Peterson's 12 Rules For Life, have you heard of this?

[The Grand Nudger]

Expected refusal to discuss in an equitable manner noted.  Without knowing WHAT I'm going to cite, or to say, you are willing to assume its content anyway, and disregard it offhand.

Kind of like everyone in the room knows that's how the PC Left works, no?  Shout down your opponent, marginalize them with epithets, refuse ON PRINCIPLE to even consider anything they might say, fill their mouths with racist nonsense they neither said nor agree with, and then smell your farts.

Seems legit.

Would you prefer that I lied to you, or pretended that there was some equality where none existed?  Are you more concerned with how this fact offends or irritates you than it's status as a fact? 

Quote facts, cite them properly, and I will consider any and all facts.  It's not my responsibility to read through a bunch of web pages and try to figure out what it is that you want to say.

Not only is it your responsibility and no one elses, you have indicated many times that you think this is exactly what a person should do.  I have no responsibility whatsoever for your education.  

If "alt right pipeline" includes one alt-right site (which I already cited), wikipedia, a bunch of statistical pages, a couple of news articles and a whole ton of Asian VR porn sites, then. . . I guess, maybe...?  To be honest, about half of the facts I currently point to in confirming my assertions are from YOUR sources, which mostly agree with me, and none of which contradict anything I ever said.

The alt right pipeline is expansive..and there is alot of information about it online, most of it to do with data analysis and content algorithms.  Let wonder lead you to knowledge.

Yeah. . . a loon challenging people to debate in an online forum.  I'm one crazy mother-fucker!

In this, yes, you absolutely are.  You have heard the pitch of white victimization..and find yourself thinking "Yeah!". This can be seen in your approach to issues of race, to pc or sj ideology, to scientific racism, and your affinity for petersons deepities. In each of these things you have demonstrated yourself to be an utter crank.

[bennyboy]

Would you prefer that I lied to you, or pretended that there was some equality where none existed?  Are you more concerned with how this fact offends or irritates you than it's status as a fact? 

You don't need to use any discretion in deciding whether it is or isn't okay to make racist comments. Either you believe in protected speech, and everyone should expect the same protections, or you believe in free speech, and everyone should expect the same freedoms.

Whining about racism while constantly making racist comments doesn't really speak well for your sincerity.

Not only is it your responsibility and no one elses, you have indicated many times that you think this is exactly what a person should do.  I have no responsibility whatsoever for your education.  

You've made it your responsibility by claiming to be an agent for the (non-white-supremacist) truth. You've declared that while you won't bother to actually help anyone, or to consider policy ideas that would help, or to cite a source to get $150 into poor kids' hands (offer still stands btw), you are definitely willing to be a mouthpiece for the PC Left.

If "alt right pipeline" includes one alt-right site (which I already cited), wikipedia, a bunch of statistical pages, a couple of news articles and a whole ton of Asian VR porn sites, then. . . I guess, maybe...?  To be honest, about half of the facts I currently point to in confirming my assertions are from YOUR sources, which mostly agree with me, and none of which contradict anything I ever said.

Yeah. . . a loon challenging people to debate in an online forum.  I'm one crazy mother-fucker!

In this, yes, you absolutely are.  You have heard the pitch of white victimization..and find yourself thinking "Yeah!".  This can be seen in your approach to issues of race, to pc or sj ideology, to scientific racism, and your affinity for petersons deepities.  In each of these things you have demonstrated yourself to be an utter crank.

Nope. I'm just a guy who values free speech, and believes in rights, privileges and responsibilities that are extended universally to all citizens, not preferentially with respect to a divisive narrative about demographics.

(Predicted response: "That's what ALL white supremacists say. You're carrying their scrriiiiiipt!!!")

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't need to use any discretion in deciding whether it is or isn't okay to make racist comments.  Either you believe in protected speech, and everyone should expect the same protections, or you believe in free speech, and everyone should expect the same freedoms.

Whining about racism while constantly making racist comments doesn't really speak well for your sincerity.

Racists have the same freedom of speech as anyone else...what they don't have..what no one has, is consequence free speech.  Protecting a persons free speech does not require that we protect a person from the consequences of their speech, which they have freely availed themselves of.

If a person decides to say racist shit, or to use their voice to contribute to inequality..then other people can freely decide to call them racist nitwits, other people can freely decide to point out that they are ignorant assholes who get shit laughably wrong. Other people can decide not to support them economically. Other people can decide not to support those who are affiliated with them economically. While your idea of free speech is convenient for white supremacists, it is not free speech..and you leverage the concept as criticism -against- the free speech of those who are not white supremacists. You are convinced that those people, utilizing their free speech, will lead us down a dark..dark path. How, who knows. When, who knows. Hasn't happened yet. Meanwhile, racists engaging in their free speech -have- lead us down a dark path. We are here, living it. Their speech has consequences, not just for them..but for others. They would prefer more of the latter and less of the former....historically they've gotten their way on that.

You are not a freeze peach warrior. Your are a free speech grifter, for the normalizing language of white supremacy.

You've made it your responsibility by claiming to be an agent for the (non-white-supremacist) truth.  You've declared that while you won't bother to actually help anyone, or to consider policy ideas that would help, or to cite a source to get $150 into poor kids' hands (offer still stands btw), you are definitely willing to be a mouthpiece for the PC Left.

Your education remains your own responsibility.  

Nope.  I'm just a guy who values free speech, and believes in rights, privileges and responsibilities that are extended universally to all citizens, not preferentially with respect to a divisive narrative about demographics.

(Predicted response: "That's what ALL white supremacists say.  You're carrying their scrriiiiiipt!!!")

You are responsible for the things that come out of your mouth.

[bennyboy]

Racists have the same freedom of speech as anyone else...what they don't have..what no one has, is consequence free speech.  Protecting a persons free speech does not require that we protect a person from the consequences of their speech, which they have freely availed themselves of.

If you want to frame it that way, then fine. The consequence of PC Left goofy-talk is that fewer and fewer people are willing to identify with the PC Left. Fact or nah? You think the PC Left is winning the PR war right now?

I think it HAS been winning, but now it's gone too goofy, and people like you are going to ruin it all. I don't think your declared. . . ahrmmm. . . plan of shouting down people like me in forums is likely to bring a net positive result, either for the credibility of the PC Left, or for the poor victimized demographics you pretend to care about (while, of course, doing absolutely nothing at all to actually help them).

At best, in arguing with a guy who is a declared left-winger, and who is trying to talk about actual solutions to actual problems that the left-wing care about, you are wasting time that would be better spent in a forum which had actual alt-right racists in it.

If a person decides to say racist shit, or to use their voice to contribute to inequality..then other people can freely decide to call them racist nitwits, other people can freely decide to point out that they are ignorant assholes who get shit laughably wrong.  Other people can decide not to support them economically. Other people can decide not to support those who are affiliated with them economically.  While your idea of free speech is convenient for white supremacists, it is not free speech..and you leverage the concept as criticism -against- the free speech of those who are not white supremacists.  You are convinced that those people, utilizing their free speech, will lead us down a dark..dark path.  How, who knows.  When, who knows.  Hasn't happened yet.  Meanwhile, racists engaging in their free speech -have- lead us down a dark path.  We are here, living it.  Their speech has consequences, not just for them..but for others.  They would prefer more of the latter and less of the former....historically they've gotten their way on that.

That's quite the narrative, considering that I'm using free speech in open inquiry of the problem of wage inequity between racial demographics and how to solve it, and explicitly so.

Your education remains your own responsibility.

And making and clearly supporting your points is yours. You're not my teacher, and I don't have to read whatever bibliography you claim has the answers.

Make a point. Support it. If asked where factual assertions come from, show where they come from. It's a super-simple process. If you'd like to learn how to cite properly for a forum, feel free to examine my own posts, in which I back up my factual assertions with sources.

You are responsible for the things that come out of your mouth.

I'm fine, and I take that responsibility seriously. That's why instead of spinning some long yarn, I back up my positions with clearly-cited facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you want to frame it that way, then fine.  The consequence of PC Left goofy-talk is that fewer and fewer people are willing to identify with the PC Left.  Fact or nah?  You think the PC Left is winning the PR war right now?

IDK it's as much a consequence of "pc left goofy-talk" as it's a consequence of the normalization of white supremacy.  After all...how many people actually disagree with the notion that a person probably shouldn't run around spouting off racial slurs and selling harmful racial fiction?

I think it HAS been winning, but now it's gone too goofy, and people like you are going to ruin it all.  I don't think your declared. . . ahrmmm. . . plan of shouting down people like me in forums is likely to bring a net positive result, either for the credibility of the PC Left, or for the poor victimized demographics you pretend to care about (while, of course, doing absolutely nothing at all to actually help them).

If we judge by policy...which predates the alt right..then no..it hasn't  There's too much momentum.  That momentum helps to explain the success of this narrative in the first place.  There were plenty of "economically anxious" people looking for even the thinnest shred of something they could point to in order to excuse their deplorable thoughts and impulses.

At best, in arguing with a guy who is a declared left-winger, and who is trying to talk about actual solutions to actual problems that the left-wing care about, you are wasting time that would be better spent in a forum which had actual alt-right racists in it.

You think that this..somehow, modifies that fact that you have affirmed the normalizing language of white supremacy in no uncertain terms.  It does not.  As I have repeatedly noted, left wingers are the target market for their bullshit. Screaming about the negroes wasn't working anymore..so they adopted the language of victimhood.

The fuckers who have a level a self awareness in this regard that you do not are lost causes. They can only be screamed at. There is no path out of this, for them. My time would be utterly wasted there.

That's quite the narrative, considering that I'm using free speech in open inquiry of the problem of wage inequity between racial demographics and how to solve it, and explicitly so.

-and you've been explicitly racist, and explicitly wrong..about it.  It -is- quite the narrative...that's what I keep saying.......

And making and clearly supporting your points is yours.  You're not my teacher, and I don't have to read whatever bibliography you claim has the answers.

Make a point.  Support it.  If asked where factual assertions come from, show where they come from.  It's a super-simple process.  If you'd like to learn how to cite properly for a forum, feel free to examine my own posts, in which I back up my factual assertions with sources.

Long been done.  You'll either read the links or you wont.  Not my responsibility either way.

I'm fine, and I take that responsibility seriously.  That's why instead of spinning some long yarn, I back up my positions with clearly-cited facts.

This is getting tedious.  If there were facts that backed up the narrative of white victimization or scientific racism neither position would be so risible.  There aren't. The fact that they are both fact free and laughable..however, doesn't stop people from affirming them or setting damaging institutional policies on their basis. It's called pretext, I'm sure you're familiar with the term. Are white people being victimized? No..they are not. You do not possess facts to the contrary. Is free speech under assault when people seek to make racism consequential? No, it is not. You do not possess facts to the contrary. Does science affirm the notion of "difference between the races"? No..it does not. You do not possess facts to the contrary.

If you -do- take your responsibility seriously..you need to swallow your pride and stop trying to win some stupid argument with me. The positions you have been affirming in this thread are demonstrably false, and demonstrably harmful. You are one of the voices that lend them credence. Accept it. If it's not what you want or what you intend.......then stop. You've been had, conned, snookered, hoodwinked, flat out fucking lied to, lol.

It's always been your call.

[bennyboy]

If you want to frame it that way, then fine.  The consequence of PC Left goofy-talk is that fewer and fewer people are willing to identify with the PC Left.  Fact or nah?  You think the PC Left is winning the PR war right now?

IDK it's as much a consequence of "pc left goofy-talk" as it's a consequence of the normalization of white supremacy.  After all...how many people actually disagree with the notion that a person probably shouldn't run around spouting off racial slurs and selling harmful racial fiction?

You deliberately define your umbrella in vague terms so as to put as many people as possible under it.  Then you complain that there are more and more people under the umbrella. The only one spouting off racial slurs is you, buddy, in your ad hom attacks against me because I'm (mostly) white.

If we judge by policy...which predates the alt right..then no..it hasn't  There's too much momentum.  That momentum helps to explain the success of this narrative in the first place.  There were plenty of "economically anxious" people looking for even the thinnest shred of something they could point to in order to excuse their deplorable thoughts and impulses.

If you say so.  I hope you're right, to be honest.  I hope that the democrats will run a non-lizard in 2020, and that what's happening in Europe isn't a good litmus test for sentiments in the US.

You think that this..somehow, modifies that fact that you have affirmed the normalizing language of white supremacy in no uncertain terms.  It does not.  As I have repeatedly noted, left wingers are the target market for their bullshit.  Screaming about the negroes wasn't working anymore..so they adopted the language of victimhood.  

The fuckers who have a level a self awareness in this regard that you do not are lost causes.  They can only be screamed at.  There is no path out of this, for them.  My time would be utterly wasted there.

If you were just wasting your time, that would be one thing.  You are doing much more, and much worse, than that-- you are insisting on conflating people as foes who need not be, by group membership that requires one to be a True Scotsman™.  You do this by using linguistic terms so broad that almost anyone standing up for anything at all could be put under your umbrella.

This is getting tedious.  If there were facts that backed up the narrative of white victimization or scientific racism neither position would be so risible.  There aren't.  The fact that they are both fact free and laughable..however, doesn't stop people from affirming them or setting damaging institutional policies on their basis.  It's called pretext, I'm sure you're familiar with the term.

Who are you debating against?  Your own farts.

I've never promoted a "narrative of white victimization."  I say things like, "Please don't make racist comments about white people if you are claiming not to be racist."  You then conflate this with "the narrative of white victimization."  And you're doing it again!

I've never promoted "scientific racism."  In fact, it was my intent to establish policies that were color-blind, and YOUR intent to argue that black people, being victims, should be due special treatment under law, or at least in the use of language.  The facts I used were in fact facts, and I was using them quite explicitly to establish policy ideas that might help black people achieve more equitable pay.  You conflate ANY mention of race at all, if it isn't unconditionally positive, with "scientific racism." But that's not even what that term means-- you are using it wrongly.

If you -do- take your responsibility seriously..you need to swallow your pride and stop trying to win some stupid argument with me.  The positions you have been affirming in this thread are demonstrably false, and demonstrably harmful.  You are one of the voices that lend them credence.  Accept it.  If it's not what you want or what you intend.......then stop.  You've been had, conned, snookered, hoodwinked, flat out fucking lied to, lol.

"Stop hitting yourself!"

[The Grand Nudger]

"Stop hitting yourself!"

-exactly.   

You really should stop doing that, if that's not what you intend to do. You say ignorant...racist..shit, Benny. Is it because you're an ignorant racist, or because you've been sold a bill of goods by ignorant racists?

I prefer the latter explanation. You know how that goes, though. There's the world and the people we would prefer..and then there's the world and people as they are.

(and...also...cry me a river whitey.)

[bennyboy]

"Stop hitting yourself!"

-exactly.   

You really should stop doing that, if that's not what you intend to do.  You say ignorant...racist..shit, Benny.  Is it because you're an ignorant racist, or because you've been sold a bill of goods by ignorant racists?

No. It's neither. Talking about racial differences isn't racism, in any sense of the word that matters-- unless those differences (real or imagined) are being used as a pretext to limit the rights or liberty of individuals in those groups.

I didn't say, "Black people have lower IQs, so they don't deserve to make enough money to live well." I said, "Black people in the States have lower IQs, and this correlates with lower wages. Therefore, one way to solve the issue of pay inequity would be to raise the IQ of black people."

Now, remember that the black/white division was yours. It was my stated belief that well-constructed policies could have the philosophical advantage of being demographic-neutral, and the pragmatic advantage of closing the barrier. For example, a prisoner release program would be applied only to crimes committed, average sentences, and so on. But we both know that if you release those who were most unfairly penalized, that the majority of prisoners released would be black.

Or if we provide extra health and educational care to the poorest families, very many of them would be black, and we'd expect that IQ difference to be reduced over the course of a generation-- without having to paint everything in the divisive victim / oppressor demographics that you favor.

[The Grand Nudger]

No.  It's neither.  Talking about racial differences isn't racism, in any sense of the word that matters-- unless those differences (real or imagined) are being used as a pretext to limit the rights or liberty of individuals in those groups.

I didn't say, "Black people have lower IQs, so they don't deserve to make enough money to live well."  I said, "Black people in the States have lower IQs, and this correlates with lower wages.  Therefore, one way to solve the issue of pay inequity would be to raise the IQ of black people."

Scrubbing a racist pretext does not make it any less racist, it makes you feel more comfortable reasserting it, and it makes it more effective as normalizing propaganda.  Income inequality between educational and socioeconomic peers is a thing....and it's not as if anyone is giving folks an iq test at an interview.  We can (and were) raising the IQ of poor people, but this did not actually solve or reduce the issue of race centered income inequality....because it is not the source of that inequality.   

Now, remember that the black/white division was yours.  It was my stated belief that well-constructed policies could have the philosophical advantage of being demographic-neutral, and the pragmatic advantage of closing the barrier.  For example, a prisoner release program would be applied only to crimes committed, average sentences, and so on.  But we both know that if you release those who were most unfairly penalized, that the majority of prisoners released would be black.  

Prisoner release will do nothing beyond creating white panic while driving harsher policing to fill the now empty beds.  It is the incarceration rate and sentencing disparity, combined with a profit motive, that has caused this problem.  

Or if we provide extra health and educational care to the poorest families, very many of them would be black, and we'd expect that IQ difference to be reduced over the course of a generation-- without having to paint everything in the divisive victim / oppressor demographics that you favor.

Look at you, offended by the words and by reality while affirming the underlying nature of the situation.  Typical pc leftist cuck.  See why I break ranks with leftists?    

If we can raise IQ in a single generation, that demonstrates that the measured disparity is not, in point of fact, an issue of genetics or an issue of "differences between the races".  More accurately, it is a difference between how we treat the races..whether I prefer the reality of that or not.  We decided to go the other way with it, though.  We decided to gut those programs that demonstrably achieved that effect (even though it didn't actually correlate to any reduction of race centered income inequality).  

We did so by contending that heritable "differences between the races" accounted for their poor station in life.   If intelligence is genetic, and intelligence correlates with income, then programs designed to raise the intelligence of dummies will fail because they do not change the genetics of dummies.  Blacks are poor because they are inferior..not because of systemic racism.  Those programs..then, are a waste of money.  Black poverty is inevitable. Don't take my word for it, ask Charles Murray, at AEI, lol.  

You simply cannot lend credence to those positions and then, because you arrive at a conclusion wholly contradictory to their implications, stumble around wide eyed wondering "what's racist about that?"

-Everything, and you are responsible for the things that come out of your mouth.

[bennyboy]

Scrubbing a racist pretext does not make it any less racist, it makes you feel more comfortable reasserting it, and it makes it more effective as normalizing propaganda.  Income inequality between educational and socioeconomic peers is a thing....and it's not as if anyone is giving folks an iq test at an interview.  We can (and were) raising the IQ of poor people, but this did not actually solve or reduce the issue of race centered income inequality....because it is not the source of that inequality. 

Yeah. It's not crime rates, incarceration rates, single-parent families, or any of those things, either, right? It's 100% the white oppressors who are keeping black people down, right?

Prisoner release will do nothing beyond creating white panic while driving harsher policing to fill the now empty beds.  It is the incarceration rate and sentencing disparity, combined with a profit motive, that has caused this problem.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Don't release prisoners who were given exceptionally large sentences?

Look at you, offended by the words and by reality while affirming the underlying nature of the situation.  Typical pc leftist cuck.  See why I break ranks with leftists?    

I'm not offended by the PC Left demographic divisions. It think that as a source of policy, they are particularly unlikely to succeed.

If we can raise IQ in a single generation, that demonstrates that the measured disparity is not, in point of fact, an issue of genetics or an issue of "differences between the races".  More accurately, it is a difference between how we treat the races..whether I prefer the reality of that or not.  We decided to go the other way with it, though.  We decided to gut those programs that demonstrably achieved that effect (even though it didn't actually correlate to any reduction of race centered income inequality).  

I'm not sure about the chronology of educational initiatives. I would never support reducing educational or health initiatives-- because I believe that improved productivity due to education and opportunity mostly pays for those programs.

We did so by contending that heritable "differences between the races" accounted for their poor station in life.   If intelligence is genetic, and intelligence correlates with income, then programs designed to raise the intelligence of dummies will fail because they do not change the genetics of dummies.  Blacks are poor because they are inferior..not because of systemic racism.  Those programs..then, are a waste of money.  Black poverty is inevitable.  Don't take my word for it, ask Charles Murray, at AEI, lol.

You simply cannot lend credence to those positions and then, because you arrive at a conclusion wholly contradictory to their implications, stumble around wide eyed wondering "what's racist about that?"

-Everything, and you are responsible for the things that come out of your mouth.

Again, you are conflating fact-gathering with intent. That some people use certain facts to support bad intent doesn't mean the facts should be avoided, or that they don't matter.

You are also conflating moral equivalency with equivalency of outcome. All people deserve equal opportunity, equal privileges and equal responsibility. This is crucial in a multi-cultural society-- if there are little black geniuses who will never be discovered because of lack of opportunity to develop and demonstrate those gifts, then America's in deep fucking trouble-- because China, being more homogeneous, will have no problem at all in identifying future greats and bringing them to their points of greatest contribution.