HTML banned?!?!

[nomadologist]

I was half responding to Mixed_Biscuits up there, as well--the charge that Gek's views aren't clearly defined enough is laughable, but typical and predictable. This is often what people say who've bought into special-interest group funded partisan politics when the come across somehow who doesn't buy it.

 

[vimothy]

honestly don't remember any occasion where he was ill mannered... even with Vimoth he maybe used forceful tones but always in service of illustrating a point.

I'm not going to opine on his banning because it's not my decision, but FWIW, I don't recall HMLT ever not being rude to me, whether in direct discussion, or bringing my name up in debate with someone else. Interesting or not, he's impossible to talk to. I gave up trying long ago.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Incapable of rational thought, eh? If you have a rational explanation or justification for why you think Gek is a fascist, I'd love to hear it.

Well for a start, he'd be perfectly prepared to precipitate a crisis in which millions or perhaps billions would die (and admits as much) to further an ideological cause.

 

[nomadologist]

Also, I would think that if you were trying to make Gek's use of "racism" look absurd, the last thing you'd want to do by way of illustrating that point would be to go ahead and use an equally (in your mind) offensive "-ism" in much the same way. What purpose does that serve without proper qualification? None. People are going to read that literally.

 

[nomadologist]

Well for a start, he'd be perfectly prepared to precipitate a crisis in which millions or perhaps billions would die (and admits as much) to further an ideological cause.

And Vimothy doesn't already ideologically support a war that is killing countless thousands and potentially millions of people to further American economic hegemony?

Is Vimothy a fascist, too?

Many people have believed in violent upheaval as a means of revolution, and they were not all "fascists" by any means.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

and i've no idea if you are being sarcastic or not? which makes... your own biscuits being a bit mixed up as well in terms of coherence?

No, I typed that with a straight face.

There, biscuits unmixed.

There is a lack of coherence and well-defined vision tho' - that's why there was so little of real substance offered in the thread that asked for clearly-delineated plans for political change (from any of the vehemently anti-capitalist).

 

[vimothy]

Also, I would think that if you were trying to make Gek's use of "racism" look absurd, the last thing you'd want to do by way of illustrating that point would be to go ahead and use an equally (in your mind) offensive "-ism" in much the same way. What purpose does that serve without proper qualification? None. People are going to read that literally.

Oh my god

That's the whole bloody point!!!!

 

[vimothy]

Burble

 

[vimothy]

Many people have believed in violent upheaval as a means of revolution, and they were not all "fascists" by any means.

Intent---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Outcome

 

[noel emits]

Incapable of rational thought, eh? If you have a rational explanation or justification for why you think Gek is a fascist, I'd love to hear it.

I understand perfectly why he called you a racist--anyone who wonders why can go read the Bell Curve thread. It stands to reason that anyone who thinks skin color and IQ are "scientifically" linked is a racist, by any definition of the term.

I think it's hilarious how so many people here seem to think "racism" only exists as manifested in hate crimes or overt, foaming-at-the mouth white supremacism. The problem with racism is that it is subtle and insidious as often as it's overt and obvious.

What if there actually was a correlation between skin colour and IQ, would it be OK to acknowledge that? Would it be racist? Would it then be OK to racist? Would it not be stupid to not be racist? Or could it be that someone who thinks there is a correlation between skin colour and IQ might just be wrong, and not racist. Or maybe right and not racist. :slanted:

 

[vimothy]

What if there actually was a correlation between skin colour and IQ, would it be OK to acknowledge that? Would it be racist? Would it then be OK to racist? Would it not be stupid to not be racist? Or could it be that someone who thinks there is a correlation between skin colour and IQ might just be wrong, and not racist. Or maybe right and not racist. :slanted:

Exactly: whether races exist and have different mean IQs is an empirical question, not an ideological one. I'm not a geneticist or an evolutionary biologist, I'm just (at best) an (recently) interested amatuer, and I have no stake in the answer to those questions.

 

[Mr. Tea]

And Vimothy doesn't already ideologically support a war that is killing countless thousands and potentially millions of people to further American economic hegemony?

Is Vimothy a fascist, too?

I'm sure he can make his own arguments, but I would hazard a guess that his response would be something like, that war is necessary to stop even greater bloodshed. That's not what I believe - certainly not now, anyway - but it could be advanced as an argument, if you buy the basic premise.

 

[noel emits]

Exactly: whether races exist and have different mean IQs is an empirical question, not an ideological one. I'm not a geneticist or an evolutionary biologist, I'm just (at best) an (recently) interested amatuer, and I have no stake in the answer to those questions.

I think what troubles some people, maybe an assumption they make, is why are you interested if you don't have an agenda?

 

[vimothy]

I think what troubles some people, maybe an assumption they make, is why are you interested if you don't have an agenda?

What?!

 

[noel emits]

I get the impression sometimes that Lifetimes' (and others) perspective is that if someone is bringing something up on a message board they must have a strong viewpoint on it and be trying to make some political point.

Does that make more sense?

 

[vimothy]

Something else that is annoying, is that I seem to be the only "racist", yet Guybrush started the goddamn thread, and numerous people were arguing along similar lines to me (i.e. this it's interesting and should be approached in a mature, non-normative way).

 

[vimothy]

I get the impression sometimes that Lifetimes' (and others) perspective is that if someone is bringing something up on a message board they must have a strong viewpoint on it and be trying to make some political point.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, I understand, but you must realise how that looks to me: If I'm linking to papers or articles, I must have an "agenda". Evidence that I cite is routinely ignored because it is self-evident that if it were impartial or not-compromised, then hey, I wouldn't be posting it.

You know: Why are you interested in whether hunter-gatherers had better standards of living than agrarian societies -- because you have an agenda?

 

[noel emits]

Yes, I understand, but you must realise how that looks to me: If I'm linking to papers or articles, I must have an "agenda". Evidence that I cite is routinely ignored because it is self-evident that if it were impartial or not-compromised, then hey, I wouldn't be posting it.

You know: Why are you interested in whether hunter-gatherers had better standards of living than agrarian societies -- because you have an agenda?

Well I do have an agenda, as well as just generally being interested.

There's a leap of logic I see sometimes which all too often does amount to 'if you haven't already reached the same conclusions as me about x then you must be y, and also y is presupposed to be an unacceptable condition.' That doesn't even leave room for asking questions half the time.

 

[vimothy]

There's a leap of logic I see sometimes which all too often does amount to 'if you haven't already reached the same conclusions as me about x then you must be y, and also y is presupposed to be an unacceptable condition.' That doesn't even leave room for asking questions half the time.

Agreed. As far as race and IQ goes, I have no idea what's true, and no comparative advantage in any relevant field. It's just interesting.

 

[zhao]

Or Zhao's read between the lines fascism, or, indeed, your own read between the lines fascism... It's a tough question.

wait, Gek is not the only one accused. apparently me, the "tree-hugging California mystic hippie primitivist", is also a "fascist". presumably because of my comment: "if i had real balls i would become (what the imperialist oppressors would call) a 'terrorist'"

there are 1 or 2 differences between armed resistance to oppression and fascism, Vimothy.

and simple and common fantasies of violent social upheaval on a mass scale does not a fascist make either.