|
Cingulate posted:I don't doubt there are any, which, as I've explained, has precisely zero impact on the argument I made. The argument you made was that someone couldn't be a libertarian because among other things they disliked Snowden and his methods. That would heuristically determine that you believe supporting Snowden is a necessary component of being libertarian. If you don't doubt there are any, then why do you need an example - at which point are you choosing to lie? Not even Snowden, a known libertarian, approves of the methods he ended up using because he ended up hosed over by his premature admission he was leaking stuff before he got to a safe location to hide out from law enforcement.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Real talk if your hot take on the Bell curve is just that he wanted birth control to be more available and not that he wanted that so that Lesser People who just coincidentally happened to not be white would stop breeding you should go the gently caress away
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The argument you made was that someone couldn't be a libertarian because among other things they disliked Snowden and his methods. That would heuristically determine that you believe supporting Snowden is a necessary component of being libertarian. fishmech posted:If you don't doubt there are any, then why do you need an example
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'm sorry if I've not been sufficiently precise to rule out this interpretation of what I've said. But, of course I never meant to claim it's a necessary component, only that it's a probabilistic cue. Look, I even wrote up some bullshit math to make that point explicit further up! Of course, as I've said like five billion times, it's probable there's libertarians who disapprove of Snowden's leaks. But you did claim it. So back up your claim. Prove me to what you claimed. And why do you keep saying "it's probable that some don't"? It's obvious that there absolutely are. There are tons of libertarians who don't support Snowden. If you disagree with this, show me how every libertarian alive supports him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:But you did claim it. So back up your claim.  I'm sure the split is slightly less favourable amongst older libertarians. Still, it should be quite obvious that disapproval of Snowden is a probabilistic cue for not being a libertarian. I can try to work you through the math if this is too hard for you. fishmech posted:Prove me to what you claimed. And why do you keep saying "it's probable that some don't"? It's obvious that there absolutely are. fishmech posted:There are tons of libertarians who don't support Snowden. Do you literally know not one single example? Look, I'll make it easy: check my previous posts. I actually mentioned one libertarian disapproving of Snowden earlier. fishmech posted:If you disagree with this, show me how every libertarian alive supports him. BENGHAZI 2 posted:Real talk if your hot take on the Bell curve is just that he wanted birth control to be more available and not that he wanted that so that Lesser People who just coincidentally happened to not be white would stop breeding you should go the gently caress away - ending affirmative action - making birth control available universally - shifting immigration towards a skill-based rule Now you may disagree with points 1 and 3, but these points are clearly not eugenics, i.e., Sax Solo was bullshitting. E.: my point is literally this. NATHAN J. ROBINSON posted:It is crucial to distinguish between the things Charles Murray actually does argue, and the things he is said to have argued. Murray often gets the better of his opponents because they stretch the case against him beyond its limits, allowing him to correctly point out that they are misrepresenting him. Let us be clear, then: Charles Murray does not conclude that the black-white gap in IQ test scores must entirely be the product of genetic inferiority, nor that black social outcomes are entirely genetic in origin. The Bell Curve is not, strictly speaking, “about” race and IQ. And Murray does not argue in favor of a program of eugenics (though the error is easy to make, as Murray speaks positively of the work of previous eugenists and seeming to lament that the Nazi “perversion of eugenics… effectively wiped the idea from public discourse in the West”). Nor should Murray necessarily be called, as so many label him, a “pseudoscientist.” His writings are above-average in their statistical scrupulousness, and he uses no less logical rigor than many highly qualified social scientists do. The problem is far less in his use of the scientific method than in his normative values and conceptions of the good, which affect the uses to which he puts his science. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Jan 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Which? It's me, I'm a libertarian who disapproves of Snowden. Please prove I don't exist. Like, you're literally saying "there are 0 people in the world of 8 billion people who match these easily met criteria" this argument has zero rigor to it. Also quit advocating for the Bell Curve guy, it's a really lovely look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
at the beginning of this you were given an article, which conclusively damns murray by tying together what he said in the bell curve to his various public statements and other books, that you apparently didn't understand (and, by your own words, only read part of) because the idea of a racist cloaking their racism in respectable language to dupe idiots into mindlessly spewing bigotry just doesn't make any sense to you reading without considering anything below the surface is a good way to be fooled constantly by anybody with even the slightest skill at deception
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Maybe Murray turns out correct (the genetic evidence is coming in as we are speaking). It seems some libertarians have a response in place. Much like DeBoer, I hope socialists and social democrats will also have a response prepared.  They have a response, and its the correct one: Murray is advocating for racial and genetic purity, and its loving disgusting and racist.Why don't you grasp this concept?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Like, you're literally saying "there are 0 people in the world of 8 billion people who match these easily met criteria" this argument has zero rigor to it. Cingulate posted:I'm fairly sure there's at least one hundred libertarians who disapprove of Snowden. Jazerus posted:at the beginning of this you were given an article, which conclusively damns murray by tying together what he said in the bell curve to his various public statements and other books, that you apparently didn't understand (and, by your own words, only read part of) because the idea of a racist cloaking their racism in respectable language to dupe idiots into mindlessly spewing bigotry just doesn't make any sense to you
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What I'm literally saying is this: Okay, I have 999 Libertarian friends who also agree with my disapproval of Snowden. Prove me wrong. Like, what is even this argument? You've doubled down on the stupidest poo poo and I'm trying to make you see it so maybe you stop doubling down on the Actual Bad poo poo you're arguing for like "The Bell Curve is actually a good book worth discussing" You literally posted a poll showing that 9% of surveyed Libertarians disagreed with Snowden and then you go "Therefore, it's almost impossible for any random Libertarian to hate Snowden." Is this just a dumb loving thing about how you think 9% is 0% for some reason? *Is Cingulate, looks at this graph* "Hmm, this basically confirms that all Libertarians love him* WampaLord fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Jan 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I can only respond that I agree perfectly with the quoted passage, which is a decent summary of the full article: in the Bell Curve, Murray's science is proper, his claims regarding IQ are scientifically well established, Robinson and I disagree only with Murray's values and political ideas. PROVE THIS. His science was not peer reviewed, his book has been HEAVILY blasted on scientific communities, as we've demonstrated. You cannot claim "His science is proper" WHEN HE IS FULLY UNWILLING TO ACTUALLY SUBMIT HIS STUFF FOR PEER REVIEW. You don't have a loving clue how science works, you pseudoscientific gas bag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:in the Bell Curve, Murray's science is proper, his claims regarding IQ are scientifically well established, Hahahaha no it isn't you disingenuous turd. Murray's work is almost the definition of pseudointellectual (and deeply prejudicial) water carrying masquerading as real science.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, I have 999 Libertarian friends who also agree with my disapproval of Snowden. Prove me wrong. Cingulate is saying that libertarians are more likely to support Snowden than the general public, which is a completely true statement that I have absolutely no idea why anyone is bothering to argue against. The guy is in here trying to pass off The Bell Curve as good science, there's really no need to get caught up arguing a side point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Eh. So why do you keep asking who disapproves of Snowden and is libertarian? This is why trying to claim that a guy disliking him is at all indicating they are not libertarian is ludicrous. There are tons of libertarians who don't support Snowden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Cingulate is saying that libertarians are more likely to support Snowden than the general public, which is a completely true statement that I have absolutely no idea why anyone is bothering to argue against. If that's literally all he's arguing, he's picking the dumbest possible way to do it. Like, I don't actually care about Libertarians and their love/hate of Snowden, but I do hate dumbass arguing and doubling down. Plus, like I said, it shows a lack of intellectual rigor that leads one into supporting things like The Bell Curve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:PROVE THIS. There, I've made a falsifiable claim. I claim for (almost!) any empirical claim in the Bell Curve, I will find a peer-reviewed source. If I can't, I'm proved wrong, and Murray is proved unscientific. CommieGIR posted:
And this is not a response to the problem DeBoer explains to you. The problem isn't Murray. The problem is that it is not unlikely that in a few years, there will be unambiguous proof from GWAS studies that Murray's main claims - the ones he's actually making, not the stuff you're making up - are correct. Again: Nathan J. Robinson posted:It is crucial to distinguish between the things Charles Murray actually does argue, and the things he is said to have argued. Murray often gets the better of his opponents because they stretch the case against him beyond its limits, allowing him to correctly point out that they are misrepresenting him. Let us be clear, then: Charles Murray does not conclude that the black-white gap in IQ test scores must entirely be the product of genetic inferiority, nor that black social outcomes are entirely genetic in origin. The Bell Curve is not, strictly speaking, “about” race and IQ. And Murray does not argue in favor of a program of eugenics WampaLord posted:Okay, I have 999 Libertarian friends who also agree with my disapproval of Snowden. Prove me wrong. Cingulate posted:Harris is absolutely no libertarian: he is supportive of FBI and CIA hacking cellphones and skeptical of Apple's attempts to thwart them, skeptical of Snowden-type leaks, for higher taxes, more gun regulations, and for heavily controlled/restricted immigration. He's a bit of a social democrat/liberal, and a bit of a Classical, Millian Liberal on some social issues, and of course staunchly utilitarian, which Libertarians by and large aren't (Nozick's defence of property rights is explicitly Kantian). Cingulate posted:[disapproving of Snowden] points towards not being a libertarian Cingulate posted:I'm sorry if I've not been sufficiently precise to rule out this interpretation of what I've said. But, of course I never meant to claim it's a necessary component, only that it's a probabilistic cue. Cingulate posted:it should be quite obvious that disapproval of Snowden is a probabilistic cue for not being a libertarian. I can try to work you through the math if this is too hard for you. WampaLord posted:Is this just a dumb loving thing about how you think 9% is 0% for some reason? Cingulate posted:it's probable there's libertarians who disapprove of Snowden's leaks. Cingulate posted:I'm fairly sure there's at least one hundred libertarians who disapprove of Snowden. Cingulate posted:I don't doubt there are any, which, as I've explained, has precisely zero impact on the argument I made. Cingulate posted:I actually mentioned one libertarian disapproving of Snowden earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Shut up Cingulate. Stop defending the Bell Curve and go the gently caress away
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't get it. If anyone can walk me through what's going on here, I'd appreciate it. You're being extremely dumb and can't stop doubling down on stupid poo poo, hopefully that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
quote:Murray is not doing that, he is in fact for greater intermixing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If that's literally all he's arguing, he's picking the dumbest possible way to do it. Yeah I have no idea what the whole "name one libertarian who hates Snowden!!!" thing is supposed to accomplish besides trying to out-fishmech fishmech, but ultimately there's no good response when you say "X makes someone less likely to be a libertarian" and someone says "prove that not a single libertarian is X".
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Give me a single claim of Murray's that he has actually made, i.e., a single line from the Bell Curve, and I will see if I can find peer-reviewed backup for it. If not, and if it's actually a major issue, I'll stop defending Murray as a scientist. We've already done that, you are the one openly ignoring the evidence to cheerlead for Murray. The Bell Curve is neither a scientific peer reviewed article nor a valid scientific study. Sorry, your rallying around it and calling it science is the issue, and no amount of "Prove him wrong" will change that. He advocated Eugenics. We've demonstrated this time and again. Its a disgusting proposition and you are propping up racial science as "Valid Science", which it is not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:If that's literally all he's arguing, he's picking the dumbest possible way to do it. Mornacale posted:Yeah I have no idea what the whole "name one libertarian who hates Snowden!!!" thing is supposed to accomplish besides trying to out-fishmech fishmech, but ultimately there's no good response when you say "X makes someone less likely to be a libertarian" and someone says "prove that not a single libertarian is X". fishmech posted:So why do you keep asking who disapproves of Snowden and is libertarian? fishmech posted:This is why trying to claim that a guy disliking him is at all indicating they are not libertarian is ludicrous. BENGHAZI 2 posted:Shut up Cingulate. Stop defending the Bell Curve and go the gently caress away We need to be able to dissociate between factual claims, and political/value claims. The problem with Murray isn't the science, but the (libertarian) political consequences and (libertarian) values. And lying and ignoring science - which is what you are doing - will in the long run hurt the egalitarian cause. Ok,  If you can find a single empirical claim on IQ from the Bell Curve for which I'm unable to provide a peer-reviewed source within 1 week's time, I'll ask for a 1-week probation and unsub from this thread and never come back (ban me if I do). Cause I can't be bothered to read Intelligence for hours, offer goes to the first 3 claims only. [sub]Edit: offer good until February 2nd 2018 cause I surely don't want to keep refreshing this thread forever. Also, offer is good for 1 (one) probation max[/quote] Edit: offer extended for CommieGR, you may alternatively find a single direct quote of Charles Murray's, anywhere, explicitly advocating the state actively preventing non-white people from "breeding". I.e., not Murray posted:mak[ing] it easy for women to make good on their prior decision not to get pregnant by making available birth control mechanisms that are increasingly flexible, foolproof, inexpensive, and safe (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't know how I can make it any clearer than "disapproval of Snowden is a probabilistic cue towards not being a libertarian". Is that sentence somehow badly phrased? Am I using any of the words in a nonstandard way? I'm literally saying everything four times already. SO STOP DOUBLING DOWN AND JUST DROP THE loving ARGUMENT! Like I said, I don't even loving CARE about libertarians and their feelings re: Snowden. You've chosen to argue a trivial point and you did it in such a dumbass way that I had to respond, then you doubled and tripled and quadrupled down on your trivial point. Who cares? Stop supporting The Bell Curve, you loving racist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Cingulate is going to try to find scientific evidence for Social Darwinism and Eugenics. Jesus loving Christ. I mean, isn't his Toxx basically violated simply by stating that, since scientific support of Eugenics is basically pseudoscience? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jan 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:53
|
|
Jazerus posted:what he said in the bell curve to his various public statements and other books, that you apparently didn't understand (and, by your own words, only read part of) wait, what
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:wait, what
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I mean, isn't his Toxx basically violated simply by stating that, since scientific support of Eugenics is basically pseudoscience?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Asking for eugenic policies would not be an empirical claim. However, you're in luck: I've amended the task, see my edit to the post. Sax Solo posted:
gently caress, enjoy your toxx probation. "Ensuring the RIGHT women should breed" Man, nothing casually racist there. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jan 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:00
|
|
Cingulate posted:Ok, You're missing the point, Cingulate. You're not arguing in a setting where "providing a peer-reviewed source" is adequate, if you don't read the source and evaluate it. Even these dead gay comedy forums routinely operate on a sufficient level where we can independently critically engage with peer-reviewed publications. We read things here, and we think about them.You are fundamentally arguing a position grounded in your own refusal to engage with information, especially critically. For those who want to engage, Appendix 5 is a likely source of such claims; but of course, there are peer-reviewed scholars who support bad or incorrect ideas. Even if there aren't, Cingulate will find a source he insists does support the claim, without understanding or reading said source. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jan 20, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
You guys aren’t being reasonable at all. Cingulate clearly read your Current Affairs article about Murray, and seems to basically agree with it as far as I can tell, but the fact that he won’t agree that Murray wants to purify the human race really seems to bother you. Hell, I assume the reason he brought up Murray in the first place was to point out he is wrong but not really for the things he is often accused. I haven’t read the book, and likely never will. I’m immediately suspicious of anyone’s motives when they look to research differences in intelligence by ethnic group, but not necessarily think it’s a forbidden topic. I would think it odd if there wasn’t some sort of minor differences in IQ between ethnic groups that had largely been isolated until recently(on a history of humanity timescale anyway), but I assume this is one of the biggest issues people have with The Bell Curve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:24
|
|
Uroboros posted:You guys aren’t being reasonable at all. Cingulate clearly read your Current Affairs article about Murray, and seems to basically agree with it as far as I can tell, but the fact that he won’t agree that Murray wants to purify the human race really seems to bother you. Hell, I assume the reason he brought up Murray in the first place was to point out he is wrong but not really for the things he is often accused. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I've never read all of the book, I genuinely don't care about the topic per se all that much. lmao i just meant the article Uroboros posted:You guys aren’t being reasonable at all. Cingulate clearly read your Current Affairs article about Murray, and seems to basically agree with it as far as I can tell, but the fact that he won’t agree that Murray wants to purify the human race really seems to bother you. Hell, I assume the reason he brought up Murray in the first place was to point out he is wrong but not really for the things he is often accused. he literally said he didn't read the part about murray's book Human Accomplishment because he thinks that book is shoddy. which it is, but the article ties that book back to the bell curve to illustrate murray's agenda the bell curve isn't controversial just for examining the idea of racial intelligence differences, but for doing so in a way that consciously reinforces the mechanisms of american racism
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray Look I’m not here to defend Murray. It’s more that what started this whole thing was Cingulate simply used him as someone who can’t be trivially dismissed, and this article kind of proves the point. You could spend a significant amount of time getting into the details of each person’s work that was mentioned in the article. I generally as a rule trust the opinions of a place like Southern Poverty Law Center, so this article probably the extent of mental energy I’d spend on the topic, but I think he is someone that at least warrants more than a flippant “racist, all work is trash, ignore at all costs” if for no other reason than understanding why his work has achieved some level of acceptance. Murray doesn’t strike me as the kind of person that your average racist redneck is going to turn to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Look I’m not here to defend Murray. It’s more that what started this whole thing was Cingulate simply used him as someone who can’t be trivially dismissed, and this article kind of proves the point. You could spend a significant amount of time getting into the details of each person’s work that was mentioned in the article. I generally as a rule trust the opinions of a place like Southern Poverty Law Center, so this article probably the extent of mental energy I’d spend on the topic, but I think he is someone that at least warrants more than a flippant “racist, all work is trash, ignore at all costs” if for no other reason than understanding why his work has achieved some level of acceptance. Murray doesn’t strike me as the kind of person that your average racist redneck is going to turn to. His work has achieved a level of accomplishment because white supremacy is incredibly powerful in the United States, and people willing to give it a veneer of respectability are incredibly well-paid as a result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
I would agree with you if Cingulate hasn't repeatedly defended Murray, despite much gentler corrections, in a variety of threads, relevant or not, for years. All while refusing to read his work.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Look I’m not here to defend Murray. It’s more that what started this whole thing was Cingulate simply used him as someone who can’t be trivially dismissed, and this article kind of proves the point. You could spend a significant amount of time getting into the details of each person’s work that was mentioned in the article. I generally as a rule trust the opinions of a place like Southern Poverty Law Center, so this article probably the extent of mental energy I’d spend on the topic, but I think he is someone that at least warrants more than a flippant “racist, all work is trash, ignore at all costs” if for no other reason than understanding why his work has achieved some level of acceptance. Murray doesn’t strike me as the kind of person that your average racist redneck is going to turn to. That's also easily answered: Murray and his ilk give a veneer of intellectualism to racist ideology, and thus cover to those who are in denial about their racism (or aware and looking to disguise it) by appearing more sophisticated than what you allude to as redneck hatemongering.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I would agree with you if Cingulate hasn't repeatedly defended Murray, despite much gentler corrections, in a variety of threads, relevant or not, for years. All while refusing to read his work. You’re way more post heavy on this forum than I so I’ll take your word for it. He seemed sincere, and you guys dog piled him for what seemed like a minor crime of mentioning Murray (and Hayek?) as two examples of people who’s work wasn’t immediately worthy of a trash can. I never got the impression that he actually agreed with their conclusions. Again I’m not as hawkishly catching every single post, does Cingulate even identify as libertarian? This doesn’t strike me as Jrod level posting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 21:59
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:He seemed sincere, and you guys dog piled him for what seemed like a minor crime of mentioning Murray (and Hayek?) as two examples of people who’s work wasn’t immediately worthy of a trash can. I never got the impression that he actually agreed with their conclusions. Again I’m not as hawkishly catching every single post, does Cingulate even identify as libertarian? This doesn’t strike me as Jrod level posting. You ever see Timecrimes or Triangle? It's like that, but coming to realize Cingulate deserves to be treated like garbage. I'm you, in the next loop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:You guys aren’t being reasonable at all. Cingulate clearly read your Current Affairs article about Murray, By the way, I just want to clarify that I didn't post it for Cingulate's benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Uroboros posted:You’re way more post heavy on this forum than I so I’ll take your word for it. He seemed sincere, and you guys dog piled him for what seemed like a minor crime of mentioning Murray (and Hayek?) as two examples of people who’s work wasn’t immediately worthy of a trash can. I never got the impression that he actually agreed with their conclusions. Again I’m not as hawkishly catching every single post, does Cingulate even identify as libertarian? This doesn’t strike me as Jrod level posting. Defending Charles Murray is seen as a crime because Charles Murray is the thin end of the wedge for white nationalism, and anyone who pushes him is (fairly) suspected of trying to recruit for that ideology. Defending Hayek is less dog-pile-worthy because nobody gives a poo poo about Hayek, not even libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2018 22:59
|
|
