5 ms·

I spent a few minutes skimming some of the blog posts on the page you linked and there are a few choice nuggets like this: >For the last few years I’ve believe

by slg 7y ago

I spent a few minutes skimming some of the blog posts on the page you linked and there are a few choice nuggets like this: >For the last few years I’ve believed in, and written under my pseudonym about, hard racial differences in intelligence. I was quite sure that most or all of the gap between the measured IQ of Black and White Americans was genetic in origin, everything I observed seemed consistent with that, and I assumed it would eventually be proven scientifically. and >The American swing voter, overwhelming, sympathizes with Israel rather than with the Palestinians. Yet, he also doesn’t like to hear about Israel. Why? He knows why American politicians talk about Israel. Hearing about it reminds him of his impotence in the face of the Jewish lobby he knows about but whose existence he can’t even acknowledge. This is true whether his is a white nationalist, an American nationalist, or simply a voter who asks “which candidate cares about me?” That is just old fashioned white supremacy and anti-semitism. If you don't agree with those principles, I highly suggest linking to some other source. If you do agree with them, I'll be polite and kindly ask that you don't spout those ideologies on a site like HN.

deogeo 7y ago
> That is just old fashioned white supremacy and anti-semitism. I will concede the anti-semitism point. But the opinion on IQ is consistent with mainstream psychology [1] - it is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate. Of course you did not label the claim false, merely 'white supremacy'. Furthermore, the poster whatshisface made the claim that Jewish people have higher average IQ [2]. Do you believe he, and Jordan Peterson (who he sources for that claim), are Jewish supremacists for holding that position? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20978083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20978083
- slg 7y ago
  I'm not going to debate the scientific justifications for white supremacy. You have yet to even make a halfhearted denial of these bigoted ideologies and therefore the benefit of the doubt that I had afforded you multiple times has worn out.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Labeling factual statements (well sourced, from mainstream publications) as "justifications for white supremacy" is nothing but a convenient way to avoid having to dispute them. You accused me of white supremacy, of "spouting those ideologies", based only on dislike for the other writings of the author of the post I used as source, which I explicitly did not endorse. This is a post whose accuracy no-one has bothered to dispute. If defending the accuracy of my statements is unacceptable, then what kind of debate did you have in mind? Did you hope I would just fall to my knees and beg forgiveness? > You have yet to even make a halfhearted denial of these bigoted ideologies I edited my earlier post. In case you missed it: "I very deliberately linked to a specific post, and do not endorse, nor did I even bother to read, the site as a whole." I consider this denouncement a charity - I do not owe it any more than I would owe denouncing eugenics for invoking evolution, or owe denouncing Soviet purges and the Holodomor for advocating for unions and welfare. I will not ignore facts just because bigots repeat them.
    - slg 7y ago
      Your initial comment was just parroting the anti-semitic trope that the Jews control the media and use it as propaganda. Your source for that claim was a blog that you admit professes anti-semitic ideas. I didn't expect you to "fall to [your] knees" but anyone who isn't anti-semitic would probably be uncomfortable with how that looks and maybe try to explain how their comments weren't anti-semitic. You didn't do that. Your only defense seems to be that your and/or your sources apparent bigotry is based on facts. These is no way to have a legitimately debate against bigoted ideas like that which is why I am not trying to dispute whatever you are specifically citing.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        > I didn't expect you to "fall to [your] knees" Your entire post is a long complaint that I did not display enough contrition when citing uncomfortable facts. Not fringe facts - mainstream media/science acknowledged facts, that you refuse to engage with, and in the next breath complain that > These is no way to have a legitimately debate against bigoted ideas like that Where your only evidence for my bigoted ideas is that I cite facts you are sure only a bigot would cite. As a final note, ponder this: You accused me of white supremacism based on my belief in the heritability of IQ. But both East-Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher, on average, than whites. So shouldn't you have accused me of being a Jewish and/or Asian supremacist?
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > Of course you did not label the claim false Those claims are clearly contradicted by mainstream science on IQ and are flat out false.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Second paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ: "The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73% with some more-recent estimates as high as 80% and 86%."
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      Yes, I am aware. That at a minimum provides no evidence for a "hard racial disparity in intelligence" and arguably show that such a hard disparity is impossible. It also provides evidence against "SAT score differences due to race are wholely explained by genetics" claim. Please learn how science and statistics works before using them to spread hate.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        Evidence that IQ is mostly inherited, is evidence against it being explained by population genetics? Please explain how.
        shkkmo 7y ago
        Evidence that a significant portion (even 20% is pretty significant) of intelligence is not determined by genetics is evidence against any strong disparity based on race (as any non genetic basis weakens that claim). It is strong evidence against genetics being the entire reason for test score differences. Finally, a genetic basis for intelligence provides no evidence about genomic differences between ethnicities. You have thus consistently failed to provide any actual evidence for your racist assertions and have failed to even understand the implications of the evidence you have tried to provide. So please stop using your ignorance to spread hate.
Smithalicious 7y ago
You are poisoning the well. The fact that the author has an agenda doesn't mean that the blog post that was linked is inaccurate.
- mcphage 7y ago
  > The fact that the author has an agenda doesn't mean that the blog post that was linked is inaccurate. What it means, for someone reading the comments here but has not yet followed the link, is that it’s not even worth my time to read it and try to separate the racist tripe from any valuable content. I’ve got plenty of other things to read without wading through garbage. In other words: you’re right that the well is poisoned, but the author poisoned their own well, and I’m not going to waste my time by drinking it.

by slg 7y ago

deogeo 7y ago

> That is just old fashioned white supremacy and anti-semitism. I will concede the anti-semitism point. But the opinion on IQ is consistent with mainstream psychology [1] - it is, to the best of our knowledge, accurate. Of course you did not label the claim false, merely 'white supremacy'. Furthermore, the poster whatshisface made the claim that Jewish people have higher average IQ [2]. Do you believe he, and Jordan Peterson (who he sources for that claim), are Jewish supremacists for holding that position? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20978083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20978083

slg 7y ago
I'm not going to debate the scientific justifications for white supremacy. You have yet to even make a halfhearted denial of these bigoted ideologies and therefore the benefit of the doubt that I had afforded you multiple times has worn out.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Labeling factual statements (well sourced, from mainstream publications) as "justifications for white supremacy" is nothing but a convenient way to avoid having to dispute them. You accused me of white supremacy, of "spouting those ideologies", based only on dislike for the other writings of the author of the post I used as source, which I explicitly did not endorse. This is a post whose accuracy no-one has bothered to dispute. If defending the accuracy of my statements is unacceptable, then what kind of debate did you have in mind? Did you hope I would just fall to my knees and beg forgiveness? > You have yet to even make a halfhearted denial of these bigoted ideologies I edited my earlier post. In case you missed it: "I very deliberately linked to a specific post, and do not endorse, nor did I even bother to read, the site as a whole." I consider this denouncement a charity - I do not owe it any more than I would owe denouncing eugenics for invoking evolution, or owe denouncing Soviet purges and the Holodomor for advocating for unions and welfare. I will not ignore facts just because bigots repeat them.
  - slg 7y ago
    Your initial comment was just parroting the anti-semitic trope that the Jews control the media and use it as propaganda. Your source for that claim was a blog that you admit professes anti-semitic ideas. I didn't expect you to "fall to [your] knees" but anyone who isn't anti-semitic would probably be uncomfortable with how that looks and maybe try to explain how their comments weren't anti-semitic. You didn't do that. Your only defense seems to be that your and/or your sources apparent bigotry is based on facts. These is no way to have a legitimately debate against bigoted ideas like that which is why I am not trying to dispute whatever you are specifically citing.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      > I didn't expect you to "fall to [your] knees" Your entire post is a long complaint that I did not display enough contrition when citing uncomfortable facts. Not fringe facts - mainstream media/science acknowledged facts, that you refuse to engage with, and in the next breath complain that > These is no way to have a legitimately debate against bigoted ideas like that Where your only evidence for my bigoted ideas is that I cite facts you are sure only a bigot would cite. As a final note, ponder this: You accused me of white supremacism based on my belief in the heritability of IQ. But both East-Asians and Ashkenazi Jews score higher, on average, than whites. So shouldn't you have accused me of being a Jewish and/or Asian supremacist?
shkkmo 7y ago
> Of course you did not label the claim false Those claims are clearly contradicted by mainstream science on IQ and are flat out false.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Second paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ: "The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73% with some more-recent estimates as high as 80% and 86%."
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    Yes, I am aware. That at a minimum provides no evidence for a "hard racial disparity in intelligence" and arguably show that such a hard disparity is impossible. It also provides evidence against "SAT score differences due to race are wholely explained by genetics" claim. Please learn how science and statistics works before using them to spread hate.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      Evidence that IQ is mostly inherited, is evidence against it being explained by population genetics? Please explain how.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        Evidence that a significant portion (even 20% is pretty significant) of intelligence is not determined by genetics is evidence against any strong disparity based on race (as any non genetic basis weakens that claim). It is strong evidence against genetics being the entire reason for test score differences. Finally, a genetic basis for intelligence provides no evidence about genomic differences between ethnicities. You have thus consistently failed to provide any actual evidence for your racist assertions and have failed to even understand the implications of the evidence you have tried to provide. So please stop using your ignorance to spread hate.

Smithalicious 7y ago

You are poisoning the well. The fact that the author has an agenda doesn't mean that the blog post that was linked is inaccurate.

mcphage 7y ago
> The fact that the author has an agenda doesn't mean that the blog post that was linked is inaccurate. What it means, for someone reading the comments here but has not yet followed the link, is that it’s not even worth my time to read it and try to separate the racist tripe from any valuable content. I’ve got plenty of other things to read without wading through garbage. In other words: you’re right that the well is poisoned, but the author poisoned their own well, and I’m not going to waste my time by drinking it.