|
Cingulate posted:
There's an academic paper linked in the same post where the video is first posted. It's only 24 pages long, go read it. Also, it's fascinating that you demand that the refutation of Murray be peer reviewed when The Bell Curve itself does an end run around peer review by being book published for popular consumption. You know, one of the things that is on every single "How to Spot Psuedoscience" checklist ever?
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Snowshoes motherfucker Careful dude, we're not in CSPAM right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:However, I think you will find that what is actually written in the Bell Curve (instead of what you claim it says) is largely in agreement with mainstream scientific findings both of its time, and of today. This is an incredibly easily falsifiable claim: you can just quote a few lines, and then everyone will see that I am unable to provide support for them We don't have to you loving moron, because we gave you an ENTIRE PAPER and an ENTIRE VIDEO demonstrating your claims are false. Sorry its not in writing for you....OH WAIT IT IS, Read the loving paper. And watch the video. None of your claims hold up, and Murray SPECIFICALLY cited studies that either were based on data taken entirely out of context or studies where the authors specifically WARNED that the data was untrustworthy. You have already said you haven't really read the book thoroughly, you've obviously failed to watch the video that heavily debunks every single claim you've made, and you obviously haven't read the paper that shows The Bell Curve ignore actual science in favor of painting paragon1 posted:There's an academic paper linked in the same post where the video is first posted. It's only 24 pages long, go read it. We've pointed this out to him time and time and time again: The Bell Curve is not a legitimate source of science because it was an end run around peer review to appeal to masses who already accepted the premise: Racists and Bigots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Man, I had to read this like three times. Which would be true if the discussion was simply about "words that have different definitions in the dictionary." Why do you think such an infantile view should be axiomatically accepted for the purposes of a real discussion? Even Libertarians have had to write tomes upon tomes of tortured philosophical literature in an attempt to justify their adoption of meaningful distinction between action and inaction. You don't even have the excuse of riding on the coattails of this work since you renounce any association. The classification of positive vs. negative rights is a philosophical exercise concerning a rights-based deontological framework approach to maximize certain aspects of human dignity that have no bearing on the discussion at hand. quote:I don't see where the second paragraph is going. Are you confusing Sam Harris and Charles Murray? I'd say Murray's rhetoric is characterised by painful attempts to avoid eugenicist language, and by being faced with a strain between his libertarian values and the evidence he reports on. (With luck egalitarians and associated thinkers, e.g. Frederik DeBoer or Rawls, I think in effect, Murray should have acknowledged that his findings argue against libertarianism.) No. I am saying that you, yourself, are presenting a narrative-driven contextualization of the policy topic whilst pretending to hold a neutral, science driven stance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:You know what I don't understand? You've said you don't agree with Murray, so why are you spending so much time trying to defend his work? Exactly what does your attempt at logic prove? Ok. I'm defending his work against terrible attacks because what is required are good attacks. The issue is important, and will become much more pressing as the large-scale GWAS studies are rolling in. What might be the consequence of attacking Murray badly? I fear in 20 years, the left may look like a mirror image of the right, with its own equivalent of climate change deniers and creationists. In the worst case, we need a contingency plan for the possibility that much of what Murray claims about factual issues (not his values or politics - and probably not the parts about race) will be proved right soon, and a left-wing breed of anti-rationality and science denialism can't be it. Next, I'm extremely disturbed by how terrible the arguments against him are here. It's just making up lies about him. If that's the standards of these people, what will prevent them from making up lies and attacking any other person? A (left-wing) college professor was physically assaulted for presenting (and dissociating herself from, and warning against) Murray last year. paragon1 posted:There's an academic paper linked in the same post where the video is first posted. It's only 24 pages long, go read it. archangelwar posted:Presupposing the correctness of a clear causative association in correlated data and pretending it lends credibility to extrapolated value statements (that merely "coincidentally" perpetuate a very clear narrative) falls squarely into the bucket of "not science," Mr. Damore. Note, I brought this up because OwlFancier claimed something like, market economies prevent poor people from having kids, which does not agree with the data. fishmech posted:No, you can't list even 10,000 libertarians who support Snowden and his methods and explain in detail the reasons why their support is indicative of them being libertarian. And you've once again proved that there are in fact so many libertarians who oppose Snowden that it is not a useful guide as to whther someone is libertarian. Here is your reason in :car analogy: form: most Mercedes cars have a Mercedes star, but some don't (the star was stolen). Thus, to hear that a car has a Mercedes star tells us nothing about it being a Mercedes or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Hm. You may be on to something here. You are such a bullshitter. Or you'd have accepted the premise of the video! You'd have accepted the paper that debunks his book ENTIRELY. Stop lying, stop end-running around the actual evidence presented, and start debating the actual evidence we've given you. Cingulate posted:I accept that it fails entirely to convince people who do not understand proportions, basic inductive logic, and the subjunctive. God drat you really are a pseudointellectual bullshit artist. You fit right in with the Libertarian crowd. Here' let ME give you a comparison: What's the difference between Dawkins publishing books about Evolutionary Biology and Murray publishing books about Social Science. One of them actually bothered to publish his studies in peer reviewed journals and accepted the criticism. The other decided to go straight to publishing a book to avoid the criticism. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jan 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We don't have to you loving moron Try it, it should be very easy for you, given that, as you say, all of the book is bullshit. archangelwar posted:Which would be true if the discussion was simply about "words that have different definitions in the dictionary." Why do you think such an infantile view should be axiomatically accepted for the purposes of a real discussion? Even Libertarians have had to write tomes upon tomes of tortured philosophical literature in an attempt to justify their adoption of meaningful distinction between action and inaction. You don't even have the excuse of riding on the coattails of this work since you renounce any association. If you don't see what I'm going for, I suggest you ask for clarification. archangelwar posted:The classification of positive vs. negative rights is a philosophical exercise concerning a rights-based deontological framework approach to maximize certain aspects of human dignity that have no bearing on the discussion at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
That's the thing dear, you do not understand proportions, or any form of logic, or any inflections. Mercedes is a concrete organization that chose to use a 3 lobe star logo. Libertarians are not an organization that decided to accept Snowden as their lord and savior. Therefore is ridiculous to treat conscious branding versus opinion on an increasingly forgotten man as equivalent. Nothing in libertarianism requires you to approve of Snowden or his actions, indeed he stole property and thereby violated property rights quite significantly. So once again, you must provide actual reasons and identities of many thousands of libertarians and how precisely it fits their views of libertarianism to support him before we can even begin to consider Snowden support a valid indicator. Especially one considers that there are plenty fo people from other political viewpoints that also supported Snowden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not asking you to axiomatically accept there is a difference between goals and effects, I'm saying it's 1. not clearly wrong (not everyone is a naive consequentialist), 2. at the heart of Murray's motivational structure. Cool, so now we are back at the beginning. So what part of value judgements derived through fringe ideological frameworks and assumed causative associations based on incomplete and likely biased data is "science"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:It's the condition of the toxx.  We've already done that. Multiple times. You ignored them and dismissed the arguments as "Bad logic and poor attempts to slander Murray"Waiting on your debunking of the video and the entire paper that DESTROYS the entire book, c'mon now. Unless you debunk those two things, there's no reason to continue arguing with you, because they entirely destroy both the "science" and the premise of Murray's book, and Murray's motivation/source for the book. Cingulate posted:I believe it strongly concerns the issue, what with libertarianism being routinely justified on deontological grounds and such. Ahhhh, Deontology, the scapegoat word of pseudo-intellectuals. The Gilded Age HEAVILY destroyed any premise that libertarianism might have had in validity, because it demonstrated both that a Free Market is not truly free, and that it would not provide when necessary due to the fact that even a free market is heavily controlled and influenced by the most wealthy and largest players. You are not a Social Democrat. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jan 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Careful dude, we're not in CSPAM right now. I've been challenging these pissants to fights for ages now, none of them will ever take me up on it because they are babies who are unsure of their convictions, whereas my belief in the glorious ancom utopia makes me strong
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Hm. You may be on to something here. You want a "good" attack against Murray? (Note, you will obviously not consider this to be a good attack and you're going to poke really dumb holes it in anyway, but I'm doing this more for my benefit than yours) Murray's entire premise is flawed, because he's relying on data from IQ tests. IQ tests are not a good way of measuring intelligence, because they've been designed by people who live in the world. What I mean by that is that they live in the world where we've enslaved black people and treated them so horribly for literally centuries. We forbade them from being free people, then we forbade them from voting, then we made sure that they lived in the poor areas with the bad schools. No loving poo poo they're going to do worse on tests designed by people who were products of the good schools. There's no objective way of diagnosing intelligence. And given that there are countless black scholars/judges/politicians/doctors/fill in whatever "smart" profession you want here, it's trivially obvious to see that "black people are just dumber than white people" is a flawed conclusion to take from the data Murray presents, because he's a loving racist and you're kidding yourself if you think he's not making this argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
I don't see why I should bother, you'll just cite more racist eugenicist pseudoscience (the same ones Murray cites) as a defense. No one takes your toxx seriously when you designate yourself as the judge of whether the conditions have been fulfilled or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You want a "good" attack against Murray? (Note, you will obviously not consider this to be a good attack and you're going to poke really dumb holes it in anyway, but I'm doing this more for my benefit than yours) Dark Enlightenment Stymie will now go on for twenty pages about how actually IQ tests are good I predict he will do this because he did it in the DE thread too I told you not to engage Dark Enlightenment Stymie. It always goes exactly like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
divabot posted:Dark Enlightenment Stymie will now go on for twenty pages about how actually IQ tests are good You're hardly one to tell us not to engage with obsessives worshiping debunked crackpottery, divabot. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Why don't you write a book about it divabot
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 22:20
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Why don't you write a book about it divabot This but unironically. Some editing issues aside I really liked your book, diva
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:This but unironically. I will never read a book
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Sorry to add one more comment to this topic, but then I'm done. Eugenics is not about a specific policy, it's about the way you evaluate and value the policy. You could be totally wrong, your analysis stupid -- many policy changes have outcomes that are very hard to predict, and lots of stuff behind eugenic reasoning is bunk. It doesn't matter. You could decide that criminality is genetic, and the color yellow makes criminals infertily, and demand all buildings in the US be painted yellow and never tell anyone why. You'd still be trying to do some o' that eugenics. Just because it is not the most forceful, obvious type of eugenics one can imagine, that doesn't mean it's not eugenicist in nature -- what a ridiculous way to think. (And obviously it's not ONLY the domain of the government, stupidass libertarians. Jeff Bezos could decide tomorrow that he was going to cut back on employees' sick leave and health insurance because he believed it was a good way to kill off sick people and improve the genetic health of the country, and he just wanted to do his part. That would still be eugenics.) So it's not about the policy; it's about the rationale. * "I want to provide free birth control, for family planning and sexual health reasons," is not a eugenic rationale. * "I want to provide free birth control, so that there will be fewer black people because I hate them," is white nationalist, but not eugenics. * "I want to provide free birth control, because I believe that overall it will reduce the number of poor/black -- i.e. genetically stupid -- people in our society, because they are gravely harming our culture and economy, and we should do what we can to prevent them from reproducing or otherwise entering our gene pool," is eugenics, and disgusting as well. This is what The Bell Curve is saying. Advocating eugenics means suggesting or supporting the use of eugenics to evaluate policy. This is almost entirely what The Bell Curve is doing implicitly, but then it does it EXPLICITLY when it says a) eugenics would work, even if it's dangerous, and b) picks through some examples of reproductive health and immigration and asks us to consider them from a eugenics point of view. The Bell Curve advocates eugenics because it says it will work and we should think about it when we think about policies. It comes right up to the edge of literally proposing eugenics and... steps gently across. It could have done something else. It could have said, "Eugenics is terrible, and we should think long and hard if REALLY it could even work, even if we COULD do it without it going out of control; as individualist and conservatives the idea should make us sick -- or at least extremely cautious to approach at all. Wow, imagine if I proposed, off the cuff and out of my rear end, to yank all birth and post-natal assistance from high-IQ poor mothers, just because there are poor low-IQ mothers and their stupid low-IQ babies who should suffer for their decisions, and that would discourage them from reproducing, I'm sure that's how pregnancy decisions work... haha wow, I should probably slit my own throat if I proposed that, what a dumbass piece of poo poo I would be." Instead, it's like, "Eugenics terrible, as a libertarian I am just *so* aware of that, buuuuuuuuuuuut, we can do a little of it? We can use it when we think about immigration policy, see........?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:what part of value judgements ... is "science"? WampaLord posted:Murray's entire premise is flawed, because he's relying on data from IQ tests. IQ tests are not a good way of measuring intelligence, because they've been designed by people who live in the world. ... There's no objective way of diagnosing intelligence. Mainstream Science on Intelligence posted:1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do. WampaLord posted:And given that there are countless black scholars/judges/politicians/doctors/fill in whatever "smart" profession you want here, it's trivially obvious to see that "black people are just dumber than white people" is a flawed conclusion to take from the data Murray presents, because he's a loving racist and you're kidding yourself if you think he's not making this argument. Mainstream Science on Intelligence posted:7. Members of all racial-ethnic groups can be found at every IQ level. The bell curves of different groups overlap considerably, but groups often differ in where their members tend to cluster along the IQ line. The bell curves for some groups (Jews and East Asians) are centered somewhat higher than for whites in general. Other groups (blacks and Hispanics) are centered somewhat lower than non-Hispanic whites. CommieGIR posted:
If you do, would you please be so kind as to PM me? Wouldn't want to get probated just because I forgot to refresh this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:Sorry to add one more comment to this topic, but then I'm done. The problem is The Bell Curve is advocating for Eugenics while proposing that certain....people, are not intellectually suited to have children, and that Eugenics is necessary to help increase overall intelligence. But as the video and the study both showed, they are wrong. Not only are they missing key points (or purposefully overlooking them) in their studies in the books, they completely ignore how large issues with the IQ system as a intelligence measuring tool, and the issues of things like Lead poisoning causing mental damage that heavily impacts specific groups like minorities. Unfortunately, that's what the Bell Curve proposes: That certain groups, and certain races are predisposed to have low intelligence. That's wrong, and its incredibly racist. Cingulate posted:https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/894959693822558209 Holy loving poo poo, stop. Not only are you talking down to people who know BETTER than you about statistics, and have fully demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about, now you are citing twitter feeds to mock them? The Bell Curve is an AWFUL source for statistical knowledge. You know, the book you already admitted you didn't actually read in depth? gently caress no I'm not PM'ing you. There's no reasoning with you. Also: That quote where you only bold Bell Curve over and over again is hilarious. Pathetic. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Jan 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
cingulate go the gently caress away
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:f you do, would you please be so kind as to PM me? Wouldn't want to get probated just because I forgot to refresh this thread. here's a claim: gently caress you
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
"cingulate is a stupid motherfucker who should go the gently caress away forever" - charles murray, 2018
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
I am interviewing for a position at a cognitive science department. One of the professors I met with used Murray's Bell Curve as an example of scientific racism - both in our interview and at his conference talk. His work was presented as thoroughly discredited and not acceptable within the field. I assume this link has been posted? https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en...20curve&f=false WrenP-Complete fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Jan 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Actually it is perfectly normal and fine*. *Citation: "mainstream science"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 00:48
|
|
|
All right I didn't want to have to do this but Cingulate's masterful arguments leave me no choice but to bust out the following devastating source material:Even Mainer Stream Science on Cingulate posted:He's a big dumb moron who knows nothing about anything. If he assures you the sky is blue, get a second opinion
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What? None. Doubling down harder than KFC I see. Good job.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What? None. LMAO I found your "Mainstream Science" source that you specifically avoided linking: http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html Very rigorous looking site, seems pretty on the level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I didn't watch the youtube video, and I won't. I'd be willing to read a peer-reviewed academic paper that makes your point though. It's actually a good and interesting video and I'd recommend that you watch it anyway, regardless of your political views or whatever side you may be taking on any arguments. I'm serious, it's worth the time spent (seriously though, Murray makes a lot of claims that are based on IQ test data and IQ tests have been shown repeatedly to be unscientific at best and are more commonly over-biased bullshit; that alone is enough to dismiss any conclusion drawn from them. I'm not even talking about the systematic racism side of this argument, I mean that IQ tests are themselves hogwash no matter your income, class, gender, or race)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Sax Solo posted:
"All these fuckin' WIC bonuses, really make another baby a win-win for the dumb poor women." If you didn't see what was wrong with the James Damore memo you probably won't see anything wrong with this either. I really think they think it's more nuanced because of the careful language, but hello, the room in probability space being ostensibly allowed by the hedging language makes one wonder why the author devotes so much effort to that angle in the first place. This excerpt from George Orwell clarifies what I mean. Politics and the English Language posted:Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: I'll leave it at that while I catch up with the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I didn't watch the youtube video, and I won't. I'd be willing to read a peer-reviewed academic paper that makes your point though. If everything but peer-reviewed academic papers (and psych page dot com apparently) are not allowed in this discussion, then the Bell Curve gets banned right along with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I didn't watch the youtube video, and I won't. I'd be willing to read a peer-reviewed academic paper that makes your point though. I can't believe I'm delurking to respond to goddamn Cingulate of all things, but seriously, dude, it's a fantastic video. It systematically lays out Murray's chief arguments and the papers and scholars he cites, and then carefully dismantles them one by one, frequently using references to other scholars, and extensively citing his sources in the comments to the video. It's a very elegant exposition of why The Bell Curve is racist garbage and does so in a way that even your overly-credulous, literalist, pedantic rear end could appreciate if you would only watch it. Which you won't, but anyone else here who was on the fence could maybe take that as an endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
That one post linking the video, and the Lead paper (which even the video says "stop watching and just read this") really was a mic drop end of the discussion. Cingulate not looking at them and going on is Labrador with a hose levels of funny to me at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:That one post linking the video, and the Lead paper (which even the video says "stop watching and just read this") really was a mic drop end of the discussion. Cingulate not looking at them and going on is Labrador with a hose levels of funny to me at this point. That's why he basically self-fulfilled the Toxx.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm actually a bit sad how incredibly bad the arguments people are attempting to attack very simple, basic thoughts with here are. He acknowledged, sort of, that the slate of social policies influences propensity to have children one way or the other, whether it's the configuration of taxes, or of public services. Cingulate posted:I agree with this. I'm not saying the Bell Curve is true. I'm claiming: it is as scientific as anything in the field; it often follow higher standards than those arguing against it (ie., those proposing other explanations for the same phenomena, such as Stereotype Threat, a nurture-only story, or oppression-only explanations of inequality); and people disagree with the wrong parts (entirely made-up claims of e.g. endorsing eugenics or claiming the black/white difference is proved to be genetic), and for the wrong reasons (claiming it doesn't follow established scientific standards). You posted this after this was posted. JUICY HAMBUGAR posted:Probably one of the best explorations of the Bell Curve I've seen (it's over an hour long, the first few minutes are skippable): Seriously, take a look. Here's one of the charts.  And here's another one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17185283 quote:You can't claim people are engaging in substantial criticism here. This is because of your selective attention problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
The contrast in standards between what Cingulate considers good evidence for Edit: I forgot to add, grabbing huge chunks of text from a source and not mentioning where it came from is what Mainstream Science calls "a big ol no no!" Aren't you supposed to be some kind of academic, Cingulate? You should know better. e2: actually I can't remember if you're an academic or not. Your posting is getting similar enough to Eripsa's that the two of you are blending together in my head. Goon Danton fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jan 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Hm. You may be on to something here. I know you're probated and all that, but think about this: Has anyone ever asked you "Is this the hill you really want to die on?" Because that's exactly the point. If Murray is someone who has ideas that you disagree with and most other people view his ideas as toxic, and there's not really any benefit in reading his work, then why spend this energy defending him? Secondly, what you're arguing requires you to take a nonsensical approach and shows a lack of understanding about what drives climate change denial and creationism. And to point out the analogs on the left - well, there are better ways of doing that than trying to defend an author you don't even believe in anyway. It's sort of like that one cartoon - "Someone is wrong on the internet." It doesn't matter. People let things slide all the time because it's not worth being right all the time. Plenty of people point out the analogs on the left and they challenge the more concerning sides of leftism. What you're doing does nothing to help your cause at all because you're basically arguing from a hypothetical. "What if Murray is correct? Can the left handle that?" is as useful in pointing out flaws in the logic of the left as banging a hammer against a wooden door in my house is at repairing a car in the garage. You're not dealing with reality. You're not dealing with real issues. It's not going to be valuable because it is possible for me to be wrong and illogical in one area and to be perfectly rational in another. For example, I am deathly afraid of worms. However, I am able to talk about healthcare policy in depth. Arguing that "Hey, I think this dude's irrational fear of worms makes his arguments on healthcare policy suspect" is not a meaningful argument that would sway anyone. Secondly, Murray's book is 25 years old at this point. In order for his ideas to be correct, there would have to be new research being done, and chances are, people would reference that research. And sure, there'd be a lot of people saying "Looked like Murray was right," but that doesn't change the idea. Hitler liked dogs. Also, it's possible to reach the correct conclusions while having the wrong reasoning or research. For example, if I said the new Mummy movie would flop because Tom Cruise has a name that starts with a T and having your name start with a plosive like that makes for box office poison, just because the Mummy was a failure does not mean that I was right. If you were truly trying to point out the inconsistencies on the left, you'd be best to leave Murray alone and talk about things that are actually more relevant and meaningful for the left. Because you know how often I hear people talking about Murray's ideas? Not very often. In fact, outside of this thread, not at all. Also, not being willing to look at the stuff that people have posted here (such as that YouTube video) leads people to believe you're arguing in bad faith, which, I believe, is completely true. Surely, it's possible that the video maker did research and that they can link you to resources and you can evaluate those yourself. I mean, this is an internet forum, not a formal debate. You're making the same mistakes Jrodefeld make. You're just a lot less wordy about being up your own rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Has anyone ever asked you "Is this the hill you really want to die on?" Because that's exactly the point. If Murray is someone who has ideas that you disagree with and most other people view his ideas as toxic, and there's not really any benefit in reading his work, then why spend this energy defending him? I'm pretty sure Cingulate's argument is that he really expects it to become a widely accepted fact that black people are just less intelligent than white people and that therefore leftists are going to need to be ready to accept the genetic inferiority of black people and craft good leftist policy on dealing with the inferior races. It's not about "pointing out inconsistencies on the left" per se, it's that Cingulate seems to believe that the genetic inferiority of certain groups of people is an issue that we have to acknowledge just like climate change. tl;dr Cingulate defends Murray because he's a fellow Race Realist but he dislikes him because Murray's libertarianism is too laissez-faire about the problem of the lesser races
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:This but unironically. I have been bloviating about writing a book with the working title Roko's Basilisk, content to be precisely what you'd expect. So far I have 0 words actually written as words, and no idea how to actually approach this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2018 09:56
|
|