- Joined
- Jan 21, 2018
I find these AR types who fall under groups they hate and beg them to make an exception for them the most pathetic and amusing. When it comes to other minorities, either they're all bad and need to be expelled or because there are so few "good" ones in their view expelling them all for the good of society is justified. But when it comes to their own interests, suddenly they're all "Hey, I know my group sucks too, but I'm not like the rest of them! Why won't you make an exception for me, I'm totally just like you!" They can comprehend the concept that judging them entirely by a group identity is unfair and that they deserve to be judged on their individual merits, but can't seem to apply this to anyone other than themselves.
Update 6/11: Currently on Warski's stream. Curiously has managed to debunk many of his own points while debating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7xKiMj8Q7w
- He dismisses claims that groups like the Irish and Italians weren't originally considered "white" in the US by saying that data never really showed that big of an economic disparity between them and other European groups, and thus the discriminatory policies directed towards them weren't that strongly enforced. While this would be interesting if true, he'd still be contradicting his claim that economic disparity between white&black people in the US is the way things naturally fell and not the result of racial discrimination.
- Around 1:45:45. When confronted with the fact that IQ scores have raised dramatically over the last 60 years, he says that the nominal scores on IQ tests don't necessarily represent actual intelligence, and that if you look at them unadjusted the average IQ in the 40s wouldn't have even been high enough to understand the game of baseball, and thus it can be concluded that they aren't an accurate representation. But of course, whenever this is related to racial disparities in the United States and even the scores of insanely underdeveloped nations, he suddenly does think that the nominal IQ scores are accurate and proof of genetic inferiority.
I guess some people are easily convinced by inconsistent BS as long as the person saying it uses enough big words and "scientific" language to give the illusion that he has any idea what he's talking about.
Update 6/11: Currently on Warski's stream. Curiously has managed to debunk many of his own points while debating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7xKiMj8Q7w
- He dismisses claims that groups like the Irish and Italians weren't originally considered "white" in the US by saying that data never really showed that big of an economic disparity between them and other European groups, and thus the discriminatory policies directed towards them weren't that strongly enforced. While this would be interesting if true, he'd still be contradicting his claim that economic disparity between white&black people in the US is the way things naturally fell and not the result of racial discrimination.
- Around 1:45:45. When confronted with the fact that IQ scores have raised dramatically over the last 60 years, he says that the nominal scores on IQ tests don't necessarily represent actual intelligence, and that if you look at them unadjusted the average IQ in the 40s wouldn't have even been high enough to understand the game of baseball, and thus it can be concluded that they aren't an accurate representation. But of course, whenever this is related to racial disparities in the United States and even the scores of insanely underdeveloped nations, he suddenly does think that the nominal IQ scores are accurate and proof of genetic inferiority.
I guess some people are easily convinced by inconsistent BS as long as the person saying it uses enough big words and "scientific" language to give the illusion that he has any idea what he's talking about.
Last edited by a moderator: