DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I thought most people hated Uber because their company has a track record for having extremely sexist attitudes towards its female employees?
Also, I honestly can't understand how we see things so differently. When you read over a thorough debunking of JF's ideas, and your response is to dismiss it all as "sophistry" in a "safe space"- it just baffles me. You're obviously not against looking into arguments; you seem to have watched that Shaun&Jen video. Oh, and on that topic I guess I'll just chime in that I think the post-nationalisation rail service existed in a VERY different world to pre-WW2 Britain; it's been around for so long that I think you can give it credit for its own success.
Your group thinks everything is sexist, so no surprises there.
I didn't say everything was sophistry, I was everything was
probably sophistry given the circumstances, but I wasn't going to invest the large amount of time needed to actually educate myself in that specific field to be able to address the points. But you have a lot of temerity to expect me to respond to the post when the post itself was never intended as an argument to engage in any sort of dialogue or discussion, but was merely for the purpose of preaching to the choir of people illiterate in that field but who were looking to gulp down any plausible scientific-sounding argument that validated their pre-conceived opinions founded in the first place on political disposition and not scientific truth.
Indeed the whole thing is just a diatribe that goes on insulting JF and his credentials as a scientists, spending as much time inferring intent and motivations (so this is where you learn it from) as it does addressing points. The author then states many times his refusal to engage with JF in any sort of debate whatsoever, the former of which is more than happy to respond to his critics in live debates or other means of their choosing. I hardly doubt that the people who are right would scamper from confrontation so readily and rely on confusing argument largely incomprehensible to the layman. And JF did, in fact, rebut the post in the comments below.
Apart from the pointed-out scientific fallacies like the continuum fallacy that keeps popping up ad-nauseam, which I might address later if I feel like it, I'd comment on the alarmist tone in which race realism, a.k.a science is constantly lumped in with the Nazis, the KKK and the genocide of 11 billion Jews and Gypsies, as if that is the logical conclusion from the realisation that some groups of humans are different from others. I'd like to point out that Nazi racialism is indeed pseudo-science;
modern race-realism is much closer to the scientific understanding of the allies' on the subject of human biology at the time of WW2, before it essentially became a taboo subject as a result of Nazis. No, it's not any particular scientific truth that inevitably leads to genocide, but rather denying truth to fit some specific ideological agenda is more more dangerous.
I've been on JF's Discord which had quite a lot of intelligent and interesting people, from White nationalist to unashamed homosexuals, (you should go on there and escape from your bubble, in fact) pretty much everyone was on board with race realism, but there were a lot of different political conclusions drawn from that fact, with nationalists, globalists, Libertarians, et cetera there. One guy there was quite ardently in favour of race mixing and had an Asian girlfriend.
Momi wrote:
that was hardly an attack, it's just funny how people like him (though actually maybe people on the opposide side of the argument as well) fail to realize that tendencies are tendencies. If muslims mistreat women 648%(example) as often as non-muslims (in an unspecified way) because of easily recognizable things like culture and religion (of which they only MAY be a part), it's easy to support their rights.
Why?
Because the percentage never reaches 100%, it's just a "tendency".
I really have no idea what you're trying to say, but I think that calling someone batshit insane constitutes an attack. Furthermore, just look at the type of people who posted the Tweet.
I don't know what these people's obsession with attacking someone's credentials is - apparently a PhD, over a hundred published papers, thousands of citations and even teaching at Hardvard for half a decade isn't good enough for them, and in fact, can easily be bested by a 20 year old. Apparently they have never heard the phrase "give the Devil his due".
Watching people like this fester in their safe spaces is really quite amusing, you wouldn't believe how malicious these people supposedly driven by compassion can be.
Zain Sugieres wrote:
heretic scum
Repent, papist.
Your memes are too advanced here.
