Holocaust ... and other forms of Denial

Being Jewish in Germany in 1938 was an assigned, objective, legal identity - legally enforceable. As was being black in America in every State in the Confederacy until 1967. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_miscegenation.svg

My methodology in claiming you have denied 1) the Holocaust 2) AGW and 3) white racism and its effects on black people in the US, involves reasoning from evidence. The evidence is your posting here. The reasoning involves pointing at your denial and saying "there it is, in his post, therefore he posted it".

Meanwhile, that's not what "sophistry" means.

And because I can't resist:

Everybody "agrees" with all that evidence, in the sense that it is persuasive in indicating that IQ test scoring ability is genetically inherited. I have even posted similar evidence, myself, that suggests height is "mostly genetic", too - proving that I "agree" with that kind of evidence.

Meanwhile, your idiotic argument from it, your attempt to use it to justify one of the most absurd denials currently making the rounds,

a denial on the level of denying the Holocaust or AGW or the moon landing,

suggests such denials actively cripple as well as demonstrate the state of being crippled. There seems to be a reason the common absurd denials cluster in individuals.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't be silly.
Not these denials.

To be unable to distinguish matters of Party line from the facts in front of one's face is to be permanently absurd. To reject as "Party line" matters of historical and physical fact, is to cripple one's ability to reason from then on.

You are claiming all "such" questions are equivalently dubious, and one can equivalently adopt a "neutral position" with regard to any of them. That's where the absurdity comes from.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You obviously don't want to understand the point. "Party line" is clearly metaphorical, just to illustrate the historical tradition. Don't forget that for the defenders of the party line there is no party line too, all what they defend are "facts in front of one's face" and "matters of historical and physical fact".

No, I don't make any such claims. Even in the historical case of the Soviet party line, with one major exception (genetics) the party line supported the mainstream position of natural sciences. And, of course, to evaluate something from a neutral position needs resources, in particular time to research. If you don't invest time into own research, whatever you decide (to follow the mainstream or some particular alternative proposal) will remain an uneducated guess, and in this case following the party line will be quite reasonable. How much you need for such an independent evaluation depends very much on the particular question. Moreover, even if you invest a lot, it is not clear if you end up with a correct answer. It is, say, easy to see that the official 9/11 story is BS, but to find out what really happened would be extremely difficult.

This is not the first time you completely invent claims I have never made, it looks like a pattern, and I can see it in your comments to other people too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's different from 'being' Jewish. Are you Jewish? Would you 'be' a Jew if you were assigned a legal identity?

No. You wouldn't be.

various conclusions without providing a shred of good evidence to back up said claims.

Damn, that must make publishing so easy!
#Journal of Sophistry

Your way of 'arguing' / making a claim without evidence, and then appealing to prejudice/common knowledge/emotion/cognitive biases/base-human-instincts, has a place in history: it was to stand as Aristotle's muse.

No small feat and one we all thank you for

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My argument for IQ is that in a Progressive Socialistic State, the Government must use objective measurements to 'regulate' interactions between people which it enforces via its regulatory agencies. This favors high IQ people, who become rent-seekers, and disenfranchises low IQ people - who are locked out of competing through regulatory-capture.

So-Called "Progressive" Democratic Socialism is like kicking someone in the face while they are down on the ground. Not only are low IQ people at a disadvantage in regards to obtaining private certification, but they're also less inclined and less motivated and less intellectually aware when attempting to compete for market-share, making it all that much more difficult. What f*cking right does 'society' have to remove their already limited options?!? Leaving them at the mercy of high IQ rent-seekers and trapped selling their labor-hours?

It's not that hard to put lime on chicken with chili, BBQ and sell it.
And get this: It's legal to give the exact same f*cking chicken to a child. Oh, but the Progressive doesn't really give two craps about the disenfranchised. No, it's about milking 'The Rich'. Which is all this has ever been about. You know? YOU use the roads! So we'll all hear about this one time, someone, somewhere in upstate New York, once bought a sausage and choked on it, December the 5th, 6:32 PM, 1873.

Therefore we all have to live with State-enforced regulatory capture. But never you mind about that same person feeding whatever to their kids. No license needed then. Right? Progressive Authoritarians in GiverMint don't really give two shits if they can't tax the hell out of it like the Mafioso they are.

Land of the FREEEEEEEEEE....................... LOL

Really?


The first step to actually FIXING some of the problems with our wonderously progressive society, is acknowledging the real problem, which has always been the problem: Authoritarianism. In this case, Progressive Socialism.

 

Which is exactly how I replied.

So? Party line defenders can be absurd, you are saying, depending on the Party line - I agree.

Yes, you do. Quite firmly and overtly and obviously. Here you are, continuing and elaborating on how one would go about treating the event of - to use for example one of the Denials mentioned here - the existence of the Holocaust as a "party line" claim one could reasonably adopt a "neutral position" on:

The claim to be searching for, or even finding, a "neutral position" that consists of adopting skepticism about the nature and existence of something like the Holocaust, or AGW, or the 250 years of white racism and its effects on black people in the US, is to be absurd. AGW is not a Party line. There is no such Party.

 

In Germany in 1938, yes.

I have plenty of evidence for my claim, which is that you deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

That has nothing to do with the existence of white racism and its effects on black people in the US. You bring in all this irrelevant crap to justify your absurd denial.

Yes. Really.

And the interesting aspect visible here is that these truly absurd denials cluster in individuals - we see AGW denial, couple threads later that same poster is directly comparing - as if they were similar, same kind of thing - the Holocaust and all the other deaths surrounding WWII in other regimes. We have a poster who regards AGW as a Party line mostly composed of Western propaganda, and pretty soon we have them claiming slavery was not the main issue in the American Civil War and they don't see much evidence of serious effects from white racism against black people in the US.

 

LOL, you obviously don't get it. Maybe you are confused by the word "neutral", which you think would be some intermediate, average or so position? All I want to say by using the word "neutral" is that one should not be prejudiced in favor of the party line. But even without such a prejudice you can easily end up supporting, in some particular question, the party line. Read the examples I have given: Stalin supporting, in various questions, the mainstream consensus of natural sciences. If I'm neutral, in the sense of not prejudiced in favor of Stalin's position, I can nonetheless share the final conclusion that in some questions the mainstream position of science, and, as a consequence, Stalin's position, is correct. Scepticism, yes, but scepticism does not mean rejection without evidence, but neutral, non-prejudiced, evaluation of evidence.

Again, my use of "party line" was metaphorical, I'm not claiming that there is such a registered political party somewhere which enforces a party line similar to the communist parties of Stalin time. Today, there is only a quite diffuse ideological movement. This does not prevent this movement from using similar political and propagandistic techniques, like naming disagreement "denial" and using ad hom arguments against "deniers". BTW, there are such a parties which has AGW as part of their "party line", the Green parties all over the world.

 

I believe genetics plays a role, yes. It would be foolish to claim otherwise.

To an extent. I would need to see the specific studies to be more committal - I imagine you have referenced them but I'm too lazy to look. Links?

"Could" that explain it? That "could" be a substantial factor but I'm not big on single variable analyses.

Not necessarily. Do you believe every developing argument should be classified as sophistry? Ice is strong - and you know it...

 

Again: of course. Again: in all my replies likewise.

No. And we see you posted that immediately after a post in which you claimed it was I, not you, who was continually inventing positions not held by the other, and misrepresenting their posts. So a mildly funny joke, but you make it too often.

And I pointed to the basic flaw in that, as you employed it here to attempt as justification of this collection of absurd denials. Again:
You continue to assume
1) there is a "party" involved, it has a "position", and the position has a "line"
2) you know what the party, the position, and the line are.
Neither of those holds, in these cases of absurdist denial (or in quite a bit of your posting otherwise, as well). These denials are famously absurd precisely because there is not, fundamentally, a reasonably "neutral" stance of skepticism lasting for more than twenty minutes of even the simplest of investigation, available to support them. What they deny is not a "line". There is no "party". The world it belongs to is not made up of competing claims.

Perhaps your example will work better to explain things to you:

Of course one can be skeptical, and question the "party line", about matters such who was behind 9/11 and how it was carried out, and what happened.

But:
if you claim that airplanes full of passengers were not hijacked and did not crash into the World Trade Center Towers, probably the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania on that day;
if you start comparing the couple of thousand people killed to the total numbers killed in plane crashes and building fires and falling from heights in other places, in arguing against the special significance of 9/11;
if you claim that 9/11 had little or nothing to do with subsequent political events in the US, because the US already had an army and a national security State, and because similar events have happened throughout history and long before 9/11;

and this position of yours lasts for more than twenty minutes, and becomes your public stance and defended position;

you are not adopting a position of neutrality or skepticism with regard to some party line. You are denying the physical and historical basis of all reasonable "lines", party and otherwise.

Which brings us to the thread topic: Holocaust denial, and similar denials.

 

I didn't say evidence, I specifically stated 'good' evidence.

You know, like the type that is reproducible.

Firstly, I did not deny there is 'White Racism', I used you as an example of a racist. You are that one Black Swan. So, we agree.

Secondly, I didn't deny there were any 'effects'. I listed the minimum wage as an example. I asked you to define the population called: "White People" and "Black People". I asked you define "White Racism". I asked you to provide GOOD evidence of a SIGNIFICANT effect of "White Racism" on "Black People".

This is pretty routine stuff - something ANY scientist would ask during ANY review of an argument (during publication for example). That you lack all of these, shows you are not engaged in 'Science', but in fact engaged in 'Sophism'. And you are making a wonderful example of why Aristotle invented categorical logic to deal with the claims made by the Sophists. I mean, you couldn't ask for a better example than you.

Lastly, you wrote that your 'evidence' of the effects of 'White Racism' on 'Black People' in the USA is that you deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US. Well, sorry to pop your bubble, but I already listed the minimum wage as an example. It was a Progressive Policy initiated by racist Democrats to specifically disenfranchise Black Americans who were selling their labor-hours cheaper, and getting rich doing so (like the Chinese did, and the Koreans, and the Japanese before them). THAT WAS THEN. Now these 'Progressive' policies are in fact discriminating against ALL people of ANY color. Which is clear to see when one normalizes to IQ.

Not to mention, see if you can detect the flaw in your reasoning: My evidence for Xenu is that you deny Xenu and its effects on Theta Levels in the US.

I promise, it's not hard to see that your argument is anything but 'strong'.
LOL

Are Americans racist? Sure. That's not why little Asian girls are disciplined less often than Black and White boys. It's also not why E. Asians make 20,000 more a year than Whites. The reason is biology. Different people have different genetics. Boys are in fact, different than Girls. Sorry, but that's the way it is. And while I know you want to see everything through a race lens, that's just you wanting to virtue signal to feel good about yourself. Probably gives you a hit of dopamine (similar to cocaine).

Look here, you're just a statistic:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Even Black Americans don't agree with you. But hey, what would "they" know.

The fact is, once IQ is factored in (and it's up to 85% genetic), it's clear to see why E. Asians are doing so well economically in our Progressive Socialistic paradise (where Government enforced hyper-regulatory capture, foisted on to us by idiotic Progressive Authoritarians / Democratic Socialists), it's because they have a higher IQ (through no virtue of their own) and are able to outcompete Blacks AND Whites to become rent-seekers through University licencing scams (as well as just simply getting hired for jobs that require high IQ and pay more).

In a free-society, lower IQ Blacks AND Whites (which there are more of) would be able to start their own small businesses, where their low overhead and reduced living standards would allow them to easily out-compete higher IQ people attempting to enter their markets (like selling BBQ chilli lime chicken). But that's not what you want. What you want to do is to treat Blacks like your pets. It makes you feel good. You also want to soak the rich with income tax, all of which means you're completely invested in the current system and the LAST thing you want is Change You Can Believe In. In reality, you want anything but change. More of the same suits you just fine.

Shit, you don't even want them to sell god damn butter! You know, because of the 'greedy' butter oligarchy!
LOL
Jesus, and you wonder why low IQ people are trapped as labor cogs following a decade of Government 'Schooling' / propaganda (where they apparently don't evne learn not to lay babies prone) - I mean, WTF do they even teach in Government Schools? B.Sanders wants 2 more 'free' years of this sludge? What a joke.


In summary, this is why it is pointless to make cogent strong arguments, and why it's pointless to diswade an adult from their cognitive biases. Only very very few people can dispassionately look at the evidence and draw reasoned conclusions. Most people will interpret the data according to the 'feels' and lash out at anyone who cuts against The Narrative. As exemplified by Socrates death as well as Aristotle having to flee Athens for the crime of Logical Reasoning (incidentally, a Chinese Emperor did exactly the same thing to the Chinese logicians, replacing logic with Legalism - you'd have fit right in!).

Sophists have been working hard to destroy reason and evidence for millennia - and they will continue to do so. Which, when combined with State Authoritarianism (in the modern day: "Democratic" Socialism) will destroy much of the advancement made by Western Civilization, paid for in blood for 500 years.

And that's just the way it is. At least we're finally reaching a state in technological advancement whereby you probably won't even be needed to provide a single good or a single service, there'll be no phentoype differences, no genetic disparity. Say, in another 50 - 100 years.

And, won't that be nice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I have never one time praised parents who push their kids. As a matter of fact, I have repeated overtly stated my opposition to Government Schooling, which places emphasis on standardized testing. And the reason why parents push their kids is because standardized tests are a crucial aspect of Government enforced regulatory-capture. This IS Socialism / Authoritarianism. The goal of those parents is to see their children become rent-seekers; such as a lawyer, medical doctor, etc...

All of this is a direct outcome of Government policy. Most of which was put in place by market participants to end free-market competition.

Government Schooling is horrid.

A mass indoctrination factory that rewards high-IQ kids pushed to the brink, while crushes those with low-IQ, or those who simply break. It also damages any square peg that cannot properly be pounded into its standardized round holes. I've seen them break too. So I know all about those broken pegs.

Worse still, Government licensing is shit quality. Thanks to Government Monopoly (on violence) the cost for entry and rent-seeker status can be hundreds of thousands of dollars for a third-rate 'education'. It's pathetic.

So, we certainly do not disagree as to the role of parents in education.


We may disagree as to the role genetics play in society. I think they play a very significant role, and that IQ is simply a crude measure of that role, one that will be superseded with more refined methods, such as fMRI, genetic profile, and etc... In time, we will use technology to alter DNA (it's already happening). One day, the idea of having children that are not genetically modified will seem absurd. At that time there will be no races. Or genetic advantage. While this may shock us now, it will appear as normal as night following day then. At that time, I am sure many of these points will be mute.


Until such a time, if iceaura wants to make the claim that 'White Racism' is advantaging little Asian school girls, up to and including their 20K per more per year salary as adults, he'll be required to provide good evidence in support of that claim or it's just a hypothesis like any other. And a not very good one at that.

 

RE: Chinese Parents

If Universities were totally blind towards ethnicity, Chinese would dominate most professional programs. Yes, part of that is their family culture. And that culture developed in response to regulatory capture. As a matter of fact, limiting placements by requiring E. Asians to score ever higher than they already have to (institutional racism against a minority) has resulted in those parents doubling-down and pushing them ever harder than they already do.

It's clear to see where the problem lays, at the bloody feet of Government. And is why we limited Government in the USA. To prevent this exact problem (among others). Oh how quickly lessons from the past are forgotten when the times are good.

 

You reproduce it every time you post.

You denied white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

And I'm not bothering to address that - the question itself is yet more solid and often reproduced evidence of my claim: you are in denial of white racism and its effects on black people in the US.

Your graph provides evidence that black Americans are well aware of white racism and its effects on black people in the US, and are not in denial as you are.

So you still haven't taken that community college class I recommended - in stats, or genetics, either one.
Y'know, it just occurred to me, there are MOOCs available to you on this topic as well. Or you could just keep repeating your increasingly embarrassing confusion.

btw: "Science" recently (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6322/251?ijkey=KZ/y7LGbH0qes&keytype=ref&siteid=sci) published a forum review of a couple of medium sized studies comparing various approaches to understanding (and if possible reducing) the geographical completion gap in MOOCs - Western (More Developed Countries) MOOC students in STEM areas are notably more often successful than students from traditionally less math&science oriented cultures (Less Developed Countries: Africa, India, Middle East, Islanders, etc).

They got results similar to those obtained by those few IQ testing folks who have put effort into addressing what they called the "social identity threat" (one form common in racial bigotry zones, like the US, is sometimes called "stereotype threat", and is also known to affect IQ scores in some circumstances)

-by interventions designed to target a "social identity threat" that may have existed, they got significant improvements in completion rate among the Less Developed Countries's students, in fact wiping out the entire MOOC achievement gap. (The IQ interventions so far merely reduced the score gap).

They interpreted this as good indication that "social identity threat" was a major factor in depressing LDC students's MOOC completion rate, etc.

 

Sorry, being snarky is not good evidence.

You've yet to define what you mean by 'white racism' or 'its effects'. Let alone provide any good evidence to back up your claims. Essentially, you're a sophist peddling / parroting the current narrative.


I certainly agree that students who feel threatened are less likely to achieve to their potential. In time, AI or similar software approaches towards education will be able to tailor education to the individual. Particularly when learning a skill, like a programming language.

 

It's a simple fact. I claim you deny white racism and its effects on black people in the US. You post that denial, or evidence for it, almost every time you post in this thread.

That's true. I have neglected to define what I mean by, or post evidence for, the Holocaust and AGW, also.

Yep. In particular, threat can lower IQ scores and reduce academic performance. The stress of frequent or continual threat shortens productive lifespan, increases the rate of accident and disease, and correlates with increased rates of various self-destructive behaviors. It also interferes with good parenting directly, as well as via all those other effects, thereby compounding its influence through generations.

 

His 85% figure is quite possibly accurate, as it is for height. This is for familial inheritability in a given environment, however, and includes no mechanism - his use of it to compare sociological, geographical, or demographically defined populations without controlling for mechanism/environment interaction is a basic error of reasoning in both statistics and genetics. The example of height comparisons between such populations illustrates the error.

(According to modern research: with few and scarce exceptions, all human populations have approximately the same average "inherent genetic" height potential. Until established otherwise that is the best guess for IQ score, in so far as it measures anything real, as well. There is as yet nothing indicating otherwise with any security)

 

No I didn't. I quoted numerous studies that show IQ is mostly genetic; as well as many behaviours and other mental attitudes. This suggests that the reason why little Asian girls sit still and study, while little Asian boys are a bit more rambunctious, is due to their different genetics. Not due to different parenting styles, not due to lead in the boys water, not due to Black Racism (or White Racism) - but simply due to different genetics between Asian boys and girls.

That's not 'dominance'. Little Asian girls are not 'dominating' the classroom. They're also not 'superior'. They're just different. In our current Progressive Socialistic top-down Authoritarian Government-dominated society, where the State can utilise regulatory agencies to prevent you from buying and selling butter, and legally shoot you in the head if you do (and refuse to desist and refuse to comply with the State and resist your arrest) then little Asian girls will through no virtue of their own, do better on standardized tested, be allowed entry into professional programs and become rent-seekers. All of this is built into the system. It's called: Progressive Socialism.

 

WIKI: Race and ethnicity in the NBA - Wikipedia

The first non-white player to enter the league was Wataru Misaka in 1947. According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2015 was composed of 74.4 percent black players, 23.3 percent white players, 1.8 percent Latino players, and 0.2 percent Asian players.

--o--
Above is an example of incorrect reasoning:
It goes like this: "White Racism" strikes again! We yellow players (it's not fair to single Yellows out by geopolitical location and not given a 'color' like blacks and whites) are not equally represented in the NBA. This must be an effect of white racism. Not individual attributes and ability - most of which is genetic (particularly height, but also other physical attributes).

Welcome to the World of the Absurd where everything that is not 'equal' must be because of white racism. Sure there's no good evidence demonstrating, sure the only institutional (legal) racism posted is mine, and is against E. Asians, sure there's plenty of good evidence that genetics plays the overwhelming 'effect'- but never mind all of that, blame whites (particularly the males).