4 ms·
> 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.
by 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 agoPlease 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 agoPlease 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 agodang, 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.