What america needs right now is

[whitehall]

What America needs right now is respect for ones choices in ones life and accept that we're not all the same. Like governor walz says, "mind your own damn business!". This means if one wants to be gay and too love someone of the same sex they should be able to! This also means that we shouldn't stop people from being able to live the way they wish be it dressing in different clothing from what you choose to wear or having a differing mindset in the pathway through life. We sure as hell shouldn't be in peoples bedrooms or telling them what to read. IF someone wants to watch porn and play with themselves. So fucking what? If one wants to change their gender and that makes them happy in their lives. So fucking what! Freedom baby! Don't love it? how could you call yourself an Americans yet act like they do in russia or iran. That isn't what anyone that values freedom would ever want.

If I want to be gay. Well, that is awesome. We shouldn't want to be like russia, iran or any of these religious shitholes that control its peoples every thought. I think some have forgot what freedom and personal individal liberty is.

We have that now. The dirty little secret is that the concept extends to castrating kids without parental permission.

 

[JoeB131]

It certainly is a bad thing that the books and ideas of Charles Murray, Jared Taylor, and Professor's Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton are suppressed.

Nope. It will be a great day when we send all the racists off for re-education.

Those who suppress their books know that what they pretend to believe cannot survive critical scrutiny. They fear the truth. I fear what happens when the truth is suppressed.

You might actually be forced to be a decent human being?

Cockroach, you don't want to be Ray from Cleveland, dying all alone in his slum, hating his black neighbors. His only social interaction is commiserating with other white racists about how the world sucks now.

 

[Hector12]

Nope. It will be a great day when we send all the racists off for re-education.

Now you are revealing yourself to be a Maoist. How can anyone teach me something that I know is not true?

 

[JoeB131]

Now you are revealing yourself to be a Maoist. How can anyone teach me something that I know is not true?

Oh, we'll have you whining like Winston Smith by the time we are done with you.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Oh, we'll have you whining like Winston Smith by the time we are done with you.

People like you are a disgrace to the uniform, you unpatriotic piece of Communist shit.

 

[JoeB131]

People like you are a disgrace to the uniform, you unpatriotic piece of Communist shit.

Naw, a disgrace is guy who holds a political event on the graves at Arlington, and then bullies a Cemetary worker who was enforcing the rules.

 

[GMCGeneral]

Naw, a disgrace is guy who holds a political event on the graves at Arlington, and then bullies a Cemetary worker who was enforcing the rules.

The disgrace is still you. Vermin like you need to be lined against a plywood wall with sandbags and tied to a post. You get the rest.

 

[Hector12]

Oh, we'll have you whining like Winston Smith by the time we are done with you.

You know that what I post here about race realism is true. You hate the truth, so you want to suppress it.

 

[Hector12]

JoeB131, I am too polite for you. GMCGeneral treats you with the contempt you deserve.

I would not call you a Communist. I have known people in the American Communist Party. They were better people than you are.

 

[JoeB131]

You know that what I post here about race realism is true. You hate the truth, so you want to suppress it.

I know that you had some sad experience with black people that makes you bitter... but you need to get over it.

The next eight years are going to be kind of miserable for you when Harris wins.

JoeB131, I am too polite for you. GMCGeneral treats you with the contempt you deserve.

I would not call you a Communist. I have known people in the American Communist Party. They were better people than you are.

GMC is a crazy person.
You are a cockroach.


You just make people's skin crawl when you spew out debunked racist garbage.

 

[Hector12]

I know that you had some sad experience with black people that makes you bitter... but you need to get over it.

The next eight years are going to be kind of miserable for you when Harris wins.

I intend to vote for Kamala Harris. I also voted for Barack Obama.

 

[Hector12]

You are a cockroach.

Name calling is the lowest form of discourse. That is why you indulge in it.

March 2008 The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored. The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face. If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy: DH0. Name-calling. This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this: u r a fag!!!!!!!!!! But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like The author is a self-important dilettante. is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag." How to Disagree paulgraham.com

 

[Hector12]

You just make people's skin crawl when you spew out debunked racist garbage.

If the books of Charles Murray, Jared Taylor, and Professor's Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton have been debunked, you would be able to explain how they have been debunked. Because you can't, and are privately aware that their assertions are valid, you want them to be suppressed.

Where is there evidence that the three major races are intrinsically equal in average ability levels and behavior?

 

[JoeB131]

Name calling is the lowest form of discourse. That is why you indulge in it.

That's all a cockroach merits.

 

[Hector12]

That's all a cockroach merits.

View attachment 1003763

Says you.

It would be easy for me to compose derogatory names for you. I prefer to post disagreements with you at the top of Paul Graham's Pyramid.

March 2008 The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts. Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored. The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face. If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy: DH6: Refuting the Central Point. The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point. Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent. Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like: The author's main point seems to be x. As he says: <quotation> But this is wrong for the following reasons... The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon. How to Disagree paulgraham.com For example, if the books and ideas of Charles Murray, Jared Taylor, and Professor's Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and J. Philippe Rushton have been "debunked," as you claim, it would be easy to explain how they have been debunked in your own words. You can't, because they have not been debunked. I have explained why I agree with them, documenting my factual assertions with data I find on the internet. This is data that has been compiled by credible sources.

 

[JoeB131]

Says you.

It would be easy for me to compose derogatory names for you. I prefer to post disagreements with you at the top of Paul Graham's Pyramid.

Guy, if you struck me as anything but a very insecure racist, trying to cloak his bigotry in psuedo-science, I might move above name-calling.

But you really haven't earned it, Cockroach.

 

[Hector12]

Guy, if you struck me as anything but a very insecure racist, trying to cloak his bigotry in psuedo-science, I might move above name-calling.

But you really haven't earned it, Cockroach.

Again, you make an assertion you cannot substantiate. Explain why race realism is "pseudo," using your own words.

I have explained why race realism is true, using my own words, and data I have found on the internet.

I have minor disagreements with Charles Murray, and Professor J. Philippe Rushton that I can discuss, but those disagreements do not conflict with the central thrust of what they write about.

Jared Taylor claims that people have an instinctive preference for people of their race. What is instinctive is genetic. Genes vary. I prefer the company of Orientals to that of whites, for the same reasons I prefer the company of whites to that of Negroes.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you make an assertion you cannot substantiate. Explain why race realism is "pseudo," using your own words.

I've done so many times. Bad research, faulty assumptions, ignoring other factors like institutionalized racism, and so on.

The ironic thing is you and IM2 are different sides of the same coin, guys who try to paint your racism and anger into intellectual arguments and fail.

I have explained why race realism is true, using my own words, and data I have found on the internet.

Guy, I can prove UFO's exist with information on the internet. We've got pictures and everything. Except when you look at the "evidence," you find most of it is either outright hoaxes or misinterpretations.

I am reminded of the admonition of Sherlock Holmes, that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

You ignore the end result of 400 years of systematic racism. If blacks were truly "inferior", white people wouldn't have had to put such a concerted effort into keeping them down.

 

[Hector12]

I've done so many times. Bad research, faulty assumptions, ignoring other factors like institutionalized racism, and so on...

You do not prove that by asserting it.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

What America needs right now is respect for ones choices in ones life and accept that we're not all the same. Like governor walz says, "mind your own damn business!". This means if one wants to be gay and too love someone of the same sex they should be able to! This also means that we shouldn't stop people from being able to live the way they wish be it dressing in different clothing from what you choose to wear or having a differing mindset in the pathway through life. We sure as hell shouldn't be in peoples bedrooms or telling them what to read. IF someone wants to watch porn and play with themselves. So fucking what? If one wants to change their gender and that makes them happy in their lives. So fucking what! Freedom baby! Don't love it? how could you call yourself an Americans yet act like they do in russia or iran. That isn't what anyone that values freedom would ever want.

If I want to be gay. Well, that is awesome. We shouldn't want to be like russia, iran or any of these religious shitholes that control its peoples every thought. I think some have forgot what freedom and personal individal liberty is.

I think you're full of shit really, you're reaching for a cause. I don't know anyone who gives a flying fuck who is fucking, so long as there's not a victim.