Tucker Shows Dipshit AOC What Green New Deal Looks Like In Sri Lanka

[JohnEngelman]

As a racist, it makes sense that you don't get why other people aren't racist.

Wishful thinking or willful ignorance is the reason.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Try racist websites. They'd probably be ok with your style.

Right nationalist websites ban me because I praise Jews and Orientals.

 

[ll74]

Wishful thinking or willful ignorance is the reason.

Racism is the reason.

 

[ll74]

Right nationalist websites ban me because I praise Jews and Orientals.

I didn't say nationalist websites.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I didn't say nationalist websites.

You meant it.

White nationalists think white Gentiles are the master race. I think Ashkenazi Jews are, although I am not Jewish.

 

[ll74]

You meant it.

White nationalists think white Gentiles are the master race. I think Ashkenazi Jews are, although I am not Jewish.

No, I meant racist websites.

I get that you don't seem to understand what racism is. (Even after I've posted the definition)

I don't care what white nationalists think.

 

[JohnEngelman]

No, I meant racist websites.

I get that you don't seem to understand what racism is. (Even after I've posted the definition)

I don't care what white nationalists think.

Your definition of racist is "one who draws attention to unflattering facts about blacks." You think it is morally wrong to tell the truth.

 

[ll74]

Your definition of racist is "one who draws attention to unflattering facts about blacks." You think it is morally wrong to tell the truth.

I gave you the definition. Multiple times. And that's not it

I think it's morally wrong to be racist and therefore you are morally wrong. I think you and other racists are assholes.

 

[YDB95]

You think it is morally wrong to tell the truth.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that what you think is "the truth" might really be just what you want to believe? We have provided cite after cite explaining what Charles Murray and your other sources got wrong, and you simply ignore those.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I gave you the definition. Multiple times. And that's not it

I think it's morally wrong to be racist and therefore you are morally wrong. I think you and other racists are assholes.

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that what you think is "the truth" might really be just what you want to believe? We have provided cite after cite explaining what Charles Murray and your other sources got wrong, and you simply ignore those.

All you two can do is to jump up and down, wave your arms, and yell "Racist! Racist! Racist!" at me.

Answer this question: Do you believe that most blacks behave and perform as well as well as most whites?

I believe the answer to that question is "No." I believe the answer has legitimate political implications.

My answer is the reason for your no content flaming.

 

[ll74]

All you two can do is to jump up and down, wave your arms, and yell "Racist! Racist! Racist!" at me.

Answer this question: Do you believe that most blacks behave and perform as well as well as most whites?

I believe the answer to that question is "No." I believe the answer has legitimate political implications.

My answer is the reason for your no content flaming.

I know that blacks and whites (and Asians and Jews) are the same genetically and therefore are influenced equally and react equally to society and culture

You believe that blacks are inferior genetically and therefore are a racist. And that is why you are consistently called out for being one.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I know that blacks and whites (and Asians and Jews) are the same genetically and therefore are influenced equally and react equally to society and culture

You believe that blacks are inferior genetically and therefore are a racist. And that is why you are consistently called out for being one.

"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, Commentary, September 2005

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five ofthe 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self identified ethnic group.

When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

Once we acknowledge that the races are not the same genetically, and that a DNA test can determine racial differences, it becomes possible to see the way the races differ durably in average intelligence,

http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm

average criminal behavior,

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

and average sexual behavior.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

https://www.ceousa.org/2020/02/26/percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/

These differences have legitimate political implications concerning affirmative action, reparations, criminal justice, and immigration, among others.

Keep in mind that I am discussing average differences in specific characteristics. As I have pointed out on several occasions, I have never made a statement like, "Blacks are inferior genetically." That would assert that all blacks are inferior genetically, and it begs the question of what I would mean by "inferior."

There is a concerted effort to suppress data concerning racial differences in average ability levels and behavior. A number of years ago there was a website that demonstrated that the Washington, DC public school system spent more per student than the public school systems of any state, that students in the Washington, DC public school system scored lower on mental aptitude and academic proficiency tests than students in any state, and that the DC public schools had a higher percentage of black students than the public school system of any state. That website no longer exists.

 

[ll74]

"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, Commentary, September 2005

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five ofthe 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self identified ethnic group.

When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

Once we acknowledge that the races are not the same genetically, and that a DNA test can determine racial differences, it becomes possible to see the way the races differ durably in average intelligence,

http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm

average criminal behavior,

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

and average sexual behavior.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

https://www.ceousa.org/2020/02/26/percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/

These differences have legitimate political implications concerning affirmative action, reparations, criminal justice, and immigration, among others.

Keep in mind that I am discussing average differences in specific characteristics. As I have pointed out on several occasions, I have never made a statement like, "Blacks are inferior genetically." That would assert that all blacks are inferior genetically, and it begs the question of what I would mean by "inferior."

Races are the same genetically. Charles Murray is not a geneticist and he is full of shit. His argument does not disprove that races are genetically the same...and in fact provides no evidence to the contrary.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Races are the same genetically. Charles Murray is not a geneticist and he is full of shit. His argument does not disprove that races are genetically the same...and in fact provides no evidence to the contrary.

You do not turn a falsehood into a truth by repeating it. Charles Murray is a political scientist who is well versed in many subjects, including genetics. In the passage I quoted from him he was mentioning the results of a double blind experiment. Like all good experiments it is repeatable.

 

[ll74]

All you do is argue that blacks are inferior. Whether you say the exact words is irrelevant....even in this post, you set out to tell us how blacks are genetically different and how blacks are below average in specific and important categories.....and then immediately tell us all that you aren't arguing what you're arguing. It's a complete ducking joke ....and all the while you fake some intellectual superiority in your arguments.

Fucking racist.

"The Inequality Taboo," by Charles Murray, Commentary, September 2005

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five ofthe 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self identified ethnic group.

When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

^^^^^^Posts argument that blacks are different genetically ^^^^^^

Once we acknowledge that the races are not the same genetically, and that a DNA test can determine racial differences, it becomes possible to see the way the races differ durably in average intelligence,

http://www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm

average criminal behavior,

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

and average sexual behavior.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

https://www.ceousa.org/2020/02/26/percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/

These differences have legitimate political implications concerning affirmative action, reparations, criminal justice, and immigration, among others.

^^^^^^Posts data that says that blacks are prone to be less adequate in every single measure that matters to him ^^^^°

Keep in mind that I am discussing average differences in specific characteristics. As I have pointed out on several occasions, I have never made a statement like, "Blacks are inferior genetically." That would assert that all blacks are inferior genetically, and it begs the question of what I would mean by "inferior."

^^^^^^pedantically argues that he ever said the actual words and therefore doesn't believe in his own arguments

 

[ll74]

You do not turn a falsehood into a truth by repeating it. Charles Murray is a political scientist who is well versed in many subjects, including genetics. In the passage I quoted from him he was mentioning the results of a double blind experiment. Like all good experiments it is repeatable.

He offers absolutely no proof that races are genetically different. (Because there isn't any and because he has no expertise in the field that would adequately achieve that) Instead, he argued that it's not politically correct to say that they are. That's not an argument....that's just plain bullshit......the same bullshit you offer up every single day.

 

[YDB95]

I wrote:

We have provided cite after cite explaining what Charles Murray and your other sources got wrong, and you simply ignore those.

And you respond:

All you two can do is to jump up and down, wave your arms, and yell "Racist! Racist! Racist!" at me.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that what you think is "the truth" might really be just what you want to believe? We have provided cite after cite explaining what Charles Murray and your other sources got wrong, and you simply ignore those.

You have not explained how Charles Murray's assertions are mistaken. You have quoted various presumed experts claiming that they are mistaken without proving it. This is known as the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

---------

"The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of saying a claim is true simply because an authority figure made it...

"What makes the appeal to authority a logical fallacy is the lack of evidence provided to support the claim."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/

---------

Assertions in The Bell Curve are documented with statistics drawn from credible sources of data like the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

- The Bell Curve, page 689.

 

[JohnEngelman]

He offers absolutely no proof that races are genetically different. (Because there isn't any and because he has no expertise in the field that would adequately achieve that) Instead, he argued that it's not politically correct to say that they are. That's not an argument....that's just plain bullshit......the same bullshit you offer up every single day.

I have already quoted this from Charles Murray's Commentary September 2005 article, "The Inequality Taboo." Read it this time:

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their selfidentified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genedc information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.
http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

---------

Once we acknowledge the genetic reality of racial differences it becomes legitimate, and easy, to see how the races differ durably in average intelligence, criminal behavior, and illegitimacy.

 

[ll74]

I have already quoted this from Charles Murray's Commentary September 2005 article, "The Inequality Taboo." Read it this time:

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

Lewontin's position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels. In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity. In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their selfidentified ethnic group. When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genedc information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.
http://www.iapsych.com/wj3ewok/LinkedDocuments/Murray2005.pdf

---------

Once we acknowledge the genetic reality of racial differences it becomes legitimate, and easy, to see how the races differ durably in average intelligence, criminal behavior, and illegitimacy.

Yes, he argued that genetic differences won't be studied because of political correctness. I already pointed that out. And that doesn't prove that genetic differences exist....nor does Murray have the expertise to provide such evidence.

There is no "genetic reality of racial differences" to acknowledge.

Besides that, you basically just copy/pasta'd the exact same post that I already commented on. Lazy.

 

[phrodeau]

So much white supremacy in a thread about Tucker Carlson. Imagine that.

 

[JohnEngelman]

So much white supremacy in a thread about Tucker Carlson. Imagine that.

I am not a white supremacist because I believe that Orientals tend to be more likely to have characteristics congenial to successful societies and civilizations. These are intelligence, obedience to he law, and monogamy. In the United States Orientals earn the title "The Model Minority."

White supremacists deny that Jews are white. Ashkenazi Jews are the most superior race in existence. They deserve the best we have to offer.

I favor open borders for Orientals. I believe we should pay Ashkenazi Jews to move her. As our society, technology, and economy become more complex, we will need more brilliant people in charge.

White nationalists who cannot keep up with Orientals and Jews should be fired, and replaced with more intelligent, better paid Orientals and Jews, who wil perform their jobs faster, better, and with less effort, before getting promoted to better jobs.

 

[YDB95]

You have not explained how Charles Murray's assertions are mistaken. You have quoted various presumed experts claiming that they are mistaken without proving it. This is known as the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Next time, read the actual responses. They do make a strong case for the fallacies in Murray's approach. You just aren't willing to hear it.

"The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of saying a claim is true simply because an authority figure made it...

And after this, you offer "proof" that The Bell Curve was sound science with...a quote from The Bell Curve!

---------

Assertions in The Bell Curve are documented with statistics drawn from credible sources of data like the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

- The Bell Curve, page 689.


View attachment 2199264

"These people don't need to be satirized - you just quote 'em." (Tom Paxton)