3 ms·

Labeling factual statements (well sourced, from mainstream publications) as "justifications for white supremacy" is nothing but a convenient way to avoid having

by 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?
  - slg 7y ago
    >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.. Your initial comment implied "Jews control the media and use it to push their propaganda". Do you believe that is an uncomfortable fact backed up by the mainstream media and science? I gave you the benefit of the doubt originally and assumed that implication was accidentally. You have had multiple opportunities to say that the implication was not intended and yet you seem to be unwavering in support of that implication. My complaint is that you are showing no contrition in stating this clearly anti-semitic idea.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't feed this sort of tedious ideological flamewar on HN. If a comment is egregious, the guidelines ask you to flag it and move on. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't do this sort of tedious ideological flamewar on HN. It's off topic here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - jmg2 7y ago
      dang, I don't think sig was pursuing a flame war, I was about to comment I thought he had been half caught by this, beliw I think sig slipped on, but didn't entirely fall into a implicated reversal debating trap that was abruptly set up and without the supporting conversation necessary to be effective. the polemicist desires to eradicate from debate certain facts inconvenient to their propaganda, so they construct or try to construct a trap where their opponent appears to be denying incontrovertible facts, whereby data important to the polemic, such as a arbitrary correlation between wealth and white males with the initials, L and B [edit, to add this end clause] typically citing a edge case such as Lloyd Blankfein whom here anothervsignwould be presented as dismissing as irrelevant, and the bias the polemicist aspires to is the audience takes it that the rational debater has inadvertently averred he thinks the CEO of Goldman is not any outlier in socio economic terms that the polemicist will move to frame to so suit, forthwith. I hope I not of of order I spoke because I didn't suspect sig of ideology or flaming, so I gave my view.

by deogeo 7y ago

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?
- slg 7y ago
  >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.. Your initial comment implied "Jews control the media and use it to push their propaganda". Do you believe that is an uncomfortable fact backed up by the mainstream media and science? I gave you the benefit of the doubt originally and assumed that implication was accidentally. You have had multiple opportunities to say that the implication was not intended and yet you seem to be unwavering in support of that implication. My complaint is that you are showing no contrition in stating this clearly anti-semitic idea.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't feed this sort of tedious ideological flamewar on HN. If a comment is egregious, the guidelines ask you to flag it and move on. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't do this sort of tedious ideological flamewar on HN. It's off topic here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - jmg2 7y ago
    dang, I don't think sig was pursuing a flame war, I was about to comment I thought he had been half caught by this, beliw I think sig slipped on, but didn't entirely fall into a implicated reversal debating trap that was abruptly set up and without the supporting conversation necessary to be effective. the polemicist desires to eradicate from debate certain facts inconvenient to their propaganda, so they construct or try to construct a trap where their opponent appears to be denying incontrovertible facts, whereby data important to the polemic, such as a arbitrary correlation between wealth and white males with the initials, L and B [edit, to add this end clause] typically citing a edge case such as Lloyd Blankfein whom here anothervsignwould be presented as dismissing as irrelevant, and the bias the polemicist aspires to is the audience takes it that the rational debater has inadvertently averred he thinks the CEO of Goldman is not any outlier in socio economic terms that the polemicist will move to frame to so suit, forthwith. I hope I not of of order I spoke because I didn't suspect sig of ideology or flaming, so I gave my view.