Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

[iceaura]

One more time, Jim Crow Laws against the Chinese living in CA did not affect their IQ, which is measured at 107.

So? The denial you are clinging to is of their effects on black people. Not Chinese people. You do know the difference, right?

This is good evidence that you are incorrect and that while Jim Crow Laws affected individual people, it had no effect on the IQ of their children - which makes sense, IQ scores are mostly related to one's genetics.

No, it isn't evidence of anything. It's completely irrelevant.

Run the list: I'm not referring to laws alone, I have made no claims about any effects of white racism on Chinese people, white racism's effects on black people are obviously not confined to adults and never have been, the genetic component of IQ is just one minor area of influence, etc etc etc and you are making no sense whatsoever.

Which is typical of the absurd denier. They will, apparently, dive down any rabbit hole of illogic if they can somehow persuade themselves it provides rhetorical cover for their absurd denial. This obsession you have with Chinese people's IQs is just goofy - why do you keep making such weirdly foolish posts about Chinamen in this thread?

 

[Schmelzer]

No.
Why do you have so much difficulty with this simple concept?
If you remain silent you are not a denier. You do not remain silent, but instead post denial of AGW. That gets you the label.

I post something about climate-related questions. This does not mean that I deny any scientific claim about AGW.

1) You have claimed that the science is subjected to, and altered in various ways by, the bias and pressure you think you observe in the media.

Not exactly, the bias in the media is an indication for pressure on science. I have described some typical results, which may be expected to follow from such pressure. If they really appear in climate science too, one would have to evaluate.

2) Your assumptions about the spread of good organisms contradict the scientific findings of the likely spread of organisms under AGW. You claim to be observing bias in the media - you aren't. You are evaluating honest research as if it were biased media reporting.

Nonsense. But feel free to give a reference to a scientific article which really contradicts my assumption that good organisms also spread, and that this would be a positive consequence. Note that I do not claim that there is anything wrong with the claim that bad organisms spread too.

3) No such omissions exist, at least not of any significance. Meanwhile, you have been explicitly claiming the existence of bias and pressure and distortion of research efforts according to your evaluation of the bias in the media. (You also repeatedly attempt to obscure the matter by talking about scientists doing something "wrong", which was never the main concern).

No. I claim that the media bias is an indication of political pressure, and that political pressure has, probably, also an distorting influence on science. But I have not made particular claims about the relevance of this influence in climate science. I have always said that, even if distortion is probable, scientific research remains the best what we have. And I have never rejected any particular scientific paper based on this general expectation of distortion.

4) And all of that adds up not to silence but to claims about the existence, primary causes and mechanisms, and likely consequences, of AGW. You are claiming legitimacy for an absurd doubt justified in bad reasoning from visible ignorance; reasoning which you refuse to correct, ignorance which you actively maintain by rejecting information.

Sorry, but doubt is always justified. Not to doubt is always a personal risk. So, there is no need to claim legitimacy for doubt. It is legitimate by default.
The bias in the media is simply an indication that bias may be a problem in the related scientific research too.

That is denial of AGW.

This is simply an example of continuing distortion of my position. And it illustrates the main point: I have not rejected even a single claim made in any peer-reviewed scientific paper about climate research, but you nonetheless name me an AGW denier. Because I refuse to support the Party line.

 

[iceaura]

I post something about climate-related questions. This does not mean that I deny any scientific claim about AGW.

But you do. That's how you got the label.

Not exactly, the bias in the media is an indication for pressure on science. I have described some typical results, which may be expected to follow from such pressure.

And you were wrong. You got the pressure, and the presumed bias, backwards, and this led you to illegitimate doubt.

Nonsense. But feel free to give a reference to a scientific article which really contradicts my assumption that good organisms also spread, and that this would be a positive consequence.

The relevant research is into the spread of organisms - mostly bad organisms, of course, because they spread more rapidly and easily and have much greater consequences. Nobody is addressing your assumption directly, because there is no real question there.

No. I claim that the media bias is an indication of political pressure, and that political pressure has, probably, also an distorting influence on science.

You also specified the nature and direction of the pressure, and presumed to discount the reports of AGW consequences accordingly. This led you to deny AGW.

But I have not made particular claims about the relevance of this influence in climate science.

Yes, you have. You have made claims about its nature and direction.

And I have never rejected any particular scientific paper based on this general expectation of distortion.

You have rejected AGW.

Sorry, but doubt is always justified.

Flat earthers and creationists say the same. They too are wrong - their particular doubts are absurd denials.
Your doubts of AGW are absurd denials.

And it illustrates the main point: I have not rejected even a single claim made in any peer-reviewed scientific paper about climate research, but you nonetheless name me an AGW denier.

You hide behind spurious reasoning. Your denial of AGW is based on a general assessment of bias and political pressure, not any one paper.
Your claim is false, btw, even so - you reject (doubt) the scientific papers that present high probabilities of catastrophe of various kinds.

 

[Schmelzer]

But you do. That's how you got the label.

Which claim of which peer-reviewed scientific paper I have denied? Bibliographical reference, quote, and link to open access of that paper.

And you were wrong. You got the pressure, and the presumed bias, backwards, and this led you to illegitimate doubt.

There is no such animal as illegitimate doubt in science.

The relevant research is into the spread of organisms - mostly bad organisms, of course, because they spread more rapidly and easily and have much greater consequences. Nobody is addressing your assumption directly, because there is no real question there.

Indeed, there is no real question. It is obvious that good organisms spread too, and also no question that this is positive.

You also specified the nature and direction of the pressure, and presumed to discount the reports of AGW consequences accordingly. This led you to deny AGW.

I indeed specified the nature and direction of the pressure. But this does not lead to any denial of any scientific paper. And the direction of pressure is something very different from the relevance of the results of this pressure. The consequence is simply that I prefer not to trust popular summaries.

You have rejected AGW.

No. I have even accepted AGW - there is some increase of CO2 caused by human behavior, and this increase is likely to have some influence on the average temperature. The size of this effect is unclear for me, so I make no claims about this size. But this is not a denial of AGW.

Your claim is false, btw, even so - you reject (doubt) the scientific papers that present high probabilities of catastrophe of various kinds.

Doubt is unproblematic in science, and quite different from rejection. And, btw, feel free to quote and link a peer-reviewed scientific paper which I have rejected.

 

[iceaura]

Which claim of which peer-reviewed scientific paper I have denied?

AGW, which is what you deny, is not found in any particular peer reviewed paper.
Among the many research findings you have chosen to doubt would be the original "hockey stick" publishing paper and its subsequent overwhelming research support (author Mann), all of the papers establishing the significant possibility of a shutdown of the Gulf Stream by Greenland ice melt, all of the research into sea level rise taken together (especially the effects on current high-productivity river delta agriculture), and the research into the likelihood and effects of asynchronic response to average temperature boosts by commensals and symbionts.

There is no such animal as illegitimate doubt in science

Nonsense. There is willful denial of plain evidence and sound reasoning, in the service of religious or political ideology - such as your evaluation of the media coverage of AGW, and presumption of implications for the science.
You are now joined with the creationists, the flat-earthers, the deniers of modern physics who think only Newtonian mechanics makes sense.

It is obvious that good organisms spread too, and also no question that this is positive.

It's not obvious. It appears to be not true - according to the research - in response to AGW. Not significantly, anyway, and nowhere near as fast as the bad spread - it's not part of the news of AGW. Omitting the comparatively rare and uncertain and insignificant and long delayed is not evidence of bias, as you claimed and argued from.

No. I have even accepted AGW - there is some increase of CO2 caused by human behavior, and this increase is likely to have some influence on the average temperature. The size of this effect is unclear for me, so I make no claims about this size. But this is not a denial of AGW.

Yes, it is.

Doubt is unproblematic in science, and quite different from rejection.

That depends on the doubt, and the rejection. Your media-based ideologically motivated doubt of AGW is a rejection of the research and findings of the science involved.

 

[Michael]

I see we need to restate the claim the iceaura's supports: The effects of 'white racism' is lowering the IQ of black people living in the USA.

We know that between 53 - 85% of IQ is genetic. Which makes sense, different humans migrated to different parts of the earth and developed different phenotypes - including selection pressures for what we term as intelligence (which is why E. Asians score 110 on spatial reasoning and why white Jews score 112-115 on verbal reasoning).

So? This leaves us wondering what the mechanism of 'white racism' is. We now see that iceaura also supports a new claim: White people (through their white racism) are poisoning black people in the USA - possibly by putting lead in their drinking water, and restricting their access to nutrients (omega-3/6), or somehow exposing them to more noise pollution or maybe it's the effects of Jim Crow Laws half a century ago.

I know what you're thinking: This sounds like crack-pot conspiracy theory level lizard people nuttery. Yes, you would be correct. There is no good evidence that blacks are being singled out and poisoned. And the fact is, black Canadians have the same average IQ as black Americans (and the same is true of white and yellow Canadians). There is no good evidence any of this nonsense about Jim Crow Laws from half a century ago are affecting the developmental neurobiology of black children (or yellow children in CA) in any way shape or form.

 

[Michael]

The denial you are clinging to is of their effects on black people.

Are there Jim Crow Laws currently in effect in the USA?

There are standards that specifically discriminate against whites and yellows and in favor of blacks: SAT scores used for admittance into higher education; higher standards required for employment in public service (fire department, police department); race-based scholarships that exclude whites and yellows, etc.... these exist.

Jim Crow exists here and now.
Today.

It's in favor of black Americans and discriminates against yellow Americans (another minority that suffered under discriminatory laws and persecution in the past) and of course those evil white Americans.

I wonder iceaura, do you agree that black racism is affecting yellows and whites living in the USA? When a yellow or white person is skipped over in favor of a black person with a lower SAT score for admittance into higher education, is that evidence of 'black racism' that is affecting yellow and white people? When standards for employment as a public servant is raised on yellows and whites (costing them employment) while they are made lower for blacks, giving them employment - is that an example of 'black racism' having an 'effect' on yellows and whites living in the USA? When scholarships are handed out based on race, which excludes white people - is that an example of 'black racism' iceaura?

As for Jim Crow Laws, given the average IQ scores of black Canadians (85) is the exact same average as black Americans living in the south of the USA (85), and is the same average as in black English citizens (85) we can conclude that southern Jim Crow Laws had no significant effect of the average IQ of black Americans living in the USA.

Which is in line with the data on E. Asians living under Jim Crow in CA and E. Asians living in England and E. Asians living in China, Japan and Korea - they all scored and an average of 100 and 110 on verbal and spatial reasoning, the exact same as E. Asians living in CA. Again, this is good evidence that Jim Crow Laws as implemented does not affect IQ. Which makes sense, given the Scientific Consensus is that IQ is mostly genetic.


Did Jim Crow Laws specifically affect individual black Americans? Yes.
Did Jim Crow Laws specifically affect the average IQ scores of black Americans? The Scientific Consensus would be: No. They did not.

To suggest it does or did, is: Science Denial.


Do you agree that the State should enforce licensing of medical practitioners?

 

[iceaura]

I see we need to restate the claim the iceaura's supports: The effects of 'white racism' is lowering the IQ of black people living in the USA.

I'm not claiming that. I'm assuming it, along with the rest of common reality.

I'm claiming you are denying white racism and its effects on black people in the US. And that kind of denial is the thread topic.

So? This leaves us wondering what the mechanism of 'white racism' is.

There are dozens of such possible mechanisms ready at hand in the common reality, and all of them irrelevant to this thread beyond their multiple and undeniable existence - which illustrates the scope of the absurdity of denying that existence.

 

[iceaura]

Are there Jim Crow Laws currently in effect in the USA?

The effects of Jim Crow - including the laws, of course, along with all the rest - are among the most obvious and obviously significant features of American life. Denying their existence is comical absurdity.

As for Jim Crow Laws, given the average IQ scores of black Canadians (85) is the exact same average as black Americans living in the south of the USA (85), and is the same average as in black English citizens (85) we can conclude that southern Jim Crow Laws had no significant effect of the average IQ of black Americans living in the USA.

If you're an idiot, or you have an overriding agenda, you can "conclude" anything you please. But the only role of that nonsense here is as illustration of absurd denial.

 

[Michael]

The effects of Jim Crow - including the laws, of course, along with all the rest - are among the most obvious and obviously significant features of American life. Denying their existence is comical absurdity.

One more time, I know this whole 'reading' thing can be difficult when comprehension is asked to occur simultaneously.

Individuals were affected by Jim Crow Laws (which is happening to this day, only it's against yellows and whites). There's no good evidence Jim Crow Laws in any way significantly affected the average IQ of blacks or yellows (in CA).

That's the Scientific Consensus.

So, you can continue to put words in my mouth / argue against a strawman you build over and over and over ad nausium, or you can deal with the fact that on this (and many) occasion the Scientific consensus runs counter to your cherished belief in the magical effects of 'white racism'.

 

[Michael]

The effects of Jim Crow

Then you agree that today Jim Crow race-based standards discriminate against whites and yellows?

Also, do you support that idea that whites can open private businesses that exclude blacks in the USA? Do you support scholarships for 'whites only' in the USA? Do you think its okay to lower the standards for whites, while raising it to purposely exclude blacks for entrance into higher education or to get a job as a public servant?


Seems like you have some soul searching to do iceaura. Or, maybe you'll continue to deny science and contort yourself into a pretzel so you can believe the planets revolve around the Earth

 

[iceaura]

Individuals were affected by Jim Crow Laws (which is happening to this day, only it's against yellows and whites). There's no good evidence Jim Crow Laws in any way significantly affected the average IQ of blacks or yellows (in CA).

That's the Scientific Consensus

You repeating absurd denials of reality is not a "scientific consensus".

Then you agree that today Jim Crow race-based standards discriminate against whites and yellows?

Jim Crow is the label used here for white racism against black people in the US. That's the absurd denial example in this thread. The rest of your chaff is beside the point.

 

[Michael]

You repeating absurd denials of reality is not a "scientific consensus".

Thirty Years of Research on Race and Differences in Cognitive Ability (2005).

Jim Crow is the label used here for white racism against black people in the US.

You may use Jim Crow in that manner, however, in the real world, Jim Crow Laws were also enforced against yellows. Oh, and similar racist standards are being used to favor black Americans while harming yellow and white Americans. This is a simple fact.

That's the absurd denial example in this thread. The rest of your chaff is beside the point.

Some people believe in Gods, others worship the State. Either way, cognitive dissonance makes it nearly impossible for them to see past their biases, even when presented with 30 years of scientific research.

You do know, YOU are the racist, correct? You're the one that wants to refer to people by different colors: black people, white people (I used yellow for consistency, so there's red people and brown people too). You're the one blaming 'white racism' for the average IQ of black people.

Look, white people have IQ's lower than yellow people, according to some research, it may be as high as 17 - 20 points lower (there's some data showing adopted Koreans have an average of 117 - 121). Not to mention, white Jews are around 15 points higher than plain ole vanilla whites. So what? It's not a big deal. People are different. While this clearly explains why yellows and white Jews dominate University, it doesn't mean yellow and white Jews are conspiring to lower the average IQ of whites (unless you're a Conspiracy Theorist nutter - are you? Do you believe in Lizard People?

What it means is that we need a FREE MARKET

Which is what you absolutely do NOT want - at least not in anything you think can't be a free-market. Funny that, because if YOU want a regulated market for YOUR goods and services then YOU should be the one paying. Let OTHER free people live their damn lives without you and your ilk 'regulating' them. What don't you get? You can have your shit regulated food and healthcare. Let other free people offer unregulated unlicensed food and healthcare and then, so long as the customer is informed, let them decide as adults if they want to engage in a transaction. Oh, but you little Progressive Socialists cannot stand that other's might want to live in a life without you. So you use the State against them.

Like it or not, the fact is, the policies you support are destroying the black and white communities - eventually, you'll destroy the whole nation. You'll never stop until everything looks like Detroit. You'll double down until we finally have our very own Venezuelan Progressive Socialistic Utopia. We have to wait until you Progressives are actually turned into food and fed to one another until you stop.

That's just the way you guys role.

So, until then, keep denying science. Your denial isn't going to change reality. Just deny it. Luckily, that can only go on for so long, and an avalance of empirical evidence is going to bury your beliefs

 

[iceaura]

Thirty Years of Research on Race and Differences in Cognitive Ability (2005).

Irrelevant. All of it. The topic is your denial of Jim Crow.

You may use Jim Crow in that manner,

Yes, as in this thread, where the topic is absurd denial, and the example is your denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US. It's handy to have a shorter term, and Jim Crow works well.
Yellow people are irrelevant - different topic.

You do know, YOU are the racist, correct?

The topic is your denial of Jim Crow.

You're the one blaming 'white racism' for the average IQ of black people.

? I'm doing no such thing. I'm making fun of you for denying Jim Crow, especially with such a silly argument as this IQ schtick.
It doesn't matter whether black people are stupid or not, Jim Crow cannot be denied by a reasonable person.

Y'know, I'll bet the average 90 IQ US black person (that's the modern US number, not 85 - they've been catching up) can look at your table there, where 980 SAT white folks struggle to make 20k a year while 980 black folks clear 200k +, and see that there's something wrong with your little story about IQ being the significant factor and race making no difference. That would make the average black IQ person in the US smarter than you at reading tables of data.

Just sayin'.

 

[Schmelzer]

AGW, which is what you deny, is not found in any particular peer reviewed paper.

Thanks for clarifying this. Emphasis mine. What I "deny" is your Party line, by not supporting it, that's all.

Among the many research findings you have chosen to doubt would be the original "hockey stick" publishing paper and its subsequent overwhelming research support (author Mann), all of the papers establishing the significant possibility of a shutdown of the Gulf Stream by Greenland ice melt, all of the research into sea level rise taken together (especially the effects on current high-productivity river delta agriculture), and the research into the likelihood and effects of asynchronic response to average temperature boosts by commensals and symbionts.

I have not even chosen to doubt any particular papers. I have chosen not to support or reject them without studying the details, and I have no time and interest to study them. And, again, doubt is anyway completely legitimate in science, does not require any legitimization.

Nonsense. There is willful denial of plain evidence and sound reasoning, in the service of religious or political ideology - such as your evaluation of the media coverage of AGW, and presumption of implications for the science.

Once there is no denial of any particular peer-reviewed paper, your "plain evidence and sound reasoning" is an euphemism for your personal political ideology.

It's not obvious. It appears to be not true - according to the research - in response to AGW. Not significantly, anyway, and nowhere near as fast as the bad spread - it's not part of the news of AGW.

Link to an open access peer-reviewed paper which claims non-significance of the spread of good organisms please. That the spread of good organisms is not part of the news is not a point.

Your media-based ideologically motivated doubt of AGW is a rejection of the research and findings of the science involved.

No, already because it is not a rejection even of a single particular peer-reviewed paper.

 

[Michael]

Thirty Years of Research on Race and Differences in Cognitive Ability (2005).

Irrelevant. All of it.

You've completely lost the plot (and the argument).

The topic is your denial of Jim Crow.

There's no good evidence that Jim Crow Laws have affected the IQ of yellow or black people in the USA.


What we do have evidence of is IQ score strongly correlating with socioeconomic status. This is why white Jews and yellow people are in the highest socioeconomic bracket in 'white patriarchy' USA. As most low IQ people are white, and the average IQ score of black people has been measured to be around 85 (see above link for a list of the undisputed scientific consensus) this explains why most poor people are white, and why a large percentage of blacks are trapped in the lowest socioeconomic bracket (by the State).

You see, Progressive Socialism is the use the Government to enforce regulatory-capture and perpetuate rent-seeking. Thus, high IQ people (like white Jews [112] and yellows [107]) end up gaining entry to higher education and are allowed to participate in these lucrative markets, while low IQ people (mostly white people) are locked out of the market BY Government.

It's not that they couldn't do the work, many could. Many lower IQ people would be better, as they'd offer more services, and better options. But, thanks to Progressives, they're trapped in Government run welfare ghettos.

 

[iceaura]

There's no good evidence that Jim Crow Laws have affected the IQ of yellow or black people in the USA.

There is. It's been posted here - you posted some of it.

And it is a minor issue, however amusing to see you impaled on it via your silly IQ obsession. Jim Crow had many serious consequences for black people in the US, and your denial is of all of them.

What we do have evidence of is IQ score strongly correlating with socioeconomic status

Not between races, in the US. Only within a given race. Look at your SAT score table.

 

[iceaura]

No, already because it is not a rejection even of a single particular peer-reviewed paper.

Why do you persist in that bogus argument after being caught and corrected?

Thanks for clarifying this. Emphasis mine. What I "deny" is your Party line, by not supporting it, that's all.

You are denying aspects of common physical reality, as discovered and reported by research and observation.

All the "lines" include that common reality, or they become absurd. There is no "Party line" involved.

 

[Michael]

Jim Crow had many serious consequences for black people in the US,

See? We can agree. Yes, at one time (for a relatively short-period of Western history) Jim Crow laws had some serious effects on some black people living in the USA.

One of those effects was NOT to lower the IQ of black people.

It should also be noted, for a thousand years European Jews lived under all sorts of laws that restricted their integration and occupation, culminating in the holocaust. They have the highest IQ of all populations discussed (at least for verbal reasoning). This may be why white Jewish Americans find success in the arts. Or not.

The reason why black Americans are prevented from becoming prosperous in the USA is Progressive Socialism, primarily in the form of regulatory-capture, but also in other insidious ways, like minimum wages laws.


You say that you'd like the USA to be like Sweden. That's only possible if the USA is filled with Swedish people. What will happen though, is Sweden will come to look like the USA, only worse - much worse. Replete with sh*t-hole no-go zones, low-quality education and poorly run public hospitals. In Sweden's future, only high-IQ rent-seekers get to attend nice well funded private schools and private hospitals, where private doctors are paid with private insurance. The low-IQ poor, oh, they'll get 'FREE' sh*t alright. They'll get free Government Schooling and free Government-run Welfare Ghettos. They'll get to go free Government run hospitals where, assuming they don't smoke, a medical error will kill them. Most will read at a Grade 4 level and about 1 in 5 graduate will be functionally illiterate. Which is great if you're a b*llsh*tting politician, you can promise them free-sh*t and get elected. You know, like B.Sanders.

Their future is ours - only worse.

 

[Michael]

Are you in favor of ethnicity / race-restricted scholarships?

Like Native-American scholarships, African-American scholarships, Asian-American scholarships, or European-Americans scholarships?