ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Bi-discoursality

It never ceases to confuse the rhetoricals. From the comments at File 770:
"Mr. Beale divides the world into two parts: “facts” and “rhetoric”. Where the dividing line in depends on where he’s been challenged, and what looks right at any given time, as far as I can tell."
Not me, but Aristotle. I merely follow his lead in this regard. I strongly prefer dialectic, but that is reserved for those who are intellectually honest and capable of changing their minds on the basis of information. In general, I speak dialectic to those who communicate on that level and rhetoric to those who don't.

Rhetoric, which is the form of discourse to which SJWs are limited, is not based on logic or reason, but emotion. However, because many SJWs attempt to cloak their rhetoric in pseudo-dialectic, I use the dialectic to strip them of their cloak on behalf of those capable of following it, while communicating directly in rhetoric to them.

For example, it is not strictly true in the dialectical sense, that SJWs never tell the truth. But as Aristotle tells us, the best rhetoric is rooted in truth, and the statement "SJWs always lie" rings emotionally true, because SJWs lie so often that it resonates with everyone who has been witness to their reliable dishonesty.

The interesting thing about rhetoric is that it makes no sense to those who are limited to the dialectic. I didn't fully grasp the way it worked until reading RHETORIC for the second time. It can be bewildering when people tell you that they have been convinced by something that you know can't logically have persuaded them. In such cases, you know they have been persuaded by rhetoric, not facts, reason, or logic.

I wouldn't expect an individual who only speaks one form of discourse to be any more able to follow me into the other than if I abruptly switched to speaking Italian or French after beginning in English.

For example, this was written for dialecticals. Rhetoricals only see "blah blah blah, I'm so smart, blah blah blah, Aristotle" and scan through it seeking to find some point of attack they can use to minimize or disqualify me. And if they can't, that's when they strike a bored pose or return to the snarky ad hom.

After 12 years of this, you eventually start to notice the patterns.

Labels: ,

138 Comments:

Blogger Salt #0008 May 05, 2015 7:59 PM  

it is not strictly true in the dialectical sense, that SJWs never tell the truth

It's not?

/facepalm

Blogger 184 (188) May 05, 2015 8:00 PM  

I echo Salt: Are you quite sure about that? :--)

Anonymous Anonymous May 05, 2015 8:03 PM  

Quite precise, rhetorically speaking. Heh!

jb

Blogger Rabbi B May 05, 2015 8:03 PM  

"And if they can't, that's when they strike a bored pose or return to the snarky ad hom."

Which serves to demonstrate more clearly than anything else just how dishonest they really are with everyone they encounter, including themselves.

Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize?

[Takes a bite of steak]

Cypher: Ignorance is bliss.

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 05, 2015 8:07 PM  

Vox, any recommended translations of Rhetoric for us mortals? I see W. Rhys Roberts and George A. Kennedy. I am sure there are others.

Blogger VD May 05, 2015 8:08 PM  

I have the Roberts translation. A little dry and convoluted, but it gets the job done.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 05, 2015 8:12 PM  

Rhetoric, which is the form of discourse to which SJWs are limited, is not based on logic or reason, but emotion.

It's also been my experience that they don't bother with logic or reason because only emotion gives them control and power, most regular people being afraid to go against emotionalism for fear of it getting worse.

This week, I watched as a group of SJWs trolled each other into ever greater verification of their concern, all for fear of having one saying they disagreed. Truly an odd form of in-group signaling.

Blogger P.T. Barnumium May 05, 2015 8:13 PM  

"it is not strictly true in the dialectical sense, that SJWs never tell the truth"

Indeed. SJWs are truthful to a fault when Patreon asks them for their bank details

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 05, 2015 8:20 PM  

Required reading for minion basic training along with the 4GW stuff. Come on minions, we're in a war. Crack a book. Learn something. Get ready. As much fun as all this puppy stuff has been, this shit is real. This is SJWs rounding us up a gunpoint in another 10 years or whatever. And yes we are all going to be brave and shoot back when they come for us, but so were some of the 100 million plus killed by Mao and Stalin.

Blogger Giraffe May 05, 2015 8:21 PM  

I only speak in dialectic.

Anonymous clk May 05, 2015 8:26 PM  

The roberts translation is available online

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.mb.txt

Blogger Kull May 05, 2015 8:29 PM  

The comments section on File 770 gives me a headache. If snark was spice Glyer would have the spacing guild on their knees. (He isn't snarky much, I refer to his ownership of the comments). They just can't get it through their heads. How you conduct yourself matters. Even if Vox was dead wrong about everything I can respect him because he isn't a whiny, lying bitch. I'm totally spitballing here, but as our institutions start to rust and creak around us sometimes I wonder if we aren't headed toward older systems of organization. I might agree with a third of what Vox says on any particular topic. But I like the guy because he doesn't bullshit me and I believe he is honorable. It's a dark age paradigm. As this epoch of the west is ending we will eventually cease looking for politicians and start looking for warlords. You pick those on character, not from a checklist of ephemeral issues or political postures.

Blogger MidKnight (#138) May 05, 2015 8:29 PM  

And they didn't even represent your position on Dialectic and Rhetoric correctly. "Facts" and rhetoric?

Blogger kh123 May 05, 2015 8:31 PM  

"...most regular people being afraid to go against emotionalism for fear of it getting worse."

Children throwing tantrums.

And: Cretins always lie.

Blogger Jim May 05, 2015 8:32 PM  

An SJW told me the sky was blue one night.

Anonymous takin' a look May 05, 2015 8:32 PM  

Books are indispensable, however, a good movie can help drive the point home

The Chekist

Never forget! Never forget our Enemy and what he is capable of.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 05, 2015 8:34 PM  

It's interesting that they will try to use dialectic to disprove your rhetoric, even though they don't really understand it. So when you say, "SJW's always lie," they respond with, "Well, I know an SJW who just said something true, so you're wrong, ha ha." But of course they're not responding to the actual claim you were making, so they're irrelevant and just look goofy.

The only danger there is in going along with it, letting their reframe of your rhetoric as dialectic stand, because then you end up defending an indefensible claim. Dialectic-oriented people often make that mistake, because they don't feel comfortable with rhetoric and would rather stick to logic and facts. But if you make a rhetorical argument, you need to keep it on that level and not let them use your respect for dialectic against you.

Blogger ScuzzaMan May 05, 2015 8:34 PM  

The Germans have a saying:

"Ich verstehe nür Bahnhof."

I understand only train station. Allegedly derives from soldiers so desperate to return home that ti didn't matter what was said to them, they heard only "train station" ...

Blogger Cee May 05, 2015 8:35 PM  

The roberts translation is available online
Useful, but makes my eyes vibrate. I guess I might need to pay out to get an ebook or physical copy, since it looks like Project Gutenberg hasn't got it.

Blogger Cee May 05, 2015 8:37 PM  

Also, does interest in understanding the proper uses of dialectic and rhetoric make one bi-discurious?

Blogger VD May 05, 2015 8:37 PM  

The only danger there is in going along with it, letting their reframe of your rhetoric as dialectic stand, because then you end up defending an indefensible claim. Dialectic-oriented people often make that mistake, because they don't feel comfortable with rhetoric and would rather stick to logic and facts. But if you make a rhetorical argument, you need to keep it on that level and not let them use your respect for dialectic against you.

Precisely. Which is why you will often see me deal with that tactic by ratcheting up the rhetoric to ridiculous levels that no one can possibly mistake for dialectic. They normally crack by the third jab and go full rhetorical.

Anonymous Ouija Board SJW May 05, 2015 8:37 PM  

But, but, but Aristotle is a Dead White Male and the Greeks didn't let women vote so we don't have to pay attention to him. Because privilege!

OpenID simplytimothy May 05, 2015 8:38 PM  

Rhetoric.... is not based on logic or reason, but emotion......the statement "SJWs always lie" rings emotionally true..

You have probably written this a hundred times, but this is the first time I have seen it. The intellectual key to the fool is his feelings and how to use the fools' own emotions to demonstrate his foolishness to the dispassionate.

Based on the growing evil grin on my face as I consider the matter I suspect the biggest obstacle is suppressing one's own spontaneous laughter.

Thank you, again, for the lessons.

Blogger Kull May 05, 2015 8:42 PM  

Ultimately you can't reasonably deal with these people. Look what they did to poor Torgensen. He tried over and over to reason with them and they just sank their little teeth into every single bit of flesh he exposed. Over and over. Like piranha. Big issues, little issues, every word he typed was endlessly parsed. And he tried so hard to treat with them honestly. It was depressing. He deserved better, even from dire ideological enemies.

Don't send a Mormon to do a Mongol's job.

Blogger rumpole5 May 05, 2015 8:43 PM  

Classical education is divided into three phases: Grammar, Dialectic, and
Rhetoric. I always thought of the third phase as clothing truth (facts, if you will) in beauty. This evening we were walking along the beach and were treated to the most glorious sunset edged by purple thunder heads. Mozart's piano concerto, 3rd movement is also glorious. Some human experience transcends facts. I recommend Dorothy Sayers' essay "The Lost Tools of Learning" regarding this issue.

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly May 05, 2015 8:44 PM  

Vox and the minions if you need a laugh click this link:

https://archive.is/CwNUN

Kameron Hurley, former Hugo winner, has a short story about how gamergate winning their ethics battle leads to polygamy and beer kegs being tipped over female developers. Were it anyone else I'd believe it satire. This is John Wright's competition...look on her work and despair.

Anonymous Mr. A is Mr. A May 05, 2015 8:46 PM  

The University of Adelaide provides the Roberts translation of Aristotle's "Rhetoric" in ePub and other formats: Rhetoric by Aristotle (Roberts translation)

They also have other ebooks and also links back to the Gutenberg Project: The University of Adelaide > Library > eBooks

Blogger rumpole5 May 05, 2015 8:52 PM  

Web address for Sayers' essay:

http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

Anonymous Rhys O'Reilly May 05, 2015 8:59 PM  

Were it anyone else I'd believe it satire.

Actually, upon reflection I do think it is satire and very clever satire

Blogger Cail Corishev May 05, 2015 9:06 PM  

Which is why you will often see me deal with that tactic by ratcheting up the rhetoric to ridiculous levels that no one can possibly mistake for dialectic.

It turns out the kids on the playground were right: sometimes "So's your momma" is the best answer.

Blogger So Meh May 05, 2015 9:13 PM  

(badly translated Russian joke)

Q: What do you do when you meet a polish man?
A: beat him...he'll know why.

Moral: Always call out a SJW as a liar...he or she will know why.

(FYI: no fictional polish people were actually harmed when typing this joke)

Anonymous P6 May 05, 2015 9:19 PM  

Second times a charm for me as well - I see.

Anonymous Anarchopurplism May 05, 2015 9:20 PM  

".....Rhetoricals only see "blah blah blah, I'm so smart, blah blah blah, Aristotle"

Comedic gold. It's so true & ridiculous.....completely funny.

Anonymous Harsh May 05, 2015 9:22 PM  

Hey, Owen, read this post and digest it, you clown.

Anonymous farmer Tom May 05, 2015 9:24 PM  

You all need to understand that they told us long ago, 1989, that this would be the method they used to win the war.

Lots of people know about Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals",
but far less people know about the guide book for the homosexual agenda. "After the Ball, How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90s" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen

"A founding work of the modern homosexual movement, this book covers a wide discussion of tactics and observations relating to the homosexual movement. But the overall main psychological strategies are well summarized in a ten-page section (pp. 147-157) titled "Pushing the right buttons: halting, derailing, or reversing the 'engine of prejudice'". Reprinted below, this is the meat of the book which has been re-used and referred to by the homosexual movement countless times.

It discusses (1) Desensitization, (2) Jamming, and (3) Conversion.

Of particular note is their tactical device throughout the book of referring to religious dissenters and other critics of homosexual behavior as "bigots." Their language is purposfully crude to enhance that idea. Much like the "big lie" theory developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the Nazis, the constant repetition of this eventually has the desired psychological effect on masses of people."

One quote in particular show exactly what they were attempting to do.

Under jamming,

"Note that the bigot need not actually be made to believe that he is such a heinous creature, that others will now despise him, and that he has been the immoral agent of suffering. It would be impossible to make him believe any such thing. Rather, our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof ."

Under conversion, they admit, that, " The objection will be raised--and raised, and raised--that we t would 'Uncle Tommify' the gay community; that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes, of course--we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us,"

BTW, Wikipedia has removed "After the Ball" because it was too controversial. Search Marshall Kirk and you will find it mentioned.

Anonymous DissidentRight May 05, 2015 9:29 PM  

It can be bewildering when people tell you

Bewilderment quickly gives way to contempt, disgust (and maybe hatred) once you figure out they're serious.

It would never have occurred to me that some people don't change their minds based on information. Hence the conclusion that those people are wicked, vile monsters.

Discovering the biological root of IQ (and race realism) basically gives the stupids and the blacks back the humanity that the left stole through egalitarianism. The same goes for the women. And the "rhetorics". When they lie, it's not the same thing as me lying. Not mentally, anyway.

Anonymous P6 May 05, 2015 9:34 PM  

Wouldn't it also be foolish to act upon rhetorical arguments even if they are convincing?

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 05, 2015 9:49 PM  

@Harsh

"Hey, Owen, read this post and digest it, you clown. "

Yes... I actually found this to be very, very helpful. If only I had this a couple days ago when Vox told me "Go. Read. Aristotle."

Now I understand why he can say that "SJWs always lie" and not have to back it up.

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 05, 2015 9:57 PM  

@ takin' a look,

Thanks for the link on the movie. I watched about 12 minutes until the first executions. Looks pretty dark. I'll save this one for Mothers day with a glass of Bourbon and the sounds of gunfire from the vibrants I am surrounded by.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 05, 2015 9:59 PM  

So is there any subjectiveness to dialect? Even a little bit? And please don't think I'm trolling, because I'm quite serious here.

For instance, Vox says:
"the statement "SJWs always lie" rings emotionally true, because SJWs lie so often that it resonates with everyone who has been witness to their reliable dishonesty."

But honestly there are some stretches in that for me.

"Rings emotionally true"... but for me it doesn't. It rings emotionally false.

"SJWs lie so often"... "reliable dishonesty".... but I don't know anybody that lies that regularly. Certainly not to the level of any conspiracy or organization.

So it's those little catchwords that undermine Vox's claim to be using dialectic, and to be quite honest, it comes across as spin.

And I'm merely questioning the spin that I perceive, and trying to be as logical and fact-based as I can.

Anonymous farmer Tom May 05, 2015 10:02 PM  

Where I got the above info from,

Massresistance

Blogger Daniel May 05, 2015 10:06 PM  

I love the comments over at 770. Flyer does a good job of letting people hang themselves, even though he favors both the old guard and usually rhetoric. He isn't fluent in dialectic, but he actually has a lot more in common with Torgerson than the complete partisans.

He completely stripped the SJWs of one of their more absurd rhetorical teething rings when he posted the campaign guidance from Philcon II at the start of the hugos. Ironically I think that my dialectic played at least a small role in inspiring the emotion that led to his issuance of the truth. He told me to "consider it a gift." Only the rhetorical native would ever consider the simple truth to be a gift to the opponent. The dialectical native would concede the point and adjust to the facts.

Of course, I did not consider it a gift, as it was already obvious to me that the hugos were founded on campaigns, and I knew that even the smarter of the sjws recognized it too, but were really just running with the lie (that Rabid Puppies invented the concept of slate) instead.

Blogger automatthew 0062 May 05, 2015 10:10 PM  

"And I'm merely questioning the spin that I perceive, and trying to be as logical and fact-based as I can."

False. You lie.

You lie like a Calormene. You lie like an Ape.

Blogger Daniel May 05, 2015 10:12 PM  

Owen, John Scalzi lies, in public, an average of 5.7 times per day, not counting repeat lies. Your ignorance of this man's existence or his numerous verified lies has no bearing on the fact that SJWS always lie.

It doesn't ring emotionally true because emotionally you need to live in a fantasy world where trust is a default virtue and liars are unheard of.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 05, 2015 10:13 PM  

@DissidentRight

"Discovering the biological root of IQ (and race realism) basically gives the stupids and the blacks back the humanity that the left stole through egalitarianism"

So is this dialectic?

You're presuming that stupids and blacks are inferior people. And that the left wing initiative to promote equality actually took away their humanity? But by spreading the message of "race reality", you can show them that they actually are inferior due to biological IQ, and they can regain their lost humanity?

I don't subscribe to a theory in which any group of people are lesser than another. Can you argue using facts?

Blogger MidKnight (#138) May 05, 2015 10:13 PM  

@clk
The roberts translation is available online

How long before they put trigger warning on that just like for Ovid?

Anonymous Not-So-Merry zen0 May 05, 2015 10:14 PM  

smoke screen smoke·screen (smōk′skrēn′)
n.
1. A mass of dense artificial smoke used to conceal military areas or operations from an enemy.
2. An action or statement used to conceal actual plans or intentions.

Blogger Cee May 05, 2015 10:14 PM  

The University of Adelaide provides the Roberts translation of Aristotle's "Rhetoric" in ePub and other formats: Rhetoric by Aristotle (Roberts translation)

They also have other ebooks and also links back to the Gutenberg Project: The University of Adelaide > Library > eBooks


Thank you very much for these! On to my reader it goes.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 05, 2015 10:17 PM  

@Daniel
"Owen, John Scalzi lies, in public, an average of 5.7 times per day, not counting repeat lies. Your ignorance of this man's existence or his numerous verified lies has no bearing on the fact that SJWS always lie. "

I've only read a couple of his books, and have never visited his blog, and don't know anything about the guy.

But if it's true that he lies that often, then it's pretty easy to figure that out quickly. You're oversimplifying to simply label him "SJW" and then use that as a plank to forward sweeping political change.

Maybe he's just not all there. And toxic. But does he have to be the simpleton/deviant who somehow also managed to get in on the inside of a larger conspiracy just because his politics matched up?

I'll concede that I know individuals who are compulsive liars. But they don't have to fit into one or the other of two groups of people, do they? Must they?

Anonymous jack May 05, 2015 10:20 PM  

TNX Mr. A and A

Got the Mobi. of Rhetoric; works just fine on the old Kindle. Now, I have no excuse for not reading the thing.

Blogger wrf3 May 05, 2015 10:26 PM  

Owen T O?... wrote: And I'm ... trying to be as logical and fact-based as I can.

There's your problem. You're trying to put a plasma charge down a three meter tube using your targeting computer. Use your feelings. Unless you're like Dexter Morgan, instead of Luke Skywalker, and just don't have any. Dexter never could understand normals.

OpenID simplytimothy May 05, 2015 10:31 PM  

@farmer Tom

Thank you for the link. I have seen those techniques employed w/o having a name for them; now I do.



Anonymous BigGaySteve May 05, 2015 10:35 PM  

What will happen if the leftists figure out that if they understand Aristotle the will be converted? They would have the fate of Bruce Jenner going from being embraced by the left to vilified when he said he was a republican.

This is SJWs rounding us up a gunpoint in another 10 years or whatever. And yes we are all going to be brave and shoot back when they come for us, but so were some of the 100 million plus killed by Mao and Stalin.

SJWs want to know church plate donations for Christian churches, not interested in savage moslems planning jihad.
http://www.kraytonkerns.org/postings/the_conservative_christian_id.html

"You're presuming that stupids and blacks are inferior people."

Yea all of history agreeing with that statement, except for sickle cells surviving malaria without whitey's meds & short distance runs, can just be disqualified. Oddly x-tians view all people as equally sinners.

"SJWs always lie" I especially dislike when they answer a different question than they are asked. If you don't listen carefully they could get away with it.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2015 10:35 PM  

> ...but I don't know anybody that lies that regularly. Certainly not to the level of any conspiracy or organization.

Two names, Owen: Bill Clinton. Barack Obama. Both lie continuously.

Rush used to say like (from memory) Bil Clinton would rather climb a tree and tell you a lie than stand in front of you and tell you the truth.

Blogger Doom May 05, 2015 10:39 PM  

I noticed the patterns, and fiddled with these things, but never knew the terminology or put it all together, until reading here. Makes absolute sense at this point. And, it makes fiddling with the fiddlers a much easier task, often quite pleasurable.

Basically, think of it as the difference between talking to another man about a technical issue and then discussing women with a woman. Funny thing is, SJW's are easy to sway, in person. In real life, on the streets, they are looking for something that is real. They know what they have is crap. They aren't always to swing around that corner to solid forms of truth and the objective, but they like it when they here it, even when they pout. Actually, you know you have them when they pout. In literary fields and online, they stick with what they don't know (everything but the truths). Especially the activists. Fun to watch you bat them around. It amazes me that they keep coming back for more. One more reason never to use pot? *grins*

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 05, 2015 10:42 PM  

Not saying Clinton or Obama don't lie. I don't care (don't live in USA) and haven't checked into them.

But one google search on Rush Limbaugh brought up this article:
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/rush-limbaughs-astonishing-record-lies-exposed-fact-checking-organization/

I didn't read the article, but I'd argue that anybody in politics (left wing or right wing) should be checked very, very carefully for truthfulness.

Blogger maniacprovost May 05, 2015 10:48 PM  

So is there any subjectiveness to dialect?...
For instance, Vox says:...
"SJWs lie so often"...
So it's those little catchwords that undermine Vox's claim to be using dialectic, and to be quite honest, it comes across as spin.


No, he specifically states that he is not using dialectic in this case. He is using rhetoric against those who he believes are emotionally incontinent and irrational, as well as for other legitimate purposes like motivating the troops.

The "subjectivity" of dialectic is up for debate, inasmuch as relativism and absolutism both refuse to surrender, but in the sense you ask, dialectic is not subjective.

You're presuming that stupids ... are inferior people. I don't subscribe to a theory in which any group of people are lesser than another.

Would you agree that "stupids" are stupider than "smarts?" Or do you believe that all computational processes are equal on some vector, with only qualitative differences defining them? That is, is a computer with a 66 MHz Pentium "equal" to a new Macbook Pro? If they are equal, would you use the 1994 Packard Bell to launch a bioinformatics project?

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 05, 2015 10:54 PM  

It wasn't my word choice to write stupids and blacks. It was his. I thought the order of the words was a tell, but I quoted it unchanged regardless.

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 05, 2015 10:56 PM  

"Rings emotionally true"... but for me it doesn't. It rings emotionally false.

If you are in a poker game and don't know who the sucker is, it's you.

Hey Owen. I am a mid-wit on a good day. I've been reading this blog for years and maybe posted 3 or 4 comments per year. Many of the people here are much smarter than I am, so I keep my mouth shut. Better to be silent and thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it.

Vox has the Roberts translation. A few of the less malevolent minions have posted links, my guess is this is what you tried to read the other day. With Vox's comments about it being convoluted and me being a mid-wit I looked a little bit more into the Kennedy translation and now think that would be better for me. This has some additonal commentary that explains what was going on in Greece at the time and helps to make a little sense of the book, which is really just a collection of his lecture notes. This is a paperback edition. Amazon does not list a kindle edition that I see so there might not be an ebook version. Maybe this would be easier for you to grok?

On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, George A. Kennedy (Translator)

Probably, most of the people here think you're trolling and you may very well be, I don't know and don't care. It took me many years of soaking in red pill blogs like this one to loosen the blinders on my eyes. My humble advice to you is to comment less, follow links on the sidebar to alpha game and from there to Roissy, Keoni, Rollo etc. When I look back to the nonsense I believed 5 years ago I am astounded at where I am today.

I don't subscribe to a theory in which any group of people are lesser than another. Can you argue using facts?

As Vox would say, superior by what metric? All people are created in the image of God, and Christ died for any of us that will accept his death in our place.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 05, 2015 10:59 PM  

If you make any problem sufficiently small, you can analyze it using simplistic logic.

There is so much more to a human being than just how smart they might be. And can you really find an instrument that can truly measure IQ completely free from cultural references? In order to compare apples to apples. And if so, is the instrument then actually reliable?

Not being an expert on IQ, I question the statement that "IQ of one group of people is lower than another from a different culture"

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 05, 2015 11:00 PM  

@Blackburn

Thanks... appreciate the thoughtful reply.

Blogger maniacprovost May 05, 2015 11:04 PM  

Being an expert on doohickeys, I question whether 10 identical pieces of 4140 steel pipe, produced in the same batch by the same mill, machined to the same dimensions, can have different strengths. Yet if you apply hydraulic pressure to all of them, one of them will explode first.

Nothing is equal to anything else.

Anonymous Anthony May 05, 2015 11:05 PM  

Owen T - Presuming you're sincere in what you're writing on this blog thread, I would strongly encourage you to thoroughly research the GamerGate controversy. At least spend a week or so browsing Reddit's KotakuInAction subreddit for a few minutes each day, reading up on the news articles that they link to and the notable players in the controversy that they talk about. That will hopefully prove very revealing, if you keep an open-mind to the possibility that Vox might in fact be right in what he's saying about the SJWs.

To be fair to you, the dividing line between SJW and your average everyday liberal or progressive is not always easy to see, it can be blurry at times, and it can take a lot of research and time for it to become readily apparent.

GamerGate is the best place to see the division for yourself, because most pro-GG people are in fact liberal or progressive, at least by the standards of the very recent past (any time pre-Obama Administration). But once you take a good hard look at the arguments of the pro-GG people and the arguments of the anti-GG people, I think it'll probably soon become clear that there's a real serious divide *on the left* there (some GGers lean to the right, but they're the exception, not the rule - In my experience, you're not going to find many GGers against gay marriage or against legalized abortion)

The way I would put it is that you have a sort of classic "live and let live" liberalism that the pro-GG side exemplifies, and a very firm and stern authoritarian leftism identity-based politics on the anti-GG side. Those who buy into this authoritarian leftism identity-based politics 100% are what most people mean by "SJWs". They're *not* your average everyday liberal, but they are nonetheless increasingly numerous.

I'm not a conservative like Vox is, but I share his dislike of the SJWs, which is the main reason I've lurked this blog for several months now. When Vox says "SJWs always lie", that definitely does ring emotionally true to me. It rings true with almost everything I've seen in the Gamer Gate controversy.

And after you see what's going on in the Gamer Gate controversy, I think you'll see some similarities between the leading anti-GG people and the leading anti-Sad Puppies people.

Another individual that I think has done a good job of explaining SJWs is James May, a regular commenter on Mr. Torgersen's blog.


I have to admit that I find your denial of SJWs truly exasperating, prompting me to stop lurking to address it. This is because, to me, their existence could not be any more obvious after following GamerGate over the past few months. But then I remind myself that GamerGate itself was a huge eye-opener to me. Maybe it will be for you as well.

Anonymous DissidentRight May 05, 2015 11:10 PM  

Owen:

A person who intentionally chooses mediocrity/failure is despicable. A person whose biology limits him to mediocrity/failure is human. Same goes for people who understand logic, yet intentionally lie versus people who don't understand it. The egalitarians would have us believe that the stupids, the blacks, the women, and the rhetorics are monsters.

Blogger Remo - Vile Faceless Minion #99 May 05, 2015 11:16 PM  

A very succinct explanation and I get it now. So if Vox were to write a piece on the current Baltimore situation here is how it would pan out. "African peoples are 3x more likely too (insert some truthful statistic here)..."

SJW: RACISS!!!!

Repeating the statistic, no matter how accurate, is pointless. The classic mistake I used to fall into when seeing this kind of crap was to assume that the person "debating" with me believed the statistic or number I was using was incorrect for some reason and I would try to argue along those lines. In other words I would be concerned with establishing truth thinking that was the key factor of the issue. This summation is incorrect. The key factor is feelings and since reality explained truthfully doesn't spare feelings it means the messenger is bad because he caused feelbad.

Since the truth doesn't matter and is ignored in favor of rhetorical attack a more proper response would be "So why don't YOU go live in Baltimore - what are you RACISS?!? RACISS!!! RACISS! YOU'RE A RACISS!!!!" Amplify the feelbad, expose their hypocrisy, and shove the ice pick into their back with as much force as possible. Get others on the board to agree with you because if they don't - raciss. Once a critical mass of the warren is aping your perceived disgust you've won without debating the fact of argument at all. You're a racist for pointing out high crime rates in black neighborhoods but THEY are a BIGGER racist for not living in Baltimore. And the biggest mouth wins.

Anonymous taqiyyologist May 05, 2015 11:25 PM  

Thanks all!

This thread is a great resource. Books, essays, quotes, whole movies. All pointing truthward.

Anonymous taqiyyologist May 05, 2015 11:29 PM  

Mrs. Woods, my fourth grade math teacher was a white lady, real nice. In a school that was 60/40 black/white, with a 90% black school board, she showed our math class in the 8th grade this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl4REOWdJSE

That one, I am sure, is banned in most schools now. It points truthward.

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 05, 2015 11:32 PM  

This thread is a great resource. Books, essays, quotes, whole movies. All pointing truthward.

Can I get an Amen? I say CAN I GET AN AMEN MINIONS?

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 05, 2015 11:36 PM  

ooh, animal farm. You bad thinker you.

First they came for Mrs. Woods, but I was not a math teacher...

Blogger Russell (#0106) May 06, 2015 12:02 AM  

Scoob: Blah blah, me, me, blah. Skim until offended.

VD: After 12 years of this, you eventually start to notice the patterns.

Yup. Like clockwork. Almost on cue, every time.

Anonymous Discard May 06, 2015 12:09 AM  

Owen T: SJWs, when acting as SJWs, always lie. That is, if you ask a SJW what time it is, you will likely get a truthful answer. But on any topic that touches on any kind of social issue, they lie, because their entire worldview is fraudulent and they know it. Yes, they do know it, because if they really believed in their avowed principles, they'd do a better job of living by them. That is why they get so frantic over dissent, for fear of being exposed as hypocritical worms.

Anonymous The other robot May 06, 2015 12:14 AM  

There is so much more to a human being than just how smart they might be. And can you really find an instrument that can truly measure IQ completely free from cultural references?

Only an ignoramus does not know that blacks in the US do better on culture loaded IQ tests than they do on culture free IQ tests.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 06, 2015 12:17 AM  

@DissidentRight

Thanks for replying and giving a respectful reply. I'll try to honor the goodwill and keep the argument as non-tedious as I can.

The point you've made is that certain people are inferior to others, and you can observe this in their behavior. Thus, if we're all equal, then they must be choosing to behave this way.

Much better to believe that they were in fact born this way, and thus there's no shame in their inferior behavior.

If this is your argument, I guess we have to consider the truth of the "inferior behavior". Obviously this thread is not the place (nor do we have the time), so I'll not press the issue further.

But do you see that 99.9% of people that don't accept that basic premise will find this very racist and disturbing? Not that you need to care, and not that feelings need to sway your opinion if you're basing it on a set of facts. It's not like we're arguing "pineapple doesn't belong on pizza" and I can "yeah, whatever".

I either need to be persuaded by your argument, or I leave thinking that you are the one who is inferior because of the way you measure yourself so high as compared to your peers.

I'm not trolling, and I thank you for the respect in your reply. I've got no argument that will fit this thread, but I'm trying to understand how to reconcile such thoughts.

Anonymous The other robot May 06, 2015 12:22 AM  

The ignoramus has probably never read La Griffe Du Lion either. He/It would need strong math skills for that. Also, probably never read West Hunter

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 06, 2015 12:22 AM  

@TheOtherRobot

But my question is how can you standardize tests that are culturally loaded? If you truly have "culture-free", but it skews for white population, then is it truly culture-free? And if you go with culture-specific, and the scores even out, then how can you compare the scores?

Do you know what I call the black people in my community? Doctor. Superintendent. Doctor. Pastor. etc.

Anonymous The other robot May 06, 2015 12:33 AM  

I don't subscribe to a theory in which any group of people are lesser than another. Can you argue using facts?

Only a wanker would misrepresent what Vox said in that way.

Matt Ridley wrote about genetic differences among humans in Ancient DNA tells a new Human story. It, along with other recent evidence is there for people who are interested in the science.

For example, Tibetans are superior to all other groups when it comes to living at high altitudes. They form a discernably separate biological group. They beat all whites and the Han (Chinese) and are better than Native Americans who have lived in the Andes for a long while.

Likewise, West African blacks, with their high proportions of fast-twitch muscle fibre are the best in the world in sprinting (even when they are not doping.) Similarly, East African blacks are the best at marathons (actually, a small sub-population,) and Aboriginal Australians have the best visual acuity in the world. Finally, whites and East Asians are the best in the world at creating civilization but each have their advantages over the other.

These are the things that Vox was saying.

Of course, it sucks to be the best at living in high altitudes if you have to live in a low-land society that requires high IQ, or to be the fastest sprinter in the world when there is not much demand for running fast.

Lastly, you are a moron Owen. It had to be said. You refuse to educate yourself.

Blogger Poor Guy May 06, 2015 12:35 AM  

I learn so much reading this blog. I know I'm not smart but one would think the SJW's would at least do their homework-a smidgen- before running with machetes like this.

Anonymous The other robot May 06, 2015 12:36 AM  

Do you know what I call the black people in my community? Doctor. Superintendent. Doctor. Pastor. etc.

Yeah, I guess you would have to call a Witch Doctor Doctor.

I tend to regard doctors as little more than glorified mechanics anyway.

Blogger Poor Guy May 06, 2015 12:37 AM  

OTO

2+2=___

Is that culturally loaded?

The US declared independence in __76

Is that culturally loaded?

Every time I hear someone spout off about _____ privilege, I know I am hearing a big pile of poop.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 06, 2015 12:42 AM  

Owen,

If the man besides you responds with lines of poetry, do you reply back with cold logic?

Rhetoric is no different. Ringing true emotionally need be no more literal than Dante's Inferno is to Hell itself.

Anonymous The other robot May 06, 2015 12:43 AM  

But my question is how can you standardize tests that are culturally loaded? If you truly have "culture-free", but it skews for white population, then is it truly culture-free?

You seem unaware that East Asians do better that whites on tests designed by whites that you no doubt claim were supposed to show that whites were superior.

In addition, African Americans do better on word-based IQ tests that they do on Ravens Matrices (which do not test skills at reading and are heavily G loaded.)

Blogger Minion777 May 06, 2015 12:50 AM  

If you are in a poker game and don't know who the sucker is, it's you.

Thanks for that comment, made me realize I often play the game unaware of the context. Reflecting back, I would have made completely different choices had I known I was a piece instead of a player.

Cheers,

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 06, 2015 12:50 AM  

Owen, you're being an aspie on this IQ stuff.

On IQ, in my own case I would say I am an idiot savant. I test at a plus 2 sd, thus the mid-wit self-designation. When it comes to certain things like manufacturing/machining processes, or use of CAD/CAM and best practice etc I would probably be plus 4 or 5. On other things I would be minus 1 or 2 if you had a test granular enough to measure it. This culture thing is no different. The standard IQ test correlates with skills and thinking ability that helps you prosper in western civilization. (Or at least what that used to be.) But is a high IQ math and science white boy going to prosper in Lagos Nigeria or would you be better off testing well on the 419 Nigerian Scam.Street Smarts IQ test?

If you live in a given culture it would be to your benefit to test well on a test loaded for that culture no? Are all cultures equal in every dimension?

Do you know what I call the black people that live next door to me? Drug Dealer, Whore, Thief.

Blogger Danby May 06, 2015 12:51 AM  

@Owen
I will agree with you that IQ is not intelligence, in fact, I would say that intelligence is not even a single thing. But IQ tests measure something, and that something correlates to a greater or lesser degree with numerical and verbal intelligence. And modern IQ tests are fairly predictive in many ways, so it is not a meaningless thing they measure.

You seem to think that he worth or a person is somehow dependent on intelligence, and that to say that one person is less intelligent than another is the same as saying that they are inferior. No Christian is allowed to think that.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 06, 2015 12:53 AM  

@The Other Robot

No argument whatsoever with anything that you say about DNA until you make this statement:

"Finally, whites and East Asians are the best in the world at creating civilization but each have their advantages over the other"

That goes beyond visual acuity, and this goes beyond a gene named EPAS1 that enables Tibetans to thrive at high elevation, and this goes beyond the development of a genome that took place in early farmers so that adults wouldn't be intolerant of lactose.

I read the article you posted, and it says "we are none of us natives or purebred". Apparently we're all descended from stock that emerged from Africa and went off and usurped the territory of Neanderthals. So if differences emerge over time, that's easy to accept.

But that's not going to adjust my political views. How could it, or how should it?

OpenID eidolon1109 May 06, 2015 12:57 AM  

If white standards and gatekeeping are keeping black people down, then in a whole society full of Africans, they'd perform just as well as whites then, right? Without the white expectations and requirements and culturally loaded gatekeeping? Surely a country where Africans ran everything wouldn't be slanted in that way? Feel free to study the case of South Africa in recent years sometime.

What I don't understand is, how do people always make the leap from "group A has lower intelligence on average than group B" to "group B is superior to group A." There's no connection between these statements. If you're talking about intelligence, then sure, group B is superior by definition, but morally group A may be far better than group B. Intelligence is not directly connected to virtue, or even usefulness to society.

For example, blacks in US in the immediate aftermath of slavery were presumably at or below the average intelligence level of modern American blacks, seeing as they had far less access to education. However they had high rates of work participation, marriage, and two-parent homes, with very low divorce rates, and dramatically lower crime rates than now. Thus the less intelligent group was the "superior" group if you're talking about virtue and usefulness to society.

Blogger maniacprovost May 06, 2015 12:58 AM  

But that's not going to adjust my political views. How could it, or how should it?

1) If some groups have a higher aptitude in X, then any attempt to create equality in X via affirmativee action, outreach, or incentives is doomed to failure, and only creates inefficiency and unhappiness.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 06, 2015 1:02 AM  

@Blackburn

Nicely stated, and I totally agree with your thoughts of usefulness of IQ. My skills help me do quite well in my field and in my community, but I'd be quite useless in most other cultures. Having traveled in 3rd world countries, I've seen things which I've at first considered very backwards. But then I reflect that there's millions of them, and that's the way that things are done there. And it apparently works for them. I'd be dead in that system, unable to survive. They wake up, work hard to put food on the table for that day, and then go to bed to wake up and do it again. I have sick days if I'm not able to make it to work. They don't.

So is their system backwards and uncivilized? It's working for them. And the 3rd world countries I've visited are densely populated, so there's more of them than there are in my sparsely populated community.

It wouldn't work for me, but then my system wouldn't work very well for me if I were to try to live in their world.

So if I were to look at my skills in Maths, and suggest that I'm superior (which Danby says is something no Christian should ever do, which is nice to hear), then I'm missing the fact that here's a whole range of skills of which I'm completely bereft.

OpenID eidolon1109 May 06, 2015 1:06 AM  

To add to maniacprovost, one important point is that you should not expect groups to perform the same. They differ in genetics, history, culture, aptitude, inclination, etc. Thus if you see one group succeeding more than another group, or one group disproportionately in a particular place in society, you should require compelling evidence before accepting the theory that some sort of discrimination caused that situation. Different groups will always perform differently and will never be the same, so discrimination is not a necessary condition of significant differences in group performance and you should be very skeptical if it's proposed as an explanation.

Thomas Sowell in one of his books went down a long list of disproportionate representations of various groups in various societies around the world. All of these being the result of discrimination is unlikely to the point of being absurd. Groupings of people in different parts of society should be expected and an even distribution in the total absence of discrimination is unlikely in the extreme.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 06, 2015 1:06 AM  

@eidolon1109

Thank you. I'm not so worried about "racist mobs" posting on Vox's blogs when I read replies such as yours.

I'm still not sold on South Africa being a litmus test of how well Blacks can build a modern nation. There are and were a lot of things going on wrong there to say that any mess is entirely their fault.

Blogger Danby May 06, 2015 1:07 AM  

Do you know what I call the black people who live next to me?
Neither do I.

On the other hand, my wife's gynecologist is Dr. Mvundura. He's very smart, very well educated, and acknowledged by doctors and nurses in the area as the best surgeon, bar none, in the county. He's also one of the finest and most Christian gentleman that I've had the occasion to meet. And yes, he's smarter than 95% of the Whites I know. And he too lives in an area where there are no American blacks. Imagine that.

You see, saying that an average of one group is different than the average of a different group says NOTHING about any individual.

On the other hand, one of the effects of affirmative action in the university system is that many Blacks who are unprepared for college gain admission to top-tier schools, for which they are entirely unprepared. The graduation rate for black men is 35%, as opposed to 62% for whites. There are no available numbers for how many of those Black dropouts eventually attain a degree.
The graduation rate of "historically Black" colleges is on par with Whites, usually a couple of points higher.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 06, 2015 1:12 AM  

@eidolon1109

Your responses are very nice to read. One thing to clarify... I guess I'm not a SJW because I never thought that discrimination caused differences in how different populations are coping.

If a black community is prospering, I'm sure that lack of discrimination must exist on some level.

If a black community is struggling, then I'm not all suggesting that discrimination caused it.

Education, economics, culture, resources, and even the degree of "peacefulness" make the difference. If a group cannot be aligned to work together on goals, then they're doomed to stay in 3rd world conditions.

Drugs in any community bring crime, and crime brings ruin. That's not discrimination at work.

Blogger Danby May 06, 2015 1:14 AM  

hmm, forgot to come to my conclusion.

Would you say that it's doing any sort of a favor to Blacks, to ignore their IQ, grades and test scores and give them privileged admission to schools for which they are unprepared?

Blogger Michael Maier May 06, 2015 1:22 AM  

Oh wait... how dost I contributeth to the faggoteth SJW bullshit faggoteth faggy-ness?

Oh wait.. I hate the faggy faggots... Forgoteth that... go fucketh themselves....

Fuck you, faggots.

Blogger Minion777 May 06, 2015 1:26 AM  

@Owen

You are challenging logic to the defense of your delusion of personal self-worth, you need to destroy that aspect of yourself, its neurotic.

The root of your neurosis is your incapability of separation from self and identity-correctness (Gamma). You can be a worthy person that changes his mind based on better data, being right or not in a given time is useless and does not invalidate you.

You are designed as a learning neuro-machine that can process and absorb large amounts of data, not as a mechanism that sets an identity and denies information, your body is a computer. Expand.

Blogger Owen T. Oloren May 06, 2015 1:31 AM  

@Danby
If even one student can finish the course, and go on to a career, and would otherwise not have had the opportunity, then how can I say it was not worth it?

The achievement gap is a big problem, and shows up in other populations. In New Zealand, the Te Kotahitanga project is trying to address the achievement gap for Maori students early in their education, before they reach college age. First Nations in Canada have a similar achievement gap.

But... if over time, the Tibetans gained attributes to prosper at high altitudes due to new genes, who is to say that persistence and not giving up won't pay off over time?

Blogger Danby May 06, 2015 1:48 AM  

@Owen,
Your forgetting the other side of the equation. There is a cost that you're not accounting for.

How many meet challenges they are unprepared for, lose confidence, develop bad habits and never return to college, when they would have been perfectly successful at a college that was prepared to offer them the support they needed to succeed? I don't believe it's possible to ascertain exactly, but with a 65% dropout rate, I think the number is more than "even one."

The Tibetans did not "gain the attributes to prosper at high altitudes" through affirmative action or government programs,not through persistence and not giving up, except in the most indirect way. No ancient Tibetan told his fellow villagers "We must develop larger rib cages and more efficient oxygen transfer!"

They achieved it through a thorough and ruthless weeding of the genetically less fit. If you want to try that program with American Blacks, I would call you the racist here.

Blogger WATYF #0222 May 06, 2015 1:48 AM  

OT, or possibly not...

John C. Wright's blog is down, showing a suspended page. Maybe a technical issue, or maybe someone reported him for his badthink, or....?

WATYF

Blogger Danby May 06, 2015 1:55 AM  

@Waytf
Unlikely. Bluehost don't care.
Probably he exceeded his bandwidth allocation or missed his May payment.

Anonymous Discard May 06, 2015 2:08 AM  

Owen T: Middle and working class Whites are ceaselessly being beaten with the club of Racism. Black wretchedness is always our fault, and we are made to pay. The importance of recognizing Black's lesser intelligence is that it takes that club out of the hands of the SJWs.
It also, as pointed out above, changes them from being sacks of shit to dummies who really can't help fucking up. I was once involved in foster care and from that came to understand that a lot of these people really can't function as adults in America. They can't keep from losing their wallets and keys, they can't arrive on time, they can't not spend their money on trinkets rather than a bus pass. Accepting their innate dull-wittedness means accepting them as who they are rather than despising them for what they fail to be.

Blogger Minion777 May 06, 2015 2:13 AM  

Owen,

I designed your body based on previous blueprints, your mother and your father provided genetic material necessary for your construction. Environment gave you a quick glance of what was possible (or not) given your point of origin.

Regardless, I’ve equipped you with a top-of-the-line neural computer; it has the ability to process mass amounts of data to aid you in your ongoing daily activities.

There are some caveats you should be aware of:
- It can be programmed by others if you are not conscious.
- It has a default auto-pilot based on contextual experiences and your lack of action.
- You need to train it to obey your command and only your command.

I trust with this information you will make full use of the provided equipment.

Best regards,

Human Provisioning

Anonymous Peter Garstig May 06, 2015 2:14 AM  

You: "SJW always lie!"
They: "This can't be true because I said x and this is proven by fact y"
You: "I was being rethorical?"

Bomb.

Blogger Danby May 06, 2015 2:26 AM  

@Peter, how about this I saw on file 770 today

SJW: Vox is a racist piece of shit because of sentence fragment Y

non-minion: actually, if you read the complete sentence in context he was actually saying Z

SJW I don't care, I'm going to keep shrieking "Vox said Y" and I can't be bothered to read anything that invalidates that

non-minion: that's fundamentally dishonest

SJW: you're as EVIL as Vox.

Anonymous Shut up rabbit May 06, 2015 2:39 AM  

Science: Different groups have different mean IQs
Leftist: Why are you saying different groups are inferior?

What is it with leftists and their idolization of IQ (developed by Nazis) to show a man's worth?

Perhaps one becomes a leftist when they realizes they are inferior in every aspect of their existence except intelligence and therefore elevate that to the supreme definition of human value?

Blogger kh123 May 06, 2015 3:12 AM  

"non-minion: that's fundamentally dishonest

SJW: you're as EVIL as Vox."


Chu Chu Train: The bomb is fine. They are everywhere. It will explode in exactly 20 minutes ago.

Blogger Tommy Hass May 06, 2015 5:36 AM  

"
I understand only train station. Allegedly derives from soldiers so desperate to return home that ti didn't matter what was said to them, they heard only "train station" ..."

Lol. I didn't know that.


OT: But have you heard about Arthur Chu? *snicker*

Anonymous Shut up rabbit May 06, 2015 5:52 AM  

Sargon of Akkad and Nero had a good theory on why the "leaders" of anti-#GamerGtae were so despicable. Since they knew #GG was going after the mainstream narrative and would be ruthlessly attacked by MSM they aligned themselves with MSM to get good press despite them being objectively bad people. So the most awful, openly manipulative people came to represent the anti-#GG movement.

Seems like they are crumbling along with the MSM narrative now.

Anonymous Giuseppe May 06, 2015 6:08 AM  

Simplytimothy,
Based on the growing evil grin on my face as I consider the matter I suspect the biggest obstacle is suppressing one's own spontaneous laughter.
Au contraire mon ami.
Laugh.
Laugh loud and hearty. The devil spawn, hate being ridiculed most of all. They hate for their rhethorical lies to be exposed and for the witnesses to see a man unafraid of their totalitarian mind-dribble.
Laugh and point as you expose them.

Not only does the emperor have no clothes. He also has a tiny, tiny, dick.

Anonymous Peter Garstig May 06, 2015 6:18 AM  

What is it with leftists and their idolization of IQ (developed by Nazis) to show a man's worth?

Exactly. Most (all) of Vox's titles are not earned, but simply projections of his anklebiters.

Anonymous anonymous coward May 06, 2015 7:00 AM  

The importance of recognizing Black's lesser intelligence is that it takes that club out of the hands of the SJWs.

Seriously?? Come on, once it's conclusively proven that Blacks are dumber due to being 'born this way', the SJW's will double down on affirmative action, reverse racism and miscegenation. (After all, if their behavior is due to genetics and not lifestyle choices, then society has a moral imperative to 'fix' this 'injustice' in some way.)

We've already seen this exact scenario played out with homosexuality.

Anonymous The Original Hermit May 06, 2015 7:12 AM  

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/its-about-ethics-in-revolution
Legends in their own minds. Not only are they trying to whitewash the past, they're already trying to rewrite the future.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 06, 2015 8:31 AM  

Owen, you're being an aspie on this IQ stuff.

You're giving him too much credit. He's a troll, plain and simple. He's going to continue flooding threads with his crap, putting on this pretense of aspie misunderstanding while making snide insinuations and taking every thread down one rabbit hole or another until Vox puts him down or everyone wises up and stops biting.

Every time you respond to him, he's laughing at you. It doesn't matter what you say; all he knows is that he thinks he's controlling you.

Anonymous DissidentRight May 06, 2015 8:36 AM  

Owen, my expression of personal relief isn't an argument. It's a thank you. You can figure out on your own that IQ essentially measures intelligence and that the IQ gap correlates to the education gap, wealth gap, crime gap, culture gap, and civilization gap. I did. If you can't, well, see Vox's post.

Seriously?? Come on, once it's conclusively proven that Blacks are dumber due to being 'born this way'

The club is institutional racism and white privilege. Demonstrating that blacks are "born this way" reveals the club to be a lie, and so the "silent majority" of tradcons will stop cowering in fear. Of course the SJWs will double down on the lies, but who will care?

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni May 06, 2015 8:49 AM  

Owen T. has joined the very short list of commenters whose posts I automatically skip over as irrelevant to the discussion, or repetitive, or both.

Blogger 184 (188) May 06, 2015 9:06 AM  

I shake my head in wonderment at all of this. What a group of people has self-assembled here. Even Owen's trolling adds to it, an extraordinary gathering of exceptional, original, and often extremely humorous thinkers. Thank you all.

Blogger Blackburn #0040 May 06, 2015 9:17 AM  

@Cail Corishev You're giving him too much credit. He's a troll, plain and simple.

You are most likely correct. Just the Jesus in me wants to extend that olive branch so I tend to have a little more hope than I should in reaching someone with the truth.

Anonymous anonymous coward May 06, 2015 9:29 AM  

The club is institutional racism and white privilege. Demonstrating that blacks are "born this way" reveals the club to be a lie.

Wait, what? If I read your post correctly, you're saying that whites being smarter due to genetics isn't "white privilege"?

That makes no sense.

You're letting your irrational anger at nignogs drive you into an SJW trap. If blacks are, essentially, mentally handicapped, then they need to have special protection and special privilege under the law, like all other handicapped people; this is very basic, axiomatic SJW ideology.

The correct answer is that blacks have God-given free will just like whites, they could have had high IQ had they wanted to make that choice. This is the only position that doesn't let SJW's win.

Anonymous DissidentRight May 06, 2015 10:12 AM  

The only way SJWs win is if good men do nothing. The realities of race free the tradcons to stop doing nothing.

Blogger John Wright May 06, 2015 10:32 AM  

@ Blackburn #0040

"As Vox would say, superior by what metric? All people are created in the image of God, and Christ died for any of us that will accept his death in our place."

Midwit or not, Blackburn, you speak deeper and wiser things than any genius. God bless you for an honest man.

Anonymous The other robot May 06, 2015 10:35 AM  

Is this an example of black IQ?

Blogger John Wright May 06, 2015 10:47 AM  

"John C. Wright's blog is down, showing a suspended page. Maybe a technical issue, or maybe someone reported him for his badthink, or....?"

My webgoblin reports that server people took the site offline to protect the other sites on the same server from the people attacking mine. My webgoblin is clearing stuff out and the site should be back online shortly.

(This is as of quarter til eleven, Wednesday 5/6)

Blogger Cail Corishev May 06, 2015 10:56 AM  

The correct answer is that blacks have God-given free will just like whites, they could have had high IQ had they wanted to make that choice.

That's New Age garbage; if we have to claim to believe that nonsense to win, we might as well just kill ourselves and come back as the gods of a better universe.

Blogger CM May 06, 2015 11:25 AM  

The correct answer is that blacks have God-given free will just like whites, they could have had high IQ had they wanted to make that choice. This is the only position that doesn't let SJW's win.

When a lie is the correct answer and truth is the wrong one. Your name fits.

For all Owen's claims to being a logical thinker, he's still letting emotion cap the amount of logic he's willing to process. "I don't like that logic because it makes me feel bad."

While he's not outright rejecting the logic, he has some awfully kind commentors trying to walk him through it.

I can't totally blame him for the rhetorical response. I struggle with emotionalism, too. While at the same time being completely incapable of using rhetoric effectively.

On Rhetoric... this was probably the most enlightening post on it. I should read RHETORIC, but I'm not much of a classical reader. The closest I get is Utopia by More.

Blogger CM May 06, 2015 12:08 PM  

Ah... and to the "SJWs always lie..."

I give you PolitiFact's not very factual left-bias:
http://www.politifactbias.com/2015/05/the-federalist-punditfact-case-study-in.html?m=1

Discovered this site after something I KNEW to be true was ruled "mostly false" by politifact because of one very minor detail (even politifact's critique showed it was minor).

Blogger CM May 06, 2015 12:21 PM  

Just because it goes to Owen and fits this subject so well on the difference between rhetoric and dialectic:

“Let me stop you at ‘while technically true,'” I told Jacobson via e-mail, “because that’s really the only standard that matters when judging whether something is true or not. Whether you happen to like a fact is irrelevant to whether it’s true. So when you tell me that the truth of a statement is not the primary factor in determining whether something is true [or] not (“I don’t expect it to be a full True”), it tells me that you have an agenda that’s separate from determining whether something is true. That’s disappointing.”

From The Federalist editor, talking to the editor of PolitiFact.

Blogger James Dixon May 06, 2015 1:03 PM  

> But one google search on Rush Limbaugh brought up this article:
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/rush-limbaughs-astonishing-record-lies-exposed-fact-checking-organization/

The man's been on the radio for almost 27 years and that's the best you can come up with?

> ...but I'd argue that anybody in politics (left wing or right wing) should be checked very, very carefully for truthfulness.

Everyone is "in politics", whether they want to be or not. But Rush is an entertainer, not a politician.

> If even one student can finish the course, and go on to a career, and would otherwise not have had the opportunity, then how can I say it was not worth it?

Oh, perhaps by doing a cost/benefit analysis. But allow me to ask a relevant question: if 10 students who could finish the course are denied admission to allow that one problematic student to do so, what then? Is it still worth it?

Blogger overcaffeinated May 06, 2015 1:31 PM  

Scene: the Oleron household

Owen's Dad: Hi Owen, always good to see you.

Owen: ALWAYS good, Dad? Even when it's 2 am and you're trying to sleep? Even when I'm taking a shower?

Owen's Dad: You're a douche, Owen.

Owen: I'm a women's sanitary device? I'm not so sure about that.

Owen's Dad: Oh, you're a douche, Owen, trust me.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW May 06, 2015 1:56 PM  

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/its-about-ethics-in-revolution
Legends in their own minds. Not only are they trying to whitewash the past, they're already trying to rewrite the future.


I call this comfort fiction. If you feel like a loser then you can read some comfort fiction and know that those codpiece-wearing bastards are going to go down, at least in your mind.

Blogger Marissa May 06, 2015 2:03 PM  

I salute you, overcaffeinated.

Blogger Blume May 06, 2015 2:54 PM  

Proving you ate an aspee.

Blogger Blume May 06, 2015 3:33 PM  

Amen

Blogger Blume May 06, 2015 3:40 PM  

Amen.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) May 06, 2015 6:08 PM  

Perhaps one becomes a leftist when they realizes they are inferior in every aspect of their existence except intelligence and therefore elevate that to the supreme definition of human value?

An intelligence that can't get a right answer is worthless.

Can anyone think of a use for a calculator that sometimes gives you 1+1 = 3, or "blue" or some other nonsense non-deterministically?

Their embrace of lies makes them far more worthless than if they had just stuck to the truth. But I guess they get to feel good about it.

Anonymous Darnell C May 06, 2015 7:11 PM  

I wonder are there any Black Americans who post here.
Sometimes Affirmative Action is better than bullets.

Anonymous Curious but not an SJW May 06, 2015 7:46 PM  

What is it with leftists and their idolization of IQ (developed by Nazis)

I believe that it was the French who developed IQ tests, although Francis Galton was trying to do so before the French. The French may be surrender monkeys but I doubt that they are Nazis.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 06, 2015 7:52 PM  

What is it with leftists and their idolization of IQ

A week or two ago, someone here gave an explanation for that that I thought was brilliant, and I wish I'd saved it because I can't remember it now. It had something to do with how they've ruled out the traditional/Christian ways of putting a value on human life, so all that's left is intelligence/knowledge. But it was more insightful than that; that much is obvious.

Blogger Deirdre Saoirse Moen May 07, 2015 3:54 AM  

Thank you for the explanation, Vox. I'd noticed your pattern. I have asked people: "Really? That's what he said? What he meant?"

Having gotten swept away early in life by glittery rhetoric (and being naïve about philosophy), then developing a stronger center, I'm constantly stunned by people who are taken in by rhetoric. (And I wonder if they also buy this year's "must have" item of apparel as well.)

What fascinates me more than the part of the conversation you're interested in is the memetic reproduction after that point—and how lossy (and noisy) it is.

Anonymous Koanic May 20, 2015 1:30 PM  

I read this post, accepted that it was perfectly rational and sound, yet nevertheless could not overcome my hardcoded deepsocket objection that rhetoric is lying.

"Precisely. Which is why you will often see me deal with that tactic by ratcheting up the rhetoric to ridiculous levels that no one can possibly mistake for dialectic. They normally crack by the third jab and go full rhetorical."

The above comment by VD gave me the out I needed.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts