalin's party line, despite being neutral.

The "neutral position" is what is being denied.

And this is a quite meaningless denial. Of course, one can decide to search for truth, and try to evaluate all the available evidence. Naming this "neutral position" is, of course, a little bit misleading, "approach" or "attitude" would seem more appropriate, because different people following the same neutral approach can end up supporting different positions. Some will end up with supporting the mainstream position, other with different positions, which differ in different aspects from the mainstream position. Some of them may end up with absurd positions.

What is your point of picking some variants which you choose to name "absurd"? I see only one possibility - you pick some absurd position to discredit, by association, all of them. What else could be the point of listing some positions which have not be proposed here, only to name them absurd? In a situation where nobody denies that absurd positions are possible? If I'm wrong, explain what is the point. This is now already a repetition:

What description?

Last part after "But" in #269, as well as the following repetition:

Hence the absurdity of the denial - it is of the basis of reality from which all "lines" and reasoning must extend. Jews were systematically rounded up and murdered in the millions by the Nazi government; planes full of passengers were hijacked and deliberately flown into buildings; the combustion of fossil fuels has created a buildup of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere, trapping more heat underneath it and acidifying the liquid water in contact with that atmosphere; the lives of millions of black people have been systematically blighted for generations by white people acting according to their perceived race.

So, the question is what is the point to name some particular positions, which nobody has proposed here, "absurd", if nobody doubts that some absurd positions exist?

 

[iceaura]

So, the question is what is the point to name some particular positions, which nobody has proposed here, "absurd", if nobody doubts that some absurd positions exist?

If you are aware of the difference, feel free to accuse him of denial of well-established scientific results about well-specified significant effects, with reference to the well-established scientific results.

What is your point of picking some variants which you choose to name "absurd"?

Why are you incapable of responding to my actual posting? It doesn't seem all that confusing to me. I even illustrated the matter using your example of 9/11.

You guys are denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US - basic physical and historical facts of the matter. That is absurd. You have also, in the past, denied AGW and the Holocaust - basic physical and historical facts. This tendency of such denials to cluster in individuals seems relevant to the thread, to me.

All I want is that you start to refer to my claims correctly, without distorting them.

That joke's getting old, like I said.

 

[Michael]

Still no dictionary at your house.

LOL
A dictionary isn't going to help with you forming an argument.

Your 'argument' (which is: "White Racism" has "effects" on "Black People" in the the USA.") is a simple ad hominem.

Weak.

And circular. Anyone who doesn't agree with you, or *GASP* asks you to provide good evidence of your claim, is a 'white racist'.


Demanding evidence for Xenu, IS evidence for Xenu!
LOL

I don't mind if you name call, you can call me a white racist until you are blue in the face. It's not going to bolster your argument. My existence has no bearing on your argument. Specifically, I don't live in the USA, so I'm not even a part of your sample and not included in your argument which you qualified with 'USA'. Not to mention my Joo-ish ancestry would preclude me from being 'white' (according to some standards) and my very non-white family - well, that would probably seal the deal in the minds of most "white racists". At least any worth their salt.

Which, I don't mind either. Being categorised as a non-white or as a white-racist is inconsequential to me.


LMFAO

My claim is and has always been

weak.

And until you define your terms and provide good evidence it will remain insignificant and weak.

 

[iceaura]

Your 'argument' (which is: "White Racism" has "effects" on "Black People" in the the USA.") is a simple ad hominem.

Still no dictionary at your house.
And I'm not arguing that anyway, or anything like it. I'm no more going to argue that point than I would argue about the earth being spherical when confronted with a flat-earther who denies the moon landing.

I'm arguing that you are denying that, and pointing to the significance of the clustering of such denials in individuals such as yourself (you also deny AGW, and the Holocaust, ). I'm using your posts here as evidence for my argument, and a starting point for discussion of the clustering issue - directly relevant to the thread topic.

 

[iceaura]

Demanding evidence for Xenu, IS evidence for Xenu!

Demanding evidence for Xenu is an indication of doubt about the existence of Xenu. Evidence of skepticism.

And circular. Anyone who doesn't agree with you, or *GASP* asks you to provide good evidence of your claim, is a 'white racist'.

That isn't "circular". Also, it is false - and not merely false, but completely misrepresentative of my posting here.
The reduction of analysis to namecalling is a characteristic feature of the media operations of American Faction currently in control of the Republican Party. That also happens to be the current political home of most of the denials and denialists being discussed here. Is there a plausible mechanism connecting these circumstances?

 

[Schmelzer]

Why are you incapable of responding to my actual posting? It doesn't seem all that confusing to me. I even illustrated the matter using your example of 9/11.
You guys are denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US - basic physical and historical facts of the matter. That is absurd. You have also, in the past, denied AGW and the Holocaust - basic physical and historical facts. This tendency of such denials to cluster in individuals seems relevant to the thread, to me.

So, it seems that my speculation about your motives is correct. Namely that you have listed some "absurd" positions, which nobody has proposed here, to discredit those with quite reasonable positions (positions you cannot argue against with scientific facts and reasonable argument) simply by association. Your invented absurd positions are those of "deniers", those you have to confront here you also name "denial", and by using the same name for them they are all absurd and evil.

You also continue to lie. Because I have never denied the Holocaust.

The tendency to cluster is, indeed, relevant, and I have proposed a simple and natural explanation. There is one cluster of people like you, who follow what they think is the good/political correct/mainstream/party line/government/official position, name it as you like, this is not the point, the distinguishing property is submission to the mainstream. And there is the other cluster, those who do not trust the mainstream, and are ready to evaluate all positions using a neutral, skeptical approach, with a scientific attitude, where one cares about evidence, about arguments, but not about mainstream or political correctness or so.

The problem of such a critical attitude is that you need a lot of knowledge, and time to get it, to have a chance to find the correct answer which differs from the mainstream answer. Else, you will be often correct that the mainstream position is wrong, but your own position will be wrong too.

Because of this danger, I support only a few specific non-mainstream positions, and in most areas where the official position is obviously BS I say it is BS, but do not specify what is the truth. This is my 9/11 position. Clearly, almost all alternative versions are BS too.

In AGW, I reject as BS only a particular aspect of the media presentation: They present only negative consequences of global warming, as if there would be no positive ones. And I'm quite safe to claim that positive consequences exist. And I can even list a few sufficiently obvious advantages: 1.) More CO2 leads in general to more plant growth, 2.) There are large regions which are too cold now for agriculture, but could be used for this in case of global warming, 3.) AGW predictions all use amplification by more H2O in the atmosphere, which would lead to more rainfall in the average, and there are also large regions with insufficient rainfall for agriculture now. But it is also clear that there will be negative effects too. And I have no opinion at all about the question if there is a global warming or not, nor about the size of the effect, nor about its origins. All this would require intense own research, and I have no time for this.

For the Holocaust, I do not support any particular position, and expect the mainstream position to be more or less correct. All what I criticize is how the deniers are handled - imprisonment is not an appropriate way to handle disagreement about historical questions.