Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

Means, you are a liar.

Something else you are wrong about. The contortions necessary to defend an absurd denial get you into all kinds of trouble.

- - I do not believe that you, crying all the time "denier", don't want to see any action against those evil deniers.

You and your "beliefs" - always about the person. Hello?

You may be not at risk. I'm not too, but this is only because the accusations of Holocaust denial against me, which have been made here, are so completely stupid that even the German justice would be laughing. But, beyond this, in principle I would be in danger, Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, I'm a German citizen, so, even being in Canada would not protect me from German justice. Moreover, I even spend some time in Germany.

Sorry to hear that. But your assertion that everybody else is under any such threat, or in any way coerced into repeating some kind of Party line when they call you on your absurd denials (as you posted in the thread where you were called out on that one) is not reasonable, and illustrates the crippling effects of absurd denial.

Iceaura in the position of the teacher, and everybody else as those who have to learn. LOL.

Not everybody else. But you? Yep. Any argument or contention based on or leading to a denial of this kind is self-invalidating - reductio ad absurdum is a standard form of disproof.

Look at Michael - he actually has a valid observation and a potentially interesting case to make about IQ scores and black people's socioeconomic status in the US. But it all falls apart because he keeps trying to use it to deny white racism and its completely obvious, all-surrounding, overwhelmingly significant effects on black people in the US for hundreds of years. It's like watching a guy with an interesting and provocative discovery about electromagnetism put all his effort into building a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Schmelzer]

Something else you are wrong about.

You were asked to support your claims with proofs, by quotes with links. Once you refused to do this, thus, your claims are lies, and you are a liar.

Sorry to hear that. But your assertion that everybody else is under any such threat, or in any way coerced into repeating some kind of Party line when they call you on your absurd denials (as you posted in the thread where you were called out on that one) is not reasonable

As a potential, the threat exists for you too. It is natural for those who fight for political correct speech and against denial to enforce it with more and more serious means. The moral condemnation is the first step, loss of job for political incorrect speech the second, imprisonment comes after this. I understand that many here think that they are not endangered at all, because they will be on the other side. I would recommend them to learn from history.

Here, the good news is that Trump's victory may have stopped this threat. Even if the deep state has won the fight and rules, this is the part where democracy is allowed and the sheeple (in this case, the Republican part of it) will get what Trump has promised. What happens with political correctness is now something decided on the ground, by the everyday fighting of the people for free speech or against it. During the last twenty years, it looked much worse, with free speech being more and more repressed.

Not everybody else. But you? Yep.

I have taken a look at your behavior in discussion with others, and you show exactly the same patterns of arrogant behavior there too. I have to tell you, there is no base for your arrogance. You are a nobody, posting under pseudonym, with good reason to hide, once you have already disqualified yourself as a liar.

 

[wellwisher]

Men are visual animals and women are more verbal based animals. PC and all the denial and guilt propaganda is based on verbal games. The PC approach is fine for women, and maybe men who think they are women. But men who are men and who are good at visual perception, should be exempt from PC, since they don't think along these lines. Liberals are feminists, so they take the approach of the natural female mind. Verbal is very important to them, at the exclusion of visual evidence. Science is more based on visual evidence and proof, which is why it is more masculine. Although, PC games have been added science; global warming, via the denier buzz word.

Let me give you an example of the difference of perception, visual versus verbal. If you look at an anti-Trump demonstration or a demonstration on a college campus against a conservative speaker, there is a lot of anger and hate. This hate and anger translates to the fear of violence, to where the event may need to be postponed or added security is made available. The male mind can see the hate, in the liberals, but this is not called hate speech, by the verbal people. The visual male sees the hate and then sees the speech that the hate, fuels. But to the female and he-she mind, this is not hate speech, because it is not defined as hate speech, by those who do it. There is a disconnect away from visual evidence, in favor of how one subjectivity labels things with words, to their own benefit.

If we go to a comedy club, and the comedians are making fun and the audience is laughing and having a good time, if the comedians say the wrong buzz words, even with no hate in the heart of anyone in the audience, this can be called hate speech. Again, there is a disconnect between visually seeing happy people and word noises, and inferring, from the mood of the audience, what is being induced by the words. Men should be exempt ,since many have the capacity to stay in touch with reality, using visual cues. Culture should not be about dumbing down the men, to a lower common denominator.

The main problem with the verbal approach, is this is used by the used car salesmen, to convince the buyer, that a junk car is in excellent running condition. Those who rely on words, instead of sight, will have a harder time verifying; house wife with no mechanical skills. She will depend in how the words are spoken, and whether they trust what they feel when they hear the words. The good con artist knows this, and works tone into his con.

The visual man, will look under the car and open the hood to see for himself. He will not depend on the smiling face, smooth sounds and words that mean the opposite of what he sees. Men should be exempt since they are needed to protect the women from being scammed by sweet verbal con artists.

The question is how so you convince the housewife, the car is defective, based on visual inspection, when she is not good at visual skills, but prefers the use the tones and sounds of words? The con artist is good at that. The male may have out con, the con with an exaggerated sense of self confidence in his visual skills, to reach her verbal mind, since hard data will not work. This is the approach you need with liberals, since that lack visual skills and depend on buzz words and how they feel. This is part of the reason old traditions have the husband leading the wife; visual leads verbal. Visual is consistent; hate is hate, but verbal is more subjective; hate is not always hate based on how the con artist makes you feel about the hate.

 

[iceaura]

As a potential, the threat exists for you too.

Nonsense. We'd be perfectly safe even in Holocaust denial, let alone AGW or Jim Crow denial. Those are politically favored.

The moral condemnation is the first step, loss of job for political incorrect speech the second, imprisonment comes after this. I understand that many here think that they are not endangered at all, because they will be on the other side.

Now you've lost track of your argument. You were claiming the opposite, recall - that we were pressured somehow to spout the party line, that we were mocking your denials because we were in thrall or under threat and not thinking for ourselves.

btw: We don't feel safe because we think we are on the safe side - we feel safe because there is no such threat here, to any side.

I have taken a look at your behavior in discussion with others, and you show exactly the same patterns of arrogant behavior there too. I have to tell you, there is no base for your arrogance. You are a nobody, posting under pseudonym, with good reason to hide, once you have already disqualified yourself as a liar.

Good thing I'm not wrong, then, with so little going for me otherwise.

 

[Schmelzer]

Nonsense. We'd be perfectly safe even in Holocaust denial, let alone AGW or Jim Crow denial. Those are politically favored.

LOL. If your totalitarian dream is realized, nobody will be safe. Learn at least a little bit from history.

Now you've lost track of your argument. You were claiming the opposite, recall

It was sloppy and polemically formulated. But just remember the facts: Zündel, a Holocaust denier, living in US and Canada to avoid German justice, was given to the Germans by Canada, to be imprisoned for years for his speech. Ok, he was expat, German citizen. So what? The usual base for extradition from a free country is that the one has plausibly been accused to have done something which is criminal in the extradicting state too. One does not send a Saudi muslim back to Saudi Arabia for the crime of conversion to Christianity, you get the point? But the Holocaust denier was send to Germany.

So, ok, formally you are safe yet, Holocaust denial is a crime only in Germany. You are not a German citizen. Fine? Think twice. Remember Obama's killing lists. They are only for non-US citizens. But, somehow, this American priest, and later his son, where murdered. The result was some coverage in the media, but nothing else, no impeachment was started or so. That guy, American or not, was considered a jihadist, thus, fair game. And his son loved him and his political ideas, so, fair game too. Never thought about what this means? If you will be considered, for whatever reasons, as an enemy, the US citizenship will not protect you.

- that we were pressured somehow to spout the party line, that we were mocking your denials because we were in thrall or under threat and not thinking for ourselves.

You are not pressured. You name other "deniers", instead of presenting arguments that your position is correct. So, you are one of those who pressures others. And you will not stop pressure others if imprisonment starts, given your reaction to actual imprisonment for free speech in Germany, which you have named "Germany's understandable sensitivity". This even predicts the line of the argumentation which you will use to justify imprisonment for political incorrect speech - with the key word "sensitivity". Fits nicely to the presentation of PC as a form of politeness or sensitivity.

Ok, the prediction that you will actively participate in imprisoning others for free speech is an extrapolation from what I see here, it, therefore, remains a hypothesis. But that you will not fight against such imprisonment is obvious. You will be on the other side of the barricades.

 

[Michael]

Look at Michael - he actually has a valid observation and a potentially interesting case to make about IQ scores and black people's socioeconomic status in the US. But it all falls apart because he keeps trying to use it to deny white racism and its completely obvious, all-surrounding, overwhelmingly significant effects on black people in the US for hundreds of years. It's like watching a guy with an interesting and provocative discovery about electromagnetism put all his effort into building a perpetual motion machine.

LOL

Sorry, but you blitheringly repeating your claim is not good evidence in support of your argument. Do you have some data yet? No? Well, see, this is how it works, if you do not have data, then you just have a claim. An unscientific belief. Just like religion.

You may want to consider visiting a Temple of Xenu, I believe Scientology is as close to Science as you are going to get in this lifetime.
LOL

 

[Michael]

I'd say we're well into the second act.

 

[iceaura]

You are not pressured. You name other "deniers", instead of presenting arguments that your position is correct. So, you are one of those who pressures others.

No position of mine is involved. You have no idea, for example, what my "position" is on any of these matters - even AGW, I bet.

And you will not stop pressure others if imprisonment starts, given your reaction to actual imprisonment for free speech in Germany, which you have named "Germany's understandable sensitivity".

It's one thing to post idiotic insults, attribute nonsense, misrepresent people for entertainment or whatever and project one's one own visible impulses and motivations unto others -

when you start to argue from that as if you had created a reality, you're down the rabbit hole.

What's missing, the central marble you've lost, is a conception of the reality involved in these denials.

Look: When somebody claims that what people refer to as white racism and its centuries of accumulated effects on black people in the US is an illusion, and the underlying reality is just that progressive socialism has been penalizing all stupid people equivalently all this time, the observation that that is silly and makes no sense is not a position. All kinds of much different positions, including every position based on physical reality, will make that observation.
And when that denial is of a common kind with a long pedigree, debunked for hundreds of years now, the latest manifestation of the 250 year old American notion that because black people are {stupid, criminal, immoral, etc} white people haven't been destructively racist,

it joins them in that category: absurd denials.

This has nothing to with any other "position". No "Party line" has anything to do with it. There are dozens of different reality-based positions on the cause, nature, mechanisms, effects, etc, of white racism in the US.

For example: just this past month or so a sleep study announced finding that 1) overt acts of discrimination disturb the sleep of their targets, lowering its quality and 2) black people are four times as likely as white people to have clinically significant low quality sleep. So that's a new consideration, for the actual positions.

Ok, the prediction that you will actively participate in imprisoning others for free speech is an extrapolation from what I see here, it, therefore, remains a hypothesis.

It's a continuation of a willful and contrived stupidity you should have abandoned months ago.

But that you will not fight against such imprisonment is obvious. You will be on the other side of the barricades.

Assuming you aren't being paid to lie, your conception of the political factions in the US - the divisions along which any barricades would be built in the US - is a farrago you downloaded into your gullible mind from the crudest and least credible of American rightwing authoritarian propaganda feeds. You have been a mouthpiece for the propaganda of the major forces of speech suppression and advocates of imprisonment in the US since you got here.

 

[Schmelzer]

No position of mine is involved. You have no idea, for example, what my "position" is on any of these matters - even AGW, I bet.

There is no need to know such details. You use the weapon of moral accusations ("denier") against those who disagree about some particular historical and scientific questions. The fronts where you apply these weapons are the standard, mainstream ones - Holocaust denial, AGW denial. So, not your invention - you are not inventing some Dark Matter Denial or so, dark matter remains a question of no interest for the deep state. But you fight against all deniers. By some strange accident, you defend the nonexisting party line as about 9/11, as about AGW, as about white racism, as about Holocaust. Like a good party soldier is obliged to do.

Look: When somebody claims that what people refer to as white racism and its centuries of accumulated effects on black people in the US is an illusion, and the underlying reality is just that progressive socialism has been penalizing all stupid people equivalently all this time, the observation that that is silly and makes no sense is not a position. All kinds of much different positions, including every position based on physical reality, will make that observation.

Ok, I look, and I see a nice fantasy strawman you have created. Fine. This is, of course, part of the job of a party soldier on the propaganda front. Create caricatures of the evil enemy.

For example: just this past month or so a sleep study announced finding that 1) overt acts of discrimination disturb the sleep of their targets, lowering its quality and 2) black people are four times as likely as white people to have clinically significant low quality sleep. So that's a new consideration, for the actual positions.

Such a study could be, in usual scientific life, the starting point for a lot of further research. That stress does not improve your sleep quality is everyday common sense knowledge. Such future research, or, probably already existing research about sleeping disorders, could clarify if higher overall stress or something else leads to this particular effect.

Assuming you aren't being paid to lie, your conception of the political factions in the US - the divisions along which any barricades would be built in the US - is a farrago you downloaded into your gullible mind from the crudest and least credible of American rightwing authoritarian propaganda feeds. You have been a mouthpiece for the propaganda of the major forces of speech suppression and advocates of imprisonment in the US since you got here.

In other words, you invent the origin of this idea to start an ad hominem against me based on your invention. Your problem is that this is not plausible at all. Because I characterize your behavior. Based on how you argue here. So, the source of my idea that you will support imprisonment for speech against the party line was your statement, emphasis mine, about Germany imprisoning Holocaust deniers:

... Germany's understandable sensitivity to that particular absurd denial ....

Similarly funny is the idea that somebody would pay me for discrediting a pseudonymous poster in some quite irrelevant forum.

 

[iceaura]

There is no need to know such details.

There is a need to know such details, before claiming I am defending a particular position. You don't know them, (and the position you claim is not involved), so your claim is bogus.

You use the weapon of moral accusations ("denier") against those who disagree about some particular historical and scientific questions

The immorality, if any, is in the use of the absurd denial - the agenda of the denier. That varies, in my experience - sometimes it's just paranoid schizophrenia, as with John Nash, sometimes a more specific bubble world is in need of protection, as with Michael above, - and sometimes it's a bad motive to which "immoral" does indeed apply. The absurd denial itself is just absurd - an oddity of no intrinsic meaning.

Meanwhile: "disagreement about historical and scientific questions" has nothing to do with it.The absurd denial is specifically and by definition not of anything genuinely at issue or in question.

By some strange accident, you defend the nonexisting party line as about 9/11, as about AGW, as about white racism, as about Holocaust

No, I don't. You once again precisely miss the main point of a simple argument.
I'm not defending anything.

The fronts where you apply these weapons are the standard, mainstream ones - Holocaust denial, AGW denial.

I didn't pick 'em. You guys did.

"Look: When somebody claims that what people refer to as white racism and its centuries of accumulated effects on black people in the US is an illusion, and the underlying reality is just that progressive socialism has been penalizing all stupid people equivalently all this time, the observation that that is silly and makes no sense is not a position. All kinds of much different positions, including every position based on physical reality, will make that observation."
Ok, I look, and I see a nice fantasy strawman you have created.

I wish. Aren't you reading Michael's posts?

Such a study could be, in usual scientific life, the starting point for a lot of further research. That stress does not improve your sleep quality is everyday common sense knowledge.

So everyday common sense knowledge is something you admit into discussion, is it? But not where AGW denial is concerned.

Because I characterize your behavior. Based on how you argue here. So, the source of my idea that you will support imprisonment for speech against the party line was your statement, emphasis mine, about Germany imprisoning Holocaust deniers:

I can only post - can't make you read with comprehension. Germany is of course wrong to jail people for spouting nonsense. But there's no mystery about why they are so touchy there about that one - they committed a horror, persuaded by such rhetoric. The absurdists got hold of the army. It's like a guy quitting smoking who won't allow his neighbor to light a pipe in on his property - overkill, but the motive is easy to understand.

And you are obviously trying to slide past that startlingly strange argument you posted - that mocking absurd denial, even labeling it absurd, is somehow acting in the service of a coercion, making or bending to a threat. That there is no reality involved.

In other words, you invent the origin of this idea to start an ad hominem against me based on your invention.

I invented nothing. I'm long familiar, being American, with the origins of - for example - your vocabulary and take on Hillary Clinton. You didn't have to nail it down with the wingnut videos - it was obvious already.

As with with tracking anything, it's the errors and slanders and little turns of phrase that field mark your sources. If you would confine yourself to matters reasoned from information - such as Clinton's actual bad behavior, her many and serious flaws as a politician - it would be impossible to spot your sources. Everybody has the same facts in front of them. As it is, they are impossible to miss.

 

[Schmelzer]

There is a need to know such details, before claiming I am defending a particular position.

You are not defending any particular position if you defend the party line. The party line changes, a particular position not. These are different things.

The immorality, if any, is in the use of the absurd denial - the agenda of the denier.

But you use the moral accusation "denier" without clarifying such things.

Meanwhile: "disagreement about historical and scientific questions" has nothing to do with it.

Indeed. It is the amoral behavior of attacking the party line all this is about.

I'm not defending anything.

Correct. You attack other people. This is different from defending any particular position.

So everyday common sense knowledge is something you admit into discussion, is it? But not where AGW denial is concerned.

???? Common sense knowledge does not have to say a lot about AGW.

And you are obviously trying to slide past that startlingly strange argument you posted - that mocking absurd denial, even labeling it absurd, is somehow acting in the service of a coercion, making or bending to a threat. That there is no reality involved.

Fine to hear that you have finally admitted that Germany is wrong jailing people for free speech. A lot of repetitions of your understandable sensitivity quote were necessary to reach this. Too many, so you have to live with the fact that I'm not convinced that this admission is honest. But, anyway, fine that you have finally done it.

As with with tracking anything, it's the errors and slanders and little turns of phrase that field mark your sources. If you would confine yourself to matters reasoned from information - such as Clinton's actual bad behavior, her many and serious flaws as a politician - it would be impossible to spot your sources. Everybody has the same facts in front of them. As it is, they are impossible to miss.

As well, you continue to trace sources, and attack people for using evil sources. The totalitarian character of accusing people for using evil sources I have already explained, I think. The problem with this: It works only in a situation where access to evil sources becomes dangerous. I would guess, given your behavior, in particular, your emphasis on your ability to identify these sources using various markers, instead of your (non-existing) ability to confront the arguments made in these evil sources, that if I would work in some US university or so, my job would be indeed in danger. But I don't. I'm independent. I have no problem at all to "admit" that I read evil sources. I have done this all the time, already starting from my communist childhood, and will always do it. And this includes not only sources iceaura thinks are evil, it includes also sources I consider as "evil" - as written by those which I consider as my political enemies - too.

 

[Syne]

Classification by actual behavior, of individuals exhibiting said behavior and no other feature, is the opposite of stereotyping.

No, you said:

"I am lumping you with the other deniers - of the Holocaust, climate change, white racism and its effects on black people in the US." - Post #242​

Hence not classifying by "actual behavior" but instead using negative stereotypes of a broad group to impugn the individual (that does not exhibit that "actual behavior")...the definition of bigoted stereotyping.

That's not what "ad hominem" means. You want "refutation", not "refute". Don't use big words you don't know how to use.
There is no such thing as a "primary cause" of "black outcomes". That's a silly, empty, bigoted, nonsensical attempt at forming a useless concept.

Yes, more of your trolling non-answers. You just keep saying "nuh-uh" as a fallacious bare assertion you seem to imagine has any argumentative merit at all.
I can assure you, the "primary cause" of my outcomes has always been my own actions and decisions. You apparently don't think blacks are capable of that degree of responsibility or accountability. You're obviously a RACIST seeking to usage your own real guilt over how you view blacks.

There will be no refutation from me of the denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US

So once again, you admit to being a troll, wasting everyone's time.

Why is this poster trying to change the subject to Asians? Or boys and girls? Or anybody at all except black people in the US? (btw: he's making a false statement there, about Malaysians and Hmong and Siberians and North American aborigines and so forth. Do you think he cares? )

If white racism accounts for much of the black outcomes, it's only reasonable to ask why Asian racism isn't a contributor to poorer white and black outcomes.

 

[Syne]

Yeah, because everybody wants to enjoy the benefits of being a minority in the US. What with the reduced access to health care and nutrition, worse schools, over policing, racial profiling that comes with it is just sooooooooooo wonderful!

You do know that it is white supremacists who push the argument that minorities are privileged, yes?

Do you have any but anecdotal evidence for any of those?
Comparing the actual crime rates, single parenthood rates, cultural ridicule of education, etc., the causes are all clear.
It's sad that you feel your position is so weak, that you have to associate white supremacy with any opposition. Seem a common deflection for people whose narrative doesn't have any factual basis. But hey, if you've bought into your own victimhood, who am I to dissuade you from your own racism? It's all the white man's fault, right?

So which one of the twins is black Syne?

The one that looks black. Race is largely descriptive and only informally taxonomic.

Dude.. What the hell?

Just so you are aware, I have flagged this thread to my colleagues and admin because of the white supremacist bullshit and the various denials based on pure bigotry being pushed in this thread and I made a particular note about this post of yours.

Because what you just posted, wrote and quoted, has been part of the white supremacist shtick for generations. Are you aware of that?

What you wrote and posted is literally the things of white supremacists say. Without any proof, of course and completely out of context.

When one considers that this is your response to evidence of institutionalised racism, which is inherently damaging to victims of said racism, really, dude, what the fucking hell is wrong with you?

I strongly suggest you cease and desist Syne, as frankly, at this point, you are simply digging a bigger hole for yourself.

NOTICE, you didn't, or more likely couldn't, refute any of the actual statistics I cited. No, instead, you resort to yelling "white supremacist"....which is basically an ad Hitlerum. And you seem to think that threatening moderator action can somehow absolve you from actually engaging with facts you just don't like.

You seem to think that facts and the truth are invalid simply because a racist once said them. That is pathetic and anti-intellectual.

What evidence of "institutional racism"? You rambled off a lot of anecdotal evidence without any attempt to isolate causes whatsoever. That is agenda, not credible argument...much less science.
There's more than ample proof of everything I posted. NOTICE you snipped the evidence that black behavior only worsened when schools attempted to equalize the punishments between races. Where's you refute of those facts? No, you'd much rather threaten mod action and call people racist than engage in actual intellectual conversation.

You asked for proof, I quoted from an article full of embedded links to studies and then provided you with links to other scientific studies to back up my argument and if you required further proof.

It isn't hard to click on a link, Syne. Stop being so goddamn lazy.

I've already addressed your quoted article, but you simply refuse to accept it.
Single parenthood leads to higher rates of bad behavior and crime:

The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families. Fathers typically offer economic stability, a role model for boys, greater household security, and reduced stress for mothers. This is especially true for families with adolescent boys, the most crime-prone cohort. Children from single-parent families are more prone than children from two-parent families to use drugs, be gang members, be expelled from school, be committed to reform institutions, and become juvenile murderers. Single parenthood inevitably reduces the amount of time a child has in interaction with someone who is attentive to the child's needs, including the provision of moral guidance and discipline. According to a 1993 Metropolitan Life Survey, "Violence in America's Public Schools," 71 percent of teachers and 90 percent of law enforcement officials state that the lack of parental supervision at home is a major factor that contributes to the violence in schools. Sixty-one percent of elementary students and 76 percent of secondary children agree with this assessment.
- https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=167327

According to 2012 U.S. Census Bureau information, the number of children reared in single-parent households continues to rise. Children with two parents in the home -- earning two incomes -- tend to have better financial and educational advantages. The effects of a single-parent home on a child’s behavior can be far-reaching and impact several areas of life, including academic achievement and social behaviors.
- http://www.livestrong.com/article/83670-effects-single-parent-home-childs/

Children raised by single mothers are twice as likely to misbehave as those born into traditional two-parent families, according to research.
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...-in-single-parent-families-worse-behaved.html

Two waves of data from a sample of 89 poor and near-poor single black mothers and their preschool children were used to study the influences of parenting stress, physical discipline practices, and nonresident fathers’ relations with their children on behavior problems in kindergarten. The results indicate that higher levels of parent stress, more frequent spanking, and less frequent father–child contact at time 1 were associated with increased teacher-reported behavior problems at time 2. In addition, more frequent contact between nonresident biological fathers and their children moderated the negative effect of harsh discipline by mothers on subsequent child behavior problems. Specifically, when contact with the father was low, maternal spanking resulted in elevated levels of behavior problems; with average contact, this negative effect of spanking was muted; and with high contact, spanking was not associated with increased behavior problems in kindergarten. The implications of these findings for future research and policy are discussed.
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3193152/
​

So since you're oh so big on all the links you cite, I expect you'll be happy to refute all these.

As for you long list of links...
The first requires registration...no thanks.
The second cites social segregation, which occurs most markedly in democrat controlled cities, as an example of structural racism. And I agree, democrats are generally racists.
The third cites W.E. B. Du Bois, the originator of "black elites" securing concessions from the white man, in lieu of the general black exceptionalism promoted by Booker T. Washingtom.

And if you can't be bothered to quote parts you deem probative, you're just being intellectually lazy.

Or do you want me to flag this even further for your repeating the Holocaust denial thing you have going on now? Because what you and Michael are doing is problematic. Firstly, this type of Holocaust denial is actually illegal in some parts of Europe and and other parts of the world and could very well see this website banned and blacklisted in those countries. Secondly, it simply further perpetuates the reality that you and Michael are repulsive and revolting human beings.

Now, you and Michael mean sweet fuck all to us. What does matter to us is just how your attempts to minimise the Holocaust, deny the numbers killed, for example, diminish it as you have been, is actually illegal in many parts of the world.

Bullshit. Citing credible sources on Jewish deaths in the Holocaust does nothing to deny it. You're just making up shit to try to railroad people you can't manage to refute otherwise. You're just trying to make this forum you're personal safe-space.

If anything I've said could possible get this site blacklisted, quote both the relevant law and the my words that you claim would violate it. Otherwise all this all a transparent and frivolous accusation.

 

[Syne]

 

[Michael]

The Libertarian method for leaving monetary appreciation for a job well done, which is to say, a Gift.

Really REALLY great to see this

I am a firm believer that the internet and sharing of information will separate the wheat from the shaft naturally. Which is what we are seeing. In a short period of free communication, decades of Government 'education' is unraveling, even from within these institutions themselves.

The truth is unstoppable where freedom of speech is protected, this is why Progressive Leftists are doing their best to ban it.

 

[Michael]

Seems like it's a good time to summarize iceaura's position again.

The claim is: "White Racism has effects on Black People in the the USA".
As an example of an 'effect' of 'white racism', iceaura postulated: the IQ of Black People. What we would need to know first is what is the average IQ of Black People (control group). We also need to know if 'white racism' can significantly affect IQ. Finally, we need good evidence of the specific effect of white racism on the IQ of black Americans (is it raising, lowering or having no significant effect).

We have evidence of E. Asians living in 'White Patriarchies' where they score 100 on verbal reasoning and 110 on spatial reasoning, the same as the scores of E. Asians living in noise and lead-polluted megalopolis cities of China. Which makes sense, because upwards to 85% of IQ is genetic, and IQ is simply measuring the biological functioning of the brain. Which, according to E. Asians living in death by acid rain and smog China, appears to be quite resilient. We also know that White Jewish have average IQ scores of 112 - 115 on verbal reasoning. White racism, in the form of the Holocaust (the title of the thread), hasn't had a significant effect on these scores. They're still just above 110 on verbal reasoning. We also see that mixed races (half Yellow and half White, for example, score between the two groups on IQ, a 105 on the spatial reasoning subtest for example). Further, when affluence is controlled for, children tend to score the mean for their group. IOWs, the children of the poor and rich E. Asian parents, both score around 110 on spatial reasoning. Further, high IQ parents, tend to have children of the avergae for their group. Asians with IQ of 125 will have children with IQs of 105 - 107. Lastly, Asian children adopted by Whites, have IQs that match the population they were derived from.

So, it seems all of the evidence thus far, indicates 'White Racism' (or magical Unicorn rainbow barf) has no effect on the IQ of Yellow People.


In our Progressive Paradise where Government School rigorously (feverishly) enforces a 12 year institutionalized 'Schooling' experiment against all children, one that insidiously (year by awful indoctrinating year) rewards minuscule differences in scores on standardized testing, effectively assessing IQ (which is mostly biological) those the have a biological advantage (say a little Asian girl) will do best in this system. It's as if the system was designed for this subgroup of children (it wasn't, but there was always going to be one group that was best in an artificial institutionalized system - which always occures when Government violence is used to deliver any good or service).

In addition, Progressive Socialists use the State to enforce regulatory capture that monetarily rewards biological IQ. The State understands what it is doing because it uses legal racial discrimination against one minority group: Yellow People. The ONLY example given here of institutional racism, has been given by me. And it is SAT scores based on race, where Yellows are bigotted against for entry into higher education. Finally, licensing restrictions add to the biological imbalance rewarding high IQ Citizens with rent-seeker status, which explains why E. Asians are the highest on the socioeconomic ladder (as well as in many S. East Asian countries, see: Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand).

Therefore, once biological IQ is controlled for, we find the differences are genetic in nature, have nothing to do with White Racism, and are amplified by the horrendous Government Institution / School that has evolved to pump and dumps in order to meet one, and only one, goal: Rent Seeker Status (itself derived from Government enforced Regulatory Capture).

The solution?
1. Sound money
2. Free people (free markets)
3. Common law

These three conditions, on the backbone of a severely limited government (this will require the elimination of the central bank and labor tax) together with peaceful parenting that utilizes the Aristotlean mean (applied to empathy to protect against the pathological condition afflicting northern Europe).

I'd add, in the short term, virtue signaling should be (and will be someday soon) scored with social ostracization. Which is to say the peaceful voluntary refusal of goods and services until said abhorrent behaviors are voluntarily ceased This is quite common in E. Asia. Which is why they will rise, and we will sink.

 

[iceaura]

"I am lumping you with the other deniers - of the Holocaust, climate change, white racism and its effects on black people in the US." - Post #242Hence not classifying by "actual behavior" but instead using negative stereotypes of a broad group to impugn the individual (that does not exhibit that "actual behavior")...the definition of bigoted stereotyping.

I classified you by your actual behavior, right here. What's wrong with that?

I can assure you, the "primary cause" of my outcomes has always been my own actions and decisions. You apparently don't think blacks are capable of that degree of responsibility or accountability.

There is no such thing as "the primary cause" of your actions and decisions in the first place, let alone their "outcomes".

If white racism accounts for much of the black outcomes, it's only reasonable to ask why Asian racism isn't a contributor to poorer white and black outcomes.

Start by asking if it isn't, in fact. What was the impact of Japanese racism on the black populations of the Pacific Islands in the first half of the 20th Century, say - or the impact of Japanese racism toward the Han Chinese between 1920 and 1945? Does the absence of white or black people of wealth and high status in modern China involve racial factors among the others?

Then, with your questions clarified, you can better deal with the circumstances behind the impact of white racism on black people in the US - starting with the question Jared Diamond was asked, and ended up writing an entire book on, by a Pacific Islander he was working with: Why is it that white people have all the cargo?
And you can do all that in an appropriate thread, rather than this one.

So once again, you admit to being a troll, wasting everyone's time.

In this thread, it's me staying on topic - it's an interesting topic, these absurd denials. It's worth discussing, imho.

And while not completely oblivious to the entertainment value of watching people absurdly deny they are absurdly denying things, some other content would be appropriate, to pad out the posting, no?

 

[iceaura]

You are not defending any particular position if you defend the party line. The party line changes, a particular position not.

? The contortions of the denier are just frigging weird. It's like interviewing Kellyanne Conway about Trump.
I am not defending any Party line that exists, or any other it might change into in the future, or any other it was in the past. I'm not defending any particular lines at all, potential or realized, past, present, or future, as promulgated by anyone.
Either there is a Party line now or there is not. You keep claiming there is one. Whatever you think it is, I'm not defending that. It isn't involved in my argument here, one way or the other, unless it involves an absurd denial (which is not that rare, actually, and if we could somehow proceed to the thread topic would be interesting to consider). Got it?

Fine to hear that you have finally admitted that Germany is wrong jailing people for free speech. A lot of repetitions of your understandable sensitivity quote were necessary to reach this.

Now you pretend this is the first time you have seen me post that. You have run your little game of Holocaust denial in the service of a pretended rational skepticism, the entire schtick basically a way of denigrating Zionist influence, before, on this forum. You have read my posts. I have posted that. Amnesiac or lying and trolling?

I would guess, given your behavior, in particular, your emphasis on your ability to identify these sources using various markers, instead of your (non-existing) ability to confront the arguments made in these evil sources, that if I would work in some US university or so, my job would be indeed in danger.

As always, you guess wrong about domestic American politics.

But you use the moral accusation "denier" without clarifying such things.

It's not a moral accusation. It's a label for a category of open, defended, public, often merely comical, behavior.

???? Common sense knowledge does not have to say a lot about AGW

It has a lot to say about AGW denial. The absurd denials have that in common, of course (hence the appellation).

Indeed. It is the amoral behavior of attacking the party line all this is about.

No party line is involved.

As well, you continue to trace sources, and attack people for using evil sources. The totalitarian character of accusing people for using evil sources I have already explained, I think.

Your major sources, the ones you acquire vocabulary and framing and of course all the delusions and errors from, are the propaganda feeds of the totalitarians currently ascendant in the US. They deceive and manipulate you. That's why you are always wrong about domestic American politics - even basic stuff, like who's on what side. It's why you never make a leftwing mistake, or post anything foolish from a non-corporate libertarian point of view.

 

[iceaura]

Seems like it's a good time to summarize iceaura's position again.

The claim is: "White Racism has effects on Black People in the the USA".

No, it isn't. You have been invited, specifically, to start a thread on that topic - another, different thread. I promised to post in it, at least a couple of times.
You might even find a relevant way to include something about Yellow people, Red people - sky's the limit.

 

[Schmelzer]

Either there is a Party line now or there is not. You keep claiming there is one.

I have always explained you that the phrase "party line" is metaphorical. But don't forget that even the classical examples of "party lines", by Stalin and Mao, were not certain prescriptions fixed once and forever, but heavily changed over time. So those who really have defended a particular position in a particular question with high probability have violated the party line.

Whatever you think it is, I'm not defending that.

No. You simply, by pure accident, behave as a party soldier on the propaganda front is supposed to behave. You use the weapons of party soldiers - personal moral ad hominem attacks, instead of argumentative discussion of the content, your attacks, by pure accident, follow the party line (all the "deniers" are your enemies too, you fight "fascism", except the main open fascism on power today, in the Ukraine).

You have run your little game of Holocaust denial in the service of a pretended rational skepticism,

and you continue to defame me as a Holocaust denier. Now, already quite obviously, in the hope that German authorities start to act against me, not?

It's not a moral accusation. It's a label for a category of open, defended, public, often merely comical, behavior.

You think that denial is some completely harmless, morally neutral behavior? So that no moral accusation is involved if one is called a denier?

The German word "Leugner", which is the main translation, and is used in the German NATO propaganda sources against all the "deniers", has clear and obvious moral implications. A "Leugner" is not simply disagreeing in good faith with some position, he knows the truth and denies it, he is lying intentionally for some bad reasons. The typical denier tries to hide with such a denial own moral or criminal misdeeds.