7 ms·

> but it also gets you labelled an evil racist nazi klansman But you are a racist [1]. I wonder how common it is to do these brief checks through the comments

by jahaja 8y ago

> but it also gets you labelled an evil racist nazi klansman But you are a racist [1]. I wonder how common it is to do these brief checks through the comments of users that seems just a bit off. Too often there's a pattern. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18331992 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18331992

deialtrous 8y ago
Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? I would really like a list so I know how to censor myself. It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect.
- jahaja 8y ago
  > Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? Kindergarden. > It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect. And rightly so after that comment.
  - deialtrous 8y ago
    Kindergarden is not an organization. If you want to decree that people who commit wrongthink offenses are by definition incorrect in everything they ever say, you need to provide a list of wrongthink offenses. I don't even know what you think is racist about that comment, much less how anyone could logically extrapolate that everything I say is wrong as a result.
    - jahaja 8y ago
      Since what you call facts are clearly bullshit I think it's perfectly reasonable to "logically extrapolate" that henceforth everything you write should be assumed to be bullshit unless proven otherwise.
    - elbear 8y ago
      From what I can tell, people have a problem with the fact that you said that "blacks are genetically incapable". Why do you think it's genetic? Why not cultural, social, economic?
      - deialtrous 8y ago
        Because none of the factors you list explain the difference. There is 100% scientific certainty that there is a genetic basis for the racial IQ divide. This was never a real debate, it was always reality being attacked by ideologues. But modern technology has simply side stepped the ideologues shouting "racist pseudo-science" at facts they don't like. Over a dozen specific genes have been isolated that affect IQ, both positively and negatively. The distribution of these genes in racial groups is as would be expected based on the measured IQs of those racial groups. Many people were conned by the "IQ isn't real it is racist pseudo-science" lie. I do not believe "DNA isn't real it is racist pseudo-science" will be as effective.
    - kalenx 8y ago
      Well, to be more specific: literally any handbook about statistics will explain the difference between correlation and causation.
      - deialtrous 8y ago
        And what does that have to do with anything I said?
        kalenx 8y ago
        Because again, there is a difference between stating a fact and wrongly inferring from it.
        deialtrous 8y ago
        This is not a productive method of communication. You need to clearly state what you mean instead of expecting me to spend 5 comments asking questions to try to extract an actual meaning from your post. I have no idea what you think I inferred. I did not confuse correlation with causation, so you need to explain clearly what you think I mean, since it is not what I said.
- lifeformed 8y ago
  You plainly said that black people are genetically incapable of being held to the same ethical standards of white people. Come on dude, get out of here.
  - deialtrous 8y ago
    No I did not. Read the statement carefully, the word "ethical" was added in your mind, it isn't in the statement I made. Black people have lower IQs. Expecting them to have population proportional representation in universities, medical professions, etc is holding them to a standard they can not achieve, through no fault of their own, and it causes serious racial animosity and conflict. This is a real problem. There is no indication that the "problems" proponents of the "racism as the root of all evil" belief keep bringing up are actually real.
    - kalenx 8y ago
      Again, this is plain racism. This is the precise definition of judging a group of people solely based on their race. Refuse to see that things like IQs and crime rate can be affected by so much factors than race if you must. Say "black people exhibit higher crime rate, so it must be genetic" while overlook the mere spurious correlation behind it, but at least acknowledge it. You are racist.
      - deialtrous 8y ago
        >This is the precise definition of judging a group of people solely based on their race. No it is not. Racism is judging individuals based on their race. When someone assumes a specific black person has a low IQ because they are black, that is racism. When someone states the objective fact that black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, that is not racism. >Refuse to see that things like IQs and crime rate can be affected by so much factors than race if you must. I did not say they are not affected by other factors. One of the factors is race. This is objective reality, your feelings do not change it. Correct for everything you can imagine, and you are still left with this reality. IQ is very heavily heritable, and different races evolved differently with different pressures, causing differences in racial IQ. Ignoring this reality and demanding that a nation with 15% black people have 15% of their doctors be black is harmful, not helpful. >Say "black people exhibit higher crime rate, so it must be genetic" I did not say it. You sure seem eager to put words in my mouth. If I am such a horrible racist, surely you don't need to invent things to pretend I said. You should be able to stick to the things I actually said.
- dang 8y ago
  We've banned this account for turning two unrelated threads into massive racial flamewars in the last 24 hours.
  - deialtrous2 8y ago
    jahaja makes a completely unprovoked personal attack on me, linking to a totally unrelated thread and slandering me, but I am the problem for responding politely and without personal attacks? That seems odd. Are there some unwritten rules that maybe should be written? If I'm not allowed to discuss certain topics that's fine, but it helps if I know in advance what those are. It doesn't need to be an exhaustive list, even a "all posts must conform to current progressive ideology" or something would at least give us a good idea of what mustn't be spoken.
sj3k 8y ago
yiiiiiiiiiikes

by jahaja 8y ago

deialtrous 8y ago

Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? I would really like a list so I know how to censor myself. It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect.

jahaja 8y ago
> Could you direct me to the organization responsible for selecting which facts go on the list of "you are racist for stating these facts"? Kindergarden. > It is very concerning to me that I am now a thought criminal and therefore anything I say is incorrect. And rightly so after that comment.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  Kindergarden is not an organization. If you want to decree that people who commit wrongthink offenses are by definition incorrect in everything they ever say, you need to provide a list of wrongthink offenses. I don't even know what you think is racist about that comment, much less how anyone could logically extrapolate that everything I say is wrong as a result.
  - jahaja 8y ago
    Since what you call facts are clearly bullshit I think it's perfectly reasonable to "logically extrapolate" that henceforth everything you write should be assumed to be bullshit unless proven otherwise.
  - elbear 8y ago
    From what I can tell, people have a problem with the fact that you said that "blacks are genetically incapable". Why do you think it's genetic? Why not cultural, social, economic?
    - deialtrous 8y ago
      Because none of the factors you list explain the difference. There is 100% scientific certainty that there is a genetic basis for the racial IQ divide. This was never a real debate, it was always reality being attacked by ideologues. But modern technology has simply side stepped the ideologues shouting "racist pseudo-science" at facts they don't like. Over a dozen specific genes have been isolated that affect IQ, both positively and negatively. The distribution of these genes in racial groups is as would be expected based on the measured IQs of those racial groups. Many people were conned by the "IQ isn't real it is racist pseudo-science" lie. I do not believe "DNA isn't real it is racist pseudo-science" will be as effective.
  - kalenx 8y ago
    Well, to be more specific: literally any handbook about statistics will explain the difference between correlation and causation.
    - deialtrous 8y ago
      And what does that have to do with anything I said?
      - kalenx 8y ago
        Because again, there is a difference between stating a fact and wrongly inferring from it.
        deialtrous 8y ago
        This is not a productive method of communication. You need to clearly state what you mean instead of expecting me to spend 5 comments asking questions to try to extract an actual meaning from your post. I have no idea what you think I inferred. I did not confuse correlation with causation, so you need to explain clearly what you think I mean, since it is not what I said.
lifeformed 8y ago
You plainly said that black people are genetically incapable of being held to the same ethical standards of white people. Come on dude, get out of here.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  No I did not. Read the statement carefully, the word "ethical" was added in your mind, it isn't in the statement I made. Black people have lower IQs. Expecting them to have population proportional representation in universities, medical professions, etc is holding them to a standard they can not achieve, through no fault of their own, and it causes serious racial animosity and conflict. This is a real problem. There is no indication that the "problems" proponents of the "racism as the root of all evil" belief keep bringing up are actually real.
  - kalenx 8y ago
    Again, this is plain racism. This is the precise definition of judging a group of people solely based on their race. Refuse to see that things like IQs and crime rate can be affected by so much factors than race if you must. Say "black people exhibit higher crime rate, so it must be genetic" while overlook the mere spurious correlation behind it, but at least acknowledge it. You are racist.
    - deialtrous 8y ago
      >This is the precise definition of judging a group of people solely based on their race. No it is not. Racism is judging individuals based on their race. When someone assumes a specific black person has a low IQ because they are black, that is racism. When someone states the objective fact that black people have lower IQs than whites or Asians, that is not racism. >Refuse to see that things like IQs and crime rate can be affected by so much factors than race if you must. I did not say they are not affected by other factors. One of the factors is race. This is objective reality, your feelings do not change it. Correct for everything you can imagine, and you are still left with this reality. IQ is very heavily heritable, and different races evolved differently with different pressures, causing differences in racial IQ. Ignoring this reality and demanding that a nation with 15% black people have 15% of their doctors be black is harmful, not helpful. >Say "black people exhibit higher crime rate, so it must be genetic" I did not say it. You sure seem eager to put words in my mouth. If I am such a horrible racist, surely you don't need to invent things to pretend I said. You should be able to stick to the things I actually said.
dang 8y ago
We've banned this account for turning two unrelated threads into massive racial flamewars in the last 24 hours.
- deialtrous2 8y ago
  jahaja makes a completely unprovoked personal attack on me, linking to a totally unrelated thread and slandering me, but I am the problem for responding politely and without personal attacks? That seems odd. Are there some unwritten rules that maybe should be written? If I'm not allowed to discuss certain topics that's fine, but it helps if I know in advance what those are. It doesn't need to be an exhaustive list, even a "all posts must conform to current progressive ideology" or something would at least give us a good idea of what mustn't be spoken.

sj3k 8y ago

yiiiiiiiiiikes