Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[wellwisher]

White racism is a scam. When slavery was legal, only about 1% of the white people could afford to own slaves. Slaves were not cheap to buy or to maintain. The other 99% of the white people did not own slaves, yet they are falsely accused by the left.

Does the 1% standard apply to all things? For example, over 1% of women make as much money as men. Does this mean there is equality of pay, since to the left, 1% means all? Or is the dual standard in affect?

Of those 1% whites who owned slaves, 100% were Democrats, at the time of Lincoln. The Republican had little to do with slavery other than helping the slaves escape from the 1% whites who were Democrats.

When slavery was abolished, segregation, Jim Crow laws and KKK, was a southern Democrat thing. Again this was not all whites, but mostly whites connected to the Democratic party. I am doing the math to see who should pay.

The Democrats did not see the light of their evil ways, until about the time of Civil Rights. The Republicans were already being helpful over a century before. By the time the Democrats whites started to feel the need for compensation to blacks, laws were already in place. The white guilt is the Democrats party guilt. The compensation for slavery and discrimination needs to be targeted to the 1% white Democrats. The rest is deep pockets scam, designed to distract from the role the Democrats plays in slavery and discrimination. They act holier that thou, to distract from their own guilt and direct obligations. They try to make Lincoln pay to distract.

 

[iceaura]

Namely that you have listed some "absurd" positions, which nobody has proposed here,

I am listing the absurd positions proposed here, and elsewhere on this forum.

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

Yes, you have. Also AGW.
You even did that via rhetoric exactly parallel to Michael's denial of white racism here - demands for "scientific" evidence, dismissal of information as badly motivated propaganda, reacting to observations of obvious flaws in your justifications by demanding proof of some alternative possibility, and so forth.

The tendency to cluster is, indeed, relevant, and I have proposed a simple and natural explanation.

And I have pointed out that it's completely inadequate, and rests on false assumptions of "party line" and the nature of a "neutral" position.

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.

Bullshit.

. 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.

Exactly.
You post that - which is denial of AGW, just as I claimed - immediately after you posted "sufficiently obvious advantages" which the media is to blame for not reporting. Hello?

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.

But deniers are not imprisoned in the countries of the posters you were responding to. Treatment of deniers was not an issue. You tried to hide like that before, and were called out then.
Again, bullshit.
Again:
your idea of a "particular position" you may or may not choose to believe included the basic facts. You were aware of them, and chose to be uncertain of them, to take them as "party line" positions. That is the denial I speak of.
and continuing: disagreement about historical "questions" is not involved. (Denial of the factual grounds on which all non-absurd "questions" are based, is at issue).

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.

Denial of the basic physical and historical facts is what is at issue here, the "Denial" in this thread.

Whether or not you stick your neck out and proffer an alternative reality to the one you have denied - as Michael is foolishly wont to do with your carefully noncommittal support (which may indicate you have reviewed the embarrassment of your nonsense about unimportance of slavery as an issue in the American Civil War, and learned a lesson) - doesn't matter here.

 

[Schmelzer]

Yes, you have. Also AGW.
You even did that via rhetoric exactly parallel to Michael's denial of white racism here - demands for "scientific" evidence, dismissal of information as badly motivated propaganda, reacting to observations of obvious flaws in your justifications by demanding proof of some alternative possibility, and so forth.

Thanks for clarifying. "Deniers" are people who reject primitive and obvious propaganda lies and insist on scientific facts, which you are unable to present.

You post that - which is denial of AGW

Ok, means, even worse, "denial" is already having no opinion about the claimed fact. The only remaining possibility not to be named a denier is, clearly, to vocally support the party line.
I have thought that "denial" is a deliberate position that the claim in question is wrong, not that one does not have an opinion about this. Thanks for clarifying this. "Denial" is, last but not least, Orwellian newspeak, so that one cannot use a dictionary to translate it.
Or maybe I have misinterpreted something? Let's see:

your idea of a "particular position" you may or may not choose to believe included the basic facts. You were aware of them, and chose to be uncertain of them, to take them as "party line" positions. That is the denial I speak of.

So, clearly, to be uncertain about "basic facts", once one has not checked them is "denial". So, one is obliged to believe the "basic facts". Else one is a denier.

Who decides what are these "basic facts"? Joepistole? Iceaura? Clinton? The US supreme court? Whoever, I don't care. I name the list of the "basic facts" one has to accept, if one does not want to be named a denier, the "party line".

It is certainly not the same as the scientific mainstream position, because you have explicitly called me and Michael deniers because we have asked for scientific evidence for you claims, and the scientific mainstream does not answer such requests for evidence by name-calling, but with references to peer-reviewed papers.

But deniers are not imprisoned in the countries of the posters you were responding to. Treatment of deniers was not an issue.

The example of Zündel, who was extradicted to Germany from Canada to be imprisoned for 5 years, shows that no Holocaust denier is safe in the West. The treatment of deniers is the only problem I have about this. History, given that it is anyway written by the victor, is nothing I care about.

 

[iceaura]

Deniers" are people who reject primitive and obvious propaganda lies and insist on scientific facts, which you are unable to present.

That's how they talk, yep. They talk very big, and they insist on "scientific proof" of anything that conflicts with their absurd denials. And anyone fool enough to run around collecting it, will find there is no end to that futility. If comprehension of new information were something they were into, they wouldn't be making these absurd denials in the first place - they are already surrounded by all the information they would need.

Ok, means, even worse, "denial" is already having no opinion about the claimed fact.

But launching discussion pertaining to it. Starting with talking about the fact as a "claim", often. As in: "Scientists claim the earth is a sphere", or "Many people claim white racism has had serious effects on black people in the US". Not a "fact", notice, but a "claimed fact". Not something one can check up on, or even verify by looking around, but something somebody way over there said, that may or may not be the case, we don't know.
And so they begin.

I have thought that "denial" is a deliberate position that the claim in question is wrong, not that one does not have an opinion about this.

Nope. You are talking about reasonable discussion of issues. That's a key difference between these absurdist denials and reasonable discourse.

AGW denial, for example, is quite often phrased as "the science isn't in" or "we don't know what's going on". Denial of evolutionary theory by pretending to advocate "teaching the controversy" from a "neutral position" is the standard rhetorical approach of the absurd denier in the US. Likewise, denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US like that - pretending there is a reasonable neutral position in which a reasonable person could entertain the notion that it has never really existed or had serious effects to any significant degree - is absurd.

The example of Zündel, who was extradicted to Germany from Canada to be imprisoned for 5 years, shows that no Holocaust denier is safe in the West.

Don't be silly. No non-German around here is in the slightest danger of being extradited to Germany for denying the Holocaust. All the US citizens who deny the Holocaust - and there are hundreds of thousands of them - are perfectly safe in doing so. And you have already been informed of that obvious fact, more than once - without learning a thing, apparently.

Meanwhile, Germany's understandable sensitivity to that particular absurd denial has nothing to do with its absurdity. You were hiding from the absurdity of your denials.

Who decides what are these "basic facts"? Joepistole? Iceaura? Clinton? The US supreme court? Whoever, I don't care. I name the list of the "basic facts" one has to accept, if one does not want to be named a denier, the "party line".

That isn't true. That's not what you have been, in fact, treating as the "party line" in practice.

But that is part of what you have been denying;

and there is the central glitch, the core of the crazy: treating physical and historical reality as if it were just another Party line.

You are supposed to ascertain these basic facts for yourself, from a wide range of evidence and experience and reasoning, not have other people decide them for you. If you can't, or more likely won't, but insist on having opinions about those issues, then there isn't much anyone can do - you will join the Michaels of the world, and spend your time doing things like trying to derive the history and circumstances of black people in the US from their average IQs.

 

[Schmelzer]

That's how they talk, yep. They talk very big, and they insist on "scientific proof" of anything that conflicts with their absurd denials. And anyone fool enough to run around collecting it, will find there is no end to that futility.

To summarize, you don't even try to present any scientific evidence.

But launching discussion pertaining to it. Starting with talking about the fact as a "claim", often. As in: "Scientists claim the earth is a sphere", or "Many people claim white racism has had serious effects on black people in the US". Not a "fact", notice, but a "claimed fact".

Of course, what you or joepistole or some Big Brother declare to be "facts", one simply has to accept. Without questioning, without asking for any evidence.

Nope. You are talking about reasonable discussion of issues. That's a key difference between these absurdist denials and reasonable discourse.

I'm talking about the following part of the discussion #302 :
My statement: "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."
Your answer: "You post that - which is denial of AGW".

AGW denial, for example, is quite often phrased as "the science isn't in" or "we don't know what's going on".

The matter is not how it is "quite often phrased", but how I have phrased it, namely "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", and which you have characterized as "which is denial of AGW".

Don't be silly. No non-German around here is in the slightest danger of being extradited to Germany for denying the Holocaust. All the US citizens who deny the Holocaust - and there are hundreds of thousands of them - are perfectly safe in doing so.

Of course, there is a large difference between the hundreds of thousands, or possibly even millions who have no opinion about the Holocaust, and simply refuse to hail the politically correct position about it - which, following your criteria, is already denial - and the few real open Holocaust deniers. And, ok, it will be much more difficult to extradict a US citizen from US to Germany than a German expat from Canada back to Germany. But Obama has even killed US citizens with drones. So, it is not at all sure that US citizenship really gives you much, except that you have to pay US taxes even if you live somewhere else.

And Germany's understandable sensitivity to that particular absurd denial has nothing to do with its absurdity.

It has only something to do with the the fact that freedom of speech does not exist in Germany, except for propaganda. And that you support imprisoning people simply for believing some claims about history, by naming this imprisonment "understandable sensitivity". I think you deserve a price for the euphemism of the year: "understandable sensitivity" for imprisoning people for many years for claims about the history of the last century.

You are supposed to ascertain these basic facts for yourself, from a wide range of evidence and experience and reasoning, not have other people decide them for you.

Of course, I'm supposed to ascertain the truth of the facts presented by Comrade Stalin, sorry, Iceaura, myself, using the wide range of evidence and experience and reasoning provided by the Comrades Joepistole and Iceaura. If I fail to ascertain that myself, I'm a denier.

 

[iceaura]

To summarize, you don't even try to present any scientific evidence.

Not in this thread, no. This thread is about these kinds of denials - look at the OP.
The existence and nature of such denials is, happily, well confirmed by you and Michael and others - no need to present evidence of the denials, you have posted it yourself.

Of course, what you or joepistole or some Big Brother declare to be "facts", one simply has to accept. Without questioning, without asking for any evidence.

You have been encouraged, many times, to pay attention to the evidence surrounding you, and ascertain these matters of reality for yourself. I have so far presented essentially none of these facts here in this thread (barring a couple of side references to, say, the history of black people's exclusion from basketball, an obvious and direct conflict with Michael's "inherent genetics" bs using his own chosen example) - I have simply referred to the common absurd denials by the name of what they deny, and referred to the common rhetoric and approaches of the deniers.

Like this:

The matter is not how it is "quite often phrased", but how I have phrased it, namely "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", and which you have characterized as "which is denial of AGW".

Yep. That's what you say, after you have seen much evidence, and heard the arguments, and so forth. That's how you phrase your denial, as an absurd "neutral position". And that is completely typical of absurd denials of all those common kinds, as I noted.

Of course, there is a large difference between the hundreds of thousands, or possibly even millions who have no opinion about the Holocaust, and simply refuse to hail the politically correct position about it - which, following your criteria, is already denial - and the few real open Holocaust deniers.

There are hundreds of thousands of open, real, explicit, Holocaust deniers in the US, your criterion, and every single one of them is perfectly safe from German law and any other penalty - no harm will come to them for their denial. Nobody you are talking to here is under the slightest threat, should they deny the Holocaust, or AGW, or Darwinian Evolution, or white racism and its effects on black people in the US. And you have been informed of that fact several times now.

You are posting utterly absurd foolishness.

It has only something to do with the the fact that freedom of speech does not exist in Germany, except for propaganda

No, it doesn't. That's completely irrelevant. No bad features of German law have any bearing on the absurdity of Holocaust denial.

And that you support imprisoning people simply for believing some claims about history, by naming this imprisonment "understandable sensitivity".

Now you hide behind misrepresentations and personal attacks. Stereotypical absurd denial.

Of course, I'm supposed to ascertain the truth of the facts presented by Comrade Stalin, sorry, Iceaura, myself, using the wide range of evidence and experience and reasoning provided by the Comrades Joepistole and Iceaura.

As already noted, several times: No, they are not "presented by" anyone in particular. They are not anyone's Party line. That is the key characteristic of the absurd denial - it's not a denial of a Party line. It's a denial of common reality, the stuff that all the reasonable lines are built on.

I even explicitly refused to "present" them here, anticipating your tack. That was your complaint, remember? Just a few sentences back? That I am not presenting these facts, with arguments and evidence? My failure to "present" that stuff was your whole point, a minute ago.

What do you think is going wrong with you, here?

 

[Schmelzer]

Not in this thread, no. This thread is about these kinds of denials - look at the OP.

Don't cheat. Your justification for not even trying to present scientific evidence was not about this particular thread, but about the people you name "deniers": "They talk very big, and they insist on "scientific proof" of anything that conflicts with their absurd denials. And anyone fool enough to run around collecting it, will find there is no end to that futility.

And, indeed, this fits. From the time when you have presented some evidence to support your positions - like about the Civil War, or about child labor - one vague memories remain, that was long ago.

That's what you say, after you have seen much evidence, and heard the arguments, and so forth. That's how you phrase your denial, as an absurd "neutral position".

No, this is not even a neutral position, this is simply no position at all. I do not make any claims about the existence of global warming, its causes or its size, that's all. And I'm already a denier, in your newspeak.

No bad features of German law have any bearing on the absurdity of Holocaust denial.

As if I have suggested something like this. Feel free to argue that Holocaust denial is absurd, I couldn't care less, my point is that there is no freedom of speech in Germany, nothing else.

Now you hide behind misrepresentations and personal attacks. Stereotypical absurd denial.

I have misinterpreted you? I'm sorry. Please explain how to interpret your phrase "Germany's understandable sensitivity to that particular absurd denial" in a reply to my "The treatment of deniers is the only problem I have about this". I, somehow naively, thought that it is the this treatment - imprisoning of Holocaust deniers for many years, the only thing I object too - which you have named an "understandable sensitivity". Explain what else you have named "Germany's understandable sensitivity".

I even explicitly refused to "present" them here, anticipating your tack. That was your complaint, remember? Just a few sentences back? That I am not presenting these facts, with arguments and evidence? My failure to "present" that stuff was your whole point, a minute ago.

You have, obviously, completely missed the point of my objection. You do not fail to present them at all. You present them, in very clear ways, easy to recognize, by naming those to reject any particular point of the party line, or simply refuse to support the party line in this point, "denier".

So, one can clearly see that the position of mainstream history about the Holocaust is part of the party line, AGW too.

 

[iceaura]

Your justification for not even trying to present scientific evidence was not about this particular thread, but about the people you name "deniers"

As an absurd denier, you continue to attempt to deflect the thread topic into endlessly futile discussions of some denial or other. Michael does the same. The topic here is not AGW, or white racism and its effects on black people, or the reality of the Holocaust. The topic is the common and elaborate and inexplicable denials of these things.

And as far as my claims in that regard, I have presented - by pointing directly to it, quoting it, etc - a great deal of evidence, direct quotes and references to your posting among it, right here. Right in front of you.

No, this is not even a neutral position, this is simply no position at all. I do not make any claims about the existence of global warming, its causes or its size, that's all.

You make the claim that AGW can be reasonably discussed as uncertain in existence, cause, and probable "size"(sic). You actually attempt to discuss AGW-related matters, such as the media coverage, from that position. You have in fact adopted an absurd "neutral position", treating AGW itself as a Party line, and discussed matters related to AGW from that position.
For example: You made claims about the media coverage of AGW (that it omitted benefits you found "obvious", etc) and the bias of the researchers dependent on funding, and other matters clearly revealing knowledge of this media and some acquaintanceship with those scientific reports.

Your denial is of matters you have evaluated as propaganda and biased journalism, which are instead matters of physical reality.

As if I have suggested something like this. Feel free to argue that Holocaust denial is absurd, I couldn't care less, my point is that there is no freedom of speech in Germany, nothing else.

The topic was Holocaust denial, and nothing else. What you posted was on that topic. And you made your claims about the entire West, not merely Germany.

You present them, in very clear ways, easy to recognize, by naming those to reject any particular point of the party line, or simply refuse to support the party line in this point, "denier".

That is an assumption of yours, not a presentation of mine. Things you assume I am referring to are not the same as things presented by me. You are not "recognizing", but providing yourself what is not there.

You persist in attempting to claim that by "denial" I am referring to denial of a Party line, or some position. This is necessary for you, in the face of my corrections and illustrations (9/11) and so forth, because central to absurd denial is the assumption that one is denying a line, a position, something that one can reasonably deny.

So, one can clearly see that the position of mainstream history about the Holocaust is part of the party line, AGW too

What you claim to "clearly see" is instead an error of both perception and reasoning. You identify AGW, and the Holocaust, with "positions" and "lines", as if they had no reality. You then assign all reference to denial as if it referred to denial of a position or a Party line.

 

[Schmelzer]

As an absurd denier, you ...

You really think that adding "absurd" to "denier" against somebody who does not even deny the mainstream claims discussed makes any sense?

The topic is the common and elaborate and inexplicable denials of these things.

I know, and I do not even discuss AGW, it was simply mentioned as an example, and it was not me who has introduced this abbreviation into the discussion.

I have presented some position about denials which are completely explicable, you have not been interested to discuss this, probably not even understood this. I have to admit that I tend to think you understood this position very good, given your continuing misrepresentation, despite several corrections, of the neutral approach, which is a typical one for people who don't follow party lines, mainstream positions, or other prescriptions what to believe.

You make the claim that AGW can be reasonably discussed as uncertain in existence, cause, and probable "size"(sic).

Not even this is undistorted. Because I have not made any claims about what can be reasonable discussed, but simply explained that I have no position regarding these questions. Maybe "size" is not the optimal word, but if one talks about effects in science it is quite common, and there are a lot of different variables involved in all those climate predictions, not only the increase of the average temperature, so using "size" seemed appropriate to me.

You actually attempt to discuss AGW-related matters, such as the media coverage, from that position.

No. The media coverage is an obvious lie, independent of this non-position. Because what I criticize as a lie is not any particular claim about an increase of average temperature or so, but that the consequences of an assumed increase are presented close to 100% negative. (I may, of course, err about the 100%, but I have never seen anything in TV which presented some positive consequence of global warming.) The question if an increase of CO2, temperature, and so on has certain consequences is completely different from the question if there will be some increase of temperature and what is the cause of a presumed increase.

You have in fact adopted an absurd "neutral position", treating AGW itself as a Party line, and discussed matters related to AGW from that position. For example: You made claims about the media coverage of AGW (that it omitted benefits you found "obvious", etc) and the bias of the researchers dependent on funding, and other matters clearly revealing knowledge of this media and some acquaintanceship with those scientific reports.

What's this? Sounds like "revealing" some knowledge is evil? Not that I have not known such cases, this was common during my communist childhood - the identification of those who use "evil" sources like Western TV or radio by the knowledge they "reveal" accidentally.

If you like - I honestly admit that I have also, some times, looked at evil dissident sources of evil deniers. Is there hope for remission? I doubt.

Your denial is of matters you have evaluated as propaganda and biased journalism, which are instead matters of physical reality.

So, that all (ok, almost all) the effects of a global warming are negative is a matter of physical reality?

That is an assumption of yours, not a presentation of mine.

The point being? I have not claimed that you present yourself as inquisition enforcing the party line. I simply evaluate, interpret what you do. You use moral accusations ("denial" is a moral accusation) against several groups of people, not simply for having a different opinion about some facts or theories, but simply for not supporting a well-defined position. In this post, you have even started to use moral condemnation (by "revealing" that I have done this) for using sources which do not support that well-defined position.

You persist in attempting to claim that by "denial" I am referring to denial of a Party line, or some position. This is necessary for you, in the face of my corrections and illustrations (9/11) and so forth, because central to absurd denial is the assumption that one is denying a line, a position, something that one can reasonably deny.

I use my understanding of the meaning of the word "denial" in standard English. One "denies" some statements made about something in the real world. The "denial" is, therefore, also a statement about the real world, namely the negation of the "denied" statement. It follows that if I do not make a statement about the real world, I cannot deny.

The question if there is a party line or whatever which prescribes a list of such statements or not is irrelevant to the observation that becoming a "denier" without even making a statement about the real world is newspeak.

For normal people, "denial" is a word with very restricted use, because it requires far too much - the truth of what is denied should be out of question, the denier should know about this, but nonetheless denies it, which makes it clearly amoral. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I judge about this based on the meaning of the German "Leugnung", which is also applied to Holocaust deniers as well as climate change deniers). So, to apply it to people who disagree about something is not justified, except in very special circumstances. But, of course, the totalitarian ideology needs moral condemnation of dissent. "Denial" has this moral condemnation, thus, is ideal for the totalitarian purpose.

 

[Michael]

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

LOL

Here, let me postulate something that's 'skeptical': The sun may not rise in the morning tomorrow. Simple enough? Oh, and sure, it's also "evidence" of a form of reasoning referred to as *GAAAAAAAAAAASP* skepticism. Epistemologically, it ALSO illustrates what kinds of information may, and may not be KNOWN. It further delineates entire categories of 'reasoning': deductive from inductive.

Maybe you don't 'like' skepticism? Okay, don't. But get this, your preference makes not one iota of difference to the argument. This is why we make strong cogent arguments in 'Science' *and not sound valid arguments, which are made in mathematics and many forms of logic).

Thus far, you are making a weak emotional plea/sophism. Not exactly a great example of an argument. It's actually pretty shit TTYTT. Further, you refuse to even attempt to provide ANY good evidence to back up your claim. This suggests it's a false claim.

Oh yea, sorry, but what I 'believe' to be the case, has no bearing on the truth of your weak-arse argument. Me existence has no bearing on your argument's truth - I'm outside of the conditions YOU set.



RE: AGW
Not sure where this red-herring jumped from. But, I'll say this, you seem to be confused as to 'effects' and specific 'significant effects'. No one cares about insignificant 'effects'. That's why we need *GAAAAAASP* data. You running around like a chicken with his head cut off claiming the sky is going to fall, is not a serious argument, and not really helpful.

It should be noted here, I have personally sacrificed time and money in support of alternative 'green' energy that will make a difference. Serious money, not play-money. I actually put up.

Now, I spoke to someone not long ago who claimed the world was 'going to end' in 10 years (now 9 years). When I mentioned that it didn't appear we were reaching 'armageddon' across this year, the claim was changed to not 'end of the world' but, 'point of no return'. Okay, I said, but one would think we'd see some 'serious' changes leading up to the 'point of no return' (by which he meant all, or nearly all, human life would end on Earth). Oh, those are coming - just let me move that goal post a bit further back.

Now, maybe he's right? No one knows. I personally think the Earth has a lot of negative feedback systems, simply because it seems reasonable to me (given life exists). But, maybe I am totally wrong and all human life will end soon. I didn't invest because I thought the world was going to end, I invested because I would like to see more progress made in green energy that is sustainable, renewable, and may even make life better for generations of humans, long after I'm frozen

Now, this is the interesting thing, I asked him how much and where he had invested his money - you know, it'd be pretty moronic to believe life on earth was going to end, and not to pull money out of those 50 year long-term retirement investments and put it into proactive companies that are working on solutions to AGW. You know, because there's not going to be life in 50 years. What was the number?

ZERO

LOL

And this is how it always is with these guys.
Pure cognitive dissonance.

 

[iceaura]

Here, let me postulate something that's 'skeptical': The sun may not rise in the morning tomorrow.

Another good example of the nature of your denials. The only problem with it is the lack of any actual large and public body of deniers - unlike with AGW, or white racism and its effects on black people in the US, or the Holocaust.

So if I were to use it, I would be depending on the good faith and informed imagination of guys like you - null set, roger, over and out.

But you can use it, because the people you are dealing with are posting in good faith and willing to use informed imagination. A nice position to be in.

 

[pjdude1219]

White racism is a scam. When slavery was legal, only about 1% of the white people could afford to own slaves. Slaves were not cheap to buy or to maintain. The other 99% of the white people did not own slaves, yet they are falsely accused by the left.

Does the 1% standard apply to all things? For example, over 1% of women make as much money as men. Does this mean there is equality of pay, since to the left, 1% means all? Or is the dual standard in affect?

Of those 1% whites who owned slaves, 100% were Democrats, at the time of Lincoln. The Republican had little to do with slavery other than helping the slaves escape from the 1% whites who were Democrats.

When slavery was abolished, segregation, Jim Crow laws and KKK, was a southern Democrat thing. Again this was not all whites, but mostly whites connected to the Democratic party. I am doing the math to see who should pay.

The Democrats did not see the light of their evil ways, until about the time of Civil Rights. The Republicans were already being helpful over a century before. By the time the Democrats whites started to feel the need for compensation to blacks, laws were already in place. The white guilt is the Democrats party guilt. The compensation for slavery and discrimination needs to be targeted to the 1% white Democrats. The rest is deep pockets scam, designed to distract from the role the Democrats plays in slavery and discrimination. They act holier that thou, to distract from their own guilt and direct obligations. They try to make Lincoln pay to distract.

do you just try and say the dumbest shit possible? i find your revisionist history offensive and repugnent.

 

[Michael]

Another good example of the nature of your.....

Again, your argument was specifically: The effects of white racism on blacks in the USA. We're still waiting for you to list those effects, so there's nothing yet to deny.

Can a 'White Racist' have an effect on a 'Black' American? Of course. That's different from claiming the reason why Yellow Americans make 20K more than White Americans per annum is because of 'White Racism' and 'it's effects' on Yellow People.

Once general IQ is controlled for, you will find that the 'effects' are actually biological in nature. Yellow People developed different DNA due to different environmental selection pressures, their different DNA produces brains that function slightly different, in ways that are economically beneficial - spatial reasoning for example; thus, resulting in the Yellow culture of valuing education, the over-representation of Yellow People in higher education (where structural racism developed by racists prevents many from attending due to superficial phenotypic characteristics), and ultimately their place as the top dog on the USA socioeconomically. There's no need to conjure up some magical 'white racism' to explain why Yellow People do better in White ethnocentric countries. They're simply different biologically.

While you may think magical 'White Racism' explains why Blacks are over-represented in the NBA, I'm more inclined to think they're biologically different. Height, jump, speed, hand-eye coordination, etc.... these are all the end result of DNA encoding.

There's no virtue here. Just chemicals.

In time the scientific data will clearly show, this argument to accurately model reality, and with it to reflect a good degree of predictability, while yours will be undefined and incoherent, lack predictive power, and be deemed incorrect.

Scientifically, defunct. Which is why you refuse to define your terms, provide good evidence, and etc....

Defunct Theories, like Race Theory, are natural in science. Try not to get to emotionally attached to your pet theories, they're bound to be totally and utterly wrong

 

[iceaura]

Again, your argument was specifically: The effects of white racism on blacks in the USA.

No, my argument is that you are denying that.

Can a 'White Racist' have an effect on a 'Black' American? Of course. That's different from claiming the reason why Yellow Americans make 20K more than White Americans per annum is because of 'White Racism' and 'it's effects' on Yellow People.

Black people, not yellow people. White racism, black people, not "a white racist", or "a black person". Try to pay attention, eh?

Once general IQ is controlled for, you will find that the 'effects' are actually biological in nature

You have no idea what "general IQ" means. You have no idea what "biological in nature" means.

If you want to compare the average IQ scores of US black people, as a population, with US white people, as a population, on an absolute scale and attributed to genetic factors, you would have to control for (among many other factors) the various effects of white racism on black people's IQ scores. Nobody has ever done that.

And whenever they do, the historical and physical record of white racism and its effects on black people will still be there - a dominant and overwhelmingly significant structural factor of American life, visible almost everywhere you look in this country.

You can deny it, but you can only make yourself absurd thereby.

 

[Schmelzer]

If you want to compare the average IQ scores of US black people, as a population, with US white people, as a population, on an absolute scale and attributed to genetic factors, you would have to control for (among many other factors) the various effects of white racism on black people's IQ scores. Nobody has ever done that.

That becomes interesting.

The most interesting thing is the "nobody has ever done that". Why is it interesting? To study them would be interesting, and a result which proves that there is a strong influence of white racism on black IQ would be problematic for many named "racists" because they think IQ is mostly genetic, and would be quite independent of white racism. In normal science, once a hypothesis is proposed, and is not completely insane, it will be tested too. And even if the thesis is insane - once it becomes, for whatever reasons, sufficiently popular, it will be tested.

In politically influenced science, the situation is different. There may be interesting and not unreasonable hypotheses which are important in the political discurse, let's name them political hypotheses. They are heavily debated, and there is a political correct position, and other positions, of "deniers". But the political hypothesis itself is an empirical hypothesis, it could be tested. But in some interesting cases, it is not tested. Why not? Very simple. If the scientist starts to test a hypothesis, he has, of course, some personal expectation about the result. If his expectation is that the politically correct position is true, it is a good idea to test the hypothesis. But what if not? Then his paper would support the "deniers". This is certainly not helpful for the own scientific career. So, he will not do it. Once the whole scientific community is quite sure that the result will be the politically incorrect one, the result is predictable: The political hypothesis will not be tested empirically, even if it would be easy to do this.

So, maybe iceaura's "nobody has ever done that" points to an example of such a refusal of the scientific community to test a politically correct hypothesis, because the scientific community expects it to be wrong?

And whenever they do, the historical and physical record of white racism and its effects on black people will still be there - a dominant and overwhelmingly significant structural factor of American life, visible almost everywhere you look in this country.

This is another interesting point. It shows that iceaura has already prepared an excuse if the hypothesis above would fail. One which science will be probably unable to test. Looks like the hypothesis of the effects of white racism can be transformed into something completely unfalsifiable (thus, unscientific).

Such a transformation of an originally reasonable scientific hypothesis into an unfalsifiable, unscientific one is a well-known effect in scientific methodology. Popper has discussed such immunization strategies. In some situations, they appear to be necessary as corrections of theories which have been falsified in their original version. But it decreases the empirical content of a theory, and, therefore, should be avoided if possible.

 

[iceaura]

This is another interesting point. It shows that iceaura has already prepared an excuse if the hypothesis above would fail.

No hypothesis of mine is at risk - I haven't posted one.

Looks like the hypothesis of the effects of white racism can be transformed into something completely unfalsifiable (thus, unscientific).

There is no such hypothesis involved. Hypothesizing a hypothesis in this situation - as with the Holocaust, or AGW, or the sunrise in the morning - is either a fantasy thought experiment or an absurd denial.

The most interesting thing is the "nobody has ever done that". Why is it interesting? To study them would be interesting, and a result which proves that there is a strong influence of white racism on black IQ would be problematic for many named "racists" because they think IQ is mostly genetic, and would be quite independent of white racism.
- - -
So, maybe iceaura's "nobody has ever done that" points to an example of such a refusal of the scientific community to test a politically correct hypothesis, because the scientific community expects it to be wrong?

You have a minor point hidden in there, addressed below.

]First, the bs:
It would cost a large fortune, take many years, directly threaten a good many corporate and political interests, and teach us little or nothing. It would probably have no effect on the American racial bigots - many similar findings and established facts have had no effect. We're talking about absurd denial, here, stuff already proven immune to reason and evidence.
And the point would be essentially trivial -
1) the influence of high stress maternal and childhood living environments, heavy metal exposure, poorly educated parents, low weight and premature birth, stereotype threat, poor diet, and all the rest of the race-correlated influences shown and known to affect IQ scores, on the average IQ score of the American black population, is nothing anyone needs to spend a fortune on to quantify in all its complexities for an entire race. These are all bad things that should be prevented and avoided regardless.
2) the quantification of the portion of population average IQ score variance between populations that is actually "genetic" would be almost meaningless - because there's no mechanism. If you nail down to the tenth of a percent the exact proportion of the US black/white average over populations IQ gap that is "genetic", you still don't know what's going on. For all you know it's a racial genetic susceptibility to developmental injury from a pregnant mother's dust mite allergies. Or wheat flour. Because you were bulk averaging over populations you hadn't genetically defined and characterized, you haven't learned jack shit about genetic cause and effect.

The tracing of the genetic roots of individual human mental capabilities will tell us the racial genetic things, whatever they are, in the long run - and that is probably the only approach that will. Being both necessary and sufficient, it should receive pretty much all the effort, no?

] Then the point: yes, there is a sociological pressure and political resistance to any scientific investigation of biological racial issues in the US, even blood pressure and drug metabolism type stuff, let alone a socially fraught matter like "intelligence". This is because the record of them as being little more than attempted justifications and assumptions of clownish bigotry is almost without exception in US history, and the effort involved in setting them up to yield valid results in contrast with those others would be so large and expensive and uncertain of findings.

Myself, I'm thinking that the recent advances in DNA sequencing - speed and cost both - may provide a tech fix for the sociological problem - no need to classify by race at all, go to the genetics directly, if the question can be answered there. That probably won't help with the interpretation, but just lowering the cost of the data collection would make a big difference imho.

None of this will bail the deniers out of their sunken boat, though. The anti-miscegenation laws of the Confederacy were on the books, and enforced, until 1967 - fifty years ago - in a country in which white people owned (and inherited by marriage etc) almost all the wealth of 200 years accumulation, and had just then experienced the most dramatic economic boom and increase in prosperity ever seen on the planet.

If you look at things like that - hundreds of them - and try to deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US, you just make yourself absurd.

 

[Michael]

No, my argument is that you are denying that.

Yes, that is one of your weaker arguments. So, let's be clear: What IS one of the 'effects' of 'white racism' you think I am denying? (try not being circular)

If you want to compare the average IQ scores of US black people, as a population, with US white people, as a population, on an absolute scale and attributed to genetic factors, you would have to control for (among many other factors) the various effects of white racism on black people's IQ scores. Nobody has ever done that.

LOL

You sound just like those climate deniers iceaura. Geeeee we haven't yet controlled for everything under the sun, and so we cannot conclude anything about AGW.

Nice, you're starting to circle around and eat your tail. Good job!




The data strongly suggests that IQ is 50 - 85% biological. In addition, so are many other traits and behaviors. It seems, the answer you are looking for isn't 'white racism' but is actually, 'biochemistry'. Adoption studies of E. Asians in Europe show this. When affluence is controlled for (see poor Chinese), the same results are found. Likewise with pollution (noise and lead) in Chinese cities - same result, 110 IQ in spatial reasoning. Given the strong correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status, we can explain a number of outcomes. Why Yellows make 20K more a year than Whites, in a White-dominated culture, for example. Genetic differences also explain why Yellow Girls are the least likely to be suspended from Government Schools. Not only are Yellows likely to make more money per year, they're also the victims of structural racism in the USA. By the bye, the same is true of Chinese in Malaysia.

Again, the simplest answer is often the best answer: E. Asians have different DNA, this different DNA is due to the different selection pressures E. Asians faced (40,000 years of arctic tundra for example) and now result in modern day E. Asian humans being born with brains that are slightly different, in regards to spatial orientation for example.

Sadly, racists will continue to peddle 'Race Theory' and continue to ignore science - blaming unicorns that barf rainbows, because not to do so, would be challenging their most cherished beliefs: Race Theory and the magical White Patriarchy (Yellows have this magical shield that protects them from this stuff, it's called IQ).

They might even have to face the fact that for decades, their magical Progressive Governmental policies have destroyed society. All the Government enacted regulatory capture that HARMS society, and reinforces poverty by (A) favoring high IQ people as overly paid rent-seekers as opposed to free-market driven high quality that's affordable (B) pays low IQ people to engage in behavior that reinforces their socioeconomic status - such as remaining unmarried with an unaffordable number of children and (C) double down on rent-seeking by attempting to licence EVERYTHING. From marriage to who can sell butter. Talk about Police State USA.

Of course, they will never stop. Their next 'Big Thing' is to ban free-speech. Which, my guess is, they will do. Even if it means removing the first Amendment. They'll never stop until we live in their Nineteen Eighty-Four Social Utopia. Like Swedenstan or Venezuela. Then, finally reality will catch up with piles of dead and starving (200 million humans died in their social experiments last century - millions more die today in those experiments that have not yet ended), and they'll eventually be shown the gallows by the very people they claimed to want to 'help' with just a bit of State Authoritarianism.

Just as has happened over and over and over again.

“History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes”
-Mark Twain

I'd suggest this applies to the outcomes of Socialism. Communist China wasn't exactly the same as Progressive Socialistic Paradise Venesuela. Not that the starving and dead would notice.

 

[iceaura]

You sound just like those climate deniers iceaura. Geeeee we haven't yet controlled for everything under the sun, and so we cannot conclude anything about AGW.

You haven't controlled for anything. You don't even have data.

So, let's be clear: What IS one of the 'effects' of 'white racism' you think I am denying?

One in particular, isolated? Ok: Its overall suppression, lowering, of US black people's performance on IQ tests and proxie IQ measures (SATs, etc).

The data strongly suggests that IQ is 50 - 85% biological. In addition, so are many other traits and behaviors.

Like height - you still haven't looked at that, have you. You are making the same mistake about IQ that people used to make about height - with even less support in the data.
And then you are attempting to justify denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US by invoking IQ - which wouldn't work even if your racial IQ claim was solid instead of hopelessly naive.

Given the strong correlation between IQ and socioeconomic status, we can explain a number of outcomes. - - - - - {yellow people, speculations about Asian people's DNA, Progressive Reactionary Socialist Fascist Government Tyranny over butter sales and marriage licenses, also Venezuela and Communist China!}

If you type long enough, will you get back around to white racism's effects on black people in the US eventually?

Y'know, you wander off into spla meadows and miss even the stuff handed you on a platter: the denial of what happened under Mao in his old age is still a thing, as they say (denial of Stalin's horrorshow crumbled under the facts), could be compared here with the Holocaust denials etc, and it would be one you could disown - proving your gullibility is not infinite.

The denial of Mao's bad stuff of his older years would make an especially interesting comparison with Jim Crow denial in the US, because its mechanism involves a superficially similar (at least) inculcated amnesia regarding quite recent events and processes whose consequences and continuances are everywhere visible in the country.

 

[Michael]

You haven't controlled for anything. You don't even have data.

Actually, I posted a study showing Yellow People in Britain have a score of 110 on spatial reasoning, while White Irish and White English had scores of 100. Yellow People in Europe matched scores of Yellow People in Asia, both having elevated scores specifically with regards to spatial reasoning.

Ok: Its overall suppression, lowering, of US black people's performance on IQ tests and proxie IQ measures (SATs, etc).

Oh, good, a little specificity.

Firstly, what are US Black People's IQ scores supposed to be?
What are Yellow People's scores supposed to be?
White Jewish, have IQ scores between 112 - 115 (elevated verbal reasoning), what are their scores supposed to be?

Jewish and Asian are under-represented in the NBA. Why?

 

[iceaura]

Actually, I posted a study showing Yellow People in Britain have a score of 110 on spatial reasoning, while White Irish and White English had scores of 100. Yellow People in Europe matched scores of Yellow People in Asia, both having elevated scores specifically with regards to spatial reasoning

That isn't relevant data.
Black people, in the US, effects of white racism - remember?

Although if you wanted to expand into Mao Terror denial, stuff about how smart yellow people are might be relevant.

Firstly, what are US Black People's IQ scores supposed to be?

Nobody knows.

Jewish and Asian are under-represented in the NBA. Why?

Don't care - irrelevant.
So were black people, until recently - and not only in the NBA, but the colleges of the Confederacy and so forth. That might be relevant.

Oh, good, a little specificity.

Again. I've mentioned the effects of white racism on the IQ scores of black people maybe, what, ten or fifteen times now?
You have yet to address the matter. Or the other dozen or so on the table. Until you do, your entire IQ deflection lacks evidence and reasoning, has no data support and no logic. You don't even have the cause and effect in the right order, as far as you have made visible.