ChrisBP747

@ChrisBP747

Robert Kelly #dunning-kruger #racist

You know, at this point I’m getting tired of carefully unraveling this kind of gish gallop (and yes, that’s what it not so secretly is). Because is it really worth it trying to unravel hundreds of years of history, discrimination, tribal disputes, economic hardships, colonialism, different cultures, political ideologies, the pseudobiology racialism is based on, scientific advancement, the reasons why “white people” don’t actually exist as a group, the different shades of gray and black in global morality, basically all of the human condition just to tell this guy that no, “white” people aren’t actually the only capable group on the planet and that yes, he is a racist?

I wish I could say no, because it is taking away so much energy for so little gain. And in the end they usually declare themselves the winner of the debate anyway because of some random argument that was weak as hell but not adressed in the rebuttal. And humans being what we are people usually don’t want to concentrate on such long-winded counterarguments anyway, and what they’ll remember are the gish gallop’s easy to remember but totally inane arguments that they found emotionally satisfying.

So yeah, as much as it hurts me to say, but from time to time it is in my opinion ok to just shorten it all to “You are racist” in such a situation. Because the only way to win in a gish gallop game is not to play sometimes.
Well, perhaps a bit more detail should be added to make it clear where the statement is coming from though (“Your immense ignorance of politics, history and the fact that race is not actually a real biological thing that could cause the effects you describe, as well as your stream of weak predictions without any evidence makes it clear that you are simply a racist asshole” should suffice).

Tim Pool #pratt #psycho #transphobia #wingnut

Drag =/= stripping and grooming. Drag is also =/= transgender. You don’t know anything about drag, and your knowledge of transgender people is lacking as well. Instead you and your ilk are trying to fearmonger, sadly effectively when I look at LA right now. By the way, child beauty pageants have been around for decades now, and while I find them abhorrent you don’t seem to have a problem with them, even though they are arguably worse than drag shows (which at least can be seen as a way for kids to play and be creative, while beauty pageants are objectifications of young children to the benefit of their parents in my eyes… then again, I don’t really like beauty pageants in general).

Vox Day #crackpot #dunning-kruger #fundie #wingnut

Vox Day ladies and gentlemen, “superintelligence” that he allegedly is, once again not noticing that he is doing exactly the dumb stuff his opponents are talking about without even a hint of self-reflection or *gasp* critical thought directed at himself.

Every single anti-intellectual asshole I have EVER met in my life told themselves that “scientists have an elitist agenda” (what kind of agenda no one knows, but it might include communism, fascism, something something jews, globalism etc.) and that “objective (!) evidence obviously disproves them” without these dumb fucks ever giving any kind of evidence for it whatsoever. In fact for many of them their own beliefs ARE the “objective” evidence. And listen to me closely Vox: that’s not how any of this works. If you were a superintelligence as you claim, then the universe would be broken beyond compare, up would be down, the earth would be flat and yesterday would be tomorrow. Fortunately, it isn’t.

Kurt Schlichter #wingnut #fundie

Let’s examine the strong man’s statements. Simply saying them won’t make them true, so there must be some kind of action following them. All of them are of course totalitarian and don’t give many options to work with, making it easier to see what a train-wreck this guy would be (I’m assuming he has the power to enact these actions, not even Trump was powerful or dumb enough to actually enact many of these):

No, hobos, you can’t live on our streets.
- Since they have no home and also can’t live on your streets, where the hell should they live? Do you try to force them to move to Mexico and Canada? Or how about helping them, giving them support and homes that they can go to instead of living on the streets? But no, judging from your rethoric there is pretty much just the option that you want them to die outside the eyes of the public. And that’s if you aren’t fantasizing about shooting all of them.

No, criminals, you don’t get to commit crimes.
- Well, unless they are the strong man and his buddies of course. Also how does stating this actually make it happen? Strengthening the police to the point that they are equipped with military gear and putting even small scale offenders into prison for ridiculously long times, where they are being used as pretty much slave labor has obviously not helped at all. Or do you want to just kill them all too? But crime isn’t genetic, and there will always be crime as long as it promises a profit in one way or the other, no matter the risk. Your strong man won’t change that and in fact, increasingly totalitarian states usually have vast amounts of corruption and power abuse going on. Or is that not a crime for you?

No, Pentagon, you are going to focus on winning wars.
- That’s just laughably stupid. “If I say that we win wars, we’ll win wars!”, said the fascist before losing the war. Also the statement is strange in general. Why the no in front of it? What else does the Pentagon do that strong man doesn’t agree with?

No, academia, you do not get to take our money and use it to turn our kids into little commie saps.
- Ah, because anti-intellectualism has always helped any country engaging in it, right? Pol Pot was such a visionary apparently! Fuck you and your propaganda, if learning more about the world turns you into a socialist then that should tell you something and I would certainly ask myself in your position whether it is wise to go against that. Not that I think any of you idiots would think that rationally about it.

No, tech jerks, you do not get to decide what we can read and say.
- I’m not the biggest fan of big tech either, but honestly, you just said that your strong man will stop academia from teaching unimpeded, so you are already showing your hypocrisy. Let me guess, the strong man, not the “tech jerks” should ultimately decide what we can read and say and you would be totally fine with that right?

No, climate cultists, we are not going to live in caves because of your bizarre, quasi-religious weather obsession.
- Hahahahaha, wow, if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black! Your love for some fascist leader is a “bizzare and quasi-religious cult”, not the fear of humanity making the planet less and less habitable for ourselves for short-term economic gains. Your (and therefore strong man’s) ignorance is palpable!

No, media, you do not get to be partisan advocates and also treated like neutral truth tellers.
- Unless it is Fox News, or Breitbart, or… But those of course are obviously right in everything you say, isn’t it so?

No, Democrats, you don’t get to steal elections.
- Phew, finally a realistic statement, after all they never have and they never will! At last an easy and not-crazy, -fascist and -ignorant goal! Democrats will probably be a bit confused about never even considering doing it, but no party in general should steal elections, so that’s fine.
… oh, you meant that it is only wrong for Democrats and if the Republicans try it it’s fine of course. Yeah, go to hell asshole and take your strong man fetish with you.

Theo Tsourdalakis #fundie #pratt

Ah, the “significant dissent” from Darwinism. Let’s see. I roughly estimate the number of signees of this pretty stupid list as about 1200 people (and I was being generous). Of these people about a third are doing any kind of work in biology. Of that third only about half of them are conceivably working in fields which could be argued to give them the expertise on evolutionary theory necessary for informed dissent (biochemists and anatomists for example don’t usually have to necessarily be knowledgeable on evolutionary theories beyond the basics, and after a rough look at some of their publications they are mostly doing descriptive work on molecular structures and morphologies, NOT the evolutionary background of these).

Even here I’m generous because just stating their titles is obviously a good trick to hide the fact that they may not be knowledgeable enough to say anything about evolution (a PhD in biology is not really informative about that, who knows what their actual work entailed?). But let’s say this list contains about 100 to 300 people who actually could potentially know enough about the topic to give informed dissent. What does that tell us? Nothing. Project Steve found 1700 scientists named “Steve” so far who are in favor of evolution being real. If the dissenters have such strong evidence they could publish it, becoming instantly famous. They are not because their dissent is rarely scientific. In fact I don’t think I’m going too far by stating that many of them are dissenting because of pretty irrational reasons, i.e. their faith for example. Others have been shown to be actually in favor of evolutionary theory, but the statement they signed was

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”

Which is too broad, and tries to claim critical examination in general for itself, implication: evolutionary biologists aren’t critical of it, which is fucking insane if you know ANYTHING about evolutionary biology, the role of natural selection for example, the specific target of selection, the role of neutral mutations and genetic drift, these are all things that have been heatedly debated for decades now. NOT though that evolution itself happens or that there needs to be some form of intelligence behind it!

The list is deceptive, wrong-headed and is pretty much only there to give false authority to creationists they don’t actually have nor deserve.

And for the fucking last time, there is NO meaningful difference between micro- and makroevolution on a conceptual level! Hundreds of microevolutionary steps will automatically lead to a makroevolutionary one! Your arguments from (nonexistent) authority are only there to stun the uninformed and deluded. Everyone else will see through such blatant deception.

Tesla Steinmetz #dunning-kruger #racist

Space as a privation? Preposterous, even just from a logical standpoint. Time as a concept? Depends on your definition of concept. Space can be described as a concept too. Both may be the single a priori known properties of the universe (i. e. they are fundamental to our perception of it themselves and therefore most likely not something generated only by our perception itself). Space definitely is not just emptiness, if you would take it away so to speak our universe and our perception wouldn’t exist.

Spacetime is simply another concept, I have no idea how you get the idea that we couldn’t combine the two. Reduce the spatial dimensions into one single axis, then use time as the other axis, and you can easily follow the paths of events along their worldline. This worldline changes if spacetime is warped, for example by being redirected towards a planets central mass. Voila, gravity. (I know it’s a VERY simplified explanation, but that’s basically what it boils down to from my understanding). It’s not even that difficult to grasp. Is it a model? Of course! Is that model actually reality? Probably not. Does that matter? For most people no, for theoretical physicists a lot, but this model explains nearly all observations we made so far AND predicted phenomena like black holes way before they were observed directly. A strong indicator that it’s at least a good approximation of how the macroscopical world works. The fact that this breaks down inside a black hole shows us that the theory is incomplete, but that was to be expected.

Also, mass is an observable trait of specific forms of energy, so there. It is theorized to be caused by matter sort of attracting and interacting with Higgs boson particles (which we were able to observe already). It in turn causes matter to warp spacetime. Again, a strong simplification, but you OP seem to be unable to grasp even simple a priori concepts like space, so probably best to keep it at that level.

And of course, the evil jews want the universe to be thought of as relativistic because…
I really have no idea what the point would be. Is this about the stupid conflation of the two meanings of relativity again?

Last but not least, that Einstein got huge opposition to his theory at first is normal procedure in science, contrary to what you believe scientists don’t just accept anything without questioning it at first, and the theory of relativity went against the classical believe of an absolute universe, so of course the opposition was strong at first. It wasn’t silenced by evil jews but by the model proving that it explained the universe better than what came before.

Daniel Quatro #fundie #homophobia

The intellectual dishonesty of making an unsubstantiated claim (“Homosexuality is unnatural!”), a naturalistic fallacy and then attacking the counterargument (“Well, it’s obviously not, homosexual acts have been observed in nature!”) by claiming that it is the very same fallacy is absolutely astounding. I don’t even know of the top of my hat what kind of fallacy that is, but it feels like some unholy fusion of the fallacy fallacy (wrongly accusing an argument to be fallacious) and the moving the goalpost fallacy (changing a disproven statement in such a way that the counterargument to it doesn’t work anymore, then declaring the counterargument as irrelevant).

By the way, homosexuality is not ok because it is natural, it is ok because there is no harm in it and no logical reason against it. Get that into your thick skull OP.

Anonymous Coward #76157531 #wingnut #racist #sexist #dunning-kruger

You know, I am getting really damn tired of all these supremacists constantly talking about IQ and the inner life of people as if they fucking knew ANYTHING about them or even just about the concepts they are talking about. What hints do you get for women being “purely emotional beings”? How exactly would that even work? You know that women can live on their own, so there must be rational thought involved. And female scientists couldn’t do their job if they couldn’t argue logically. Since both types of women exist they can’t possibly all be what you say they are. An easy logical argument, while I haven’t heard one yet of yourself. Oh and by the way, look up the indian nations before the colonists came, for such “savage” people they had astonishingly developed civilisations already. You are full of shit and if anyone is irrational here, it’s you.

Socrates #crackpot #sexist #wingnut

Actually the true statement would be “Behind every great person is a team of persons who laid the foundations of their work”. No matter who, the narrative of single individuals and geniuses coming up with ideas totally in a vacuum is simply not true. Every scientist builds on what came before, whether they be men, women or nonbinary, it doesn’t matter. That doesn’t mean at all that the individual contribution is negligible, just that your oh so funny and misogynistic meme doesn’t work in multiple ways.
Ada Lovelace was the first person to find out that computers could be used for more than just calculation.
Maria Sibylla Merian was one of the first people to study insects directly.
Marie Curie (sadly and accidentally) gave her life for her discoveries of the properties of radioactivity, and she is still the only person with two nobel prizes in scientific fields (and a personal idol of mine).
Laura Bassi, one of the first women who was granted a doctorate might be one of the best examples for why you are talking out of your ass: She lived in the 18th century, had no formal education at first, but had the luck of being discovered for her talents and gaining a patron. She successfully defended her mathematical and philosophical theses and was one of the first women to be allowed to teach at the university (though not all-male classes).
What does her story tell you? Up until then women didn’t even get the chance to get a higher education. If they wanted to do science they were pretty much forced to do so privately and as autodidacts and their research was usually ignored anyway. I said it before with the allegedly lacking contribution of gay people to society and science (poor Turing as well as Lovelace, their accomplishments being talked away on the very machines they helped develop) and it fits here again: You can’t oppress them all for multiple millenia and then use that oppression as proof that they never contributed in any way.
In fact, what amazing thing did YOU contribute to society? Being alive as a straight cis-man? Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s definitely not an accomplishment on its own. So fuck off and learn a bit of real history instead of praising memes you like and hating on memes you don’t like!

Vox Day #crackpot #dunning-kruger

Can anyone tell me which article of The Economist he is talking about, or better yet, which paper he is talking about? I have seen climate change deniers quote mining and misinterpreting climate change research so awfully many times that I would never take stuff like this at face value.
I have seen papers describing some small irregularities in the models but basically stating that they work well, only for deniers stating that these irregularities must mean that the whole thing is absolute bogus. Every time any scientist states that CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas and effector of climate change we should consider, they spin this as proof that CO2 isn’t the main cause of climate change and therefore humanity has nothing to do with it (which is a non-sequitor, since usually these type of papers point out that the other sources are also man-made, like additional methane in the atmosphere). I wouldn’t trust these statements from The Economist itself and DEFINITELY not from freaking Vox Day, one of the biggest Dunning-Kruger victims alive!

Leisa Miller #mammon #dunning-kruger

Ah, Ayn Rand, who believed that helping others without immediate benefit for yourself is evil. Who arrogantly believed that we can easily observe objective reality (which basically goes against any modern philosophy of science). Whose idea of a perfect world would be the strong and rich taking everything from all others because they deserve it for being so goddarn special in her eyes.

There is a reason why her ’philosophy’ never gained track outside the US and is pretty much laughed out of philosophy departments in Europe. And it is basically only important in the US because certain assholes there like the thought that it is morally sound to simply take from others as much as you can without ever giving something back.

Sven-Olof_Lindholm & various contributors #crackpot #fundie #homophobia #transphobia #racist #psycho

Why are transgender and homosexuals against God’s will? Seriously, these people give the same few bible verses against us time and time again, but even those don’t answer WHY God apparently hates us so much. They barely can get further than ‘because it is unnatural’ which is a) untrue and b) a fallacy. Since it is not something we chose, it can’t be a sin, because those are defined as something you do of your own free will. Even saying ‘well, you can live in celibacy’ doesn’t cut it, because once again, WHY? The bible doesn’t say a word about the reason, and religious homophobes can’t seem to find any that aren’t PRATTs. As always all of this clashes with the idea of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent god HARD.

Yeah, sure, you don’t know any transpeople, but of course you can ‘imagine them’ to stink. The toupee fallacy is in full effect here I think. And wtf have the jews to do with anything? Random antisemitism is random.

You fucking asshole, the very computer you are sitting on spewing your hateful rethoric wouldn’t even exist without a gay man! People like you forced us into secrecy for millenia, and now you use that as proof that only straight people have ever done something worthwhile? Fuck you oh so very much!

Ha, were in the fucking world are we dominating anything? We are already under threat of prison and death in many countries, so what are you even talking about? Oh and by the way, ‘hate’ to shit on your disgusting ideas, but even if you’d put every single one of us to death, the next generation of people would STILL be LGBTQ+ to a degree between 10 and 20 percent. I would love to see your face once you realize that, but then again, I would rather simply punch it right now for wanting me and every other LGBTQ+ person dead. How christian of you!

What the fucking hell did we do allegedly? I’m pretty sure climate change, plastic in the oceans, runaway capitalism and growing social divides, dwindling resources etc. are very much all our fault, what thw fucking hell did we do specifically to make this world bad in your opinion? Or is it just us existing that makes this world unliveable for you? Well, that’s your own fucking problem then. Don’t think we wouldn’t defend ourselves against the likes of you if push comes to shove.

Fred Reed #pratt #racist #wingnut

Only you and your crazy racist ilk believe that stuff about any of these groups of people being “mentally superior” to each other (ranking varies depending on which asshole racist you ask). None of you have any evidence for it besides some bad statistics and bullshit pseudo-biology. Oh and just a small lesson in prejudice and humanity: As much as it hurts me to say it, many people can easily live with being considered inferior as long as they have someone else to trample on. So it is absolutely understandable why black people would feel especially strong about being considered the most inferior “race” while white people could at least look down on them and feel good about being “superior” to them if they actually believed in your rotten worldview, which hopefully only a very small amount of people do.

Socrates & commentators #crackpot #wingnut

So then what IS fascism for you? Your examples are in no way indicative of any specific ideology (perhaps war-mongering at best). You have no idea what fascism is. Or communism. Or antifa. And we will certainly not be ‘eaten for lunch’ by people following the ultimate loser ideology.

William Luther Pierce #crackpot #psycho #racist #wingnut

The Turner Diaries, the insane wet dream of fascists, racists and nazis everywhere. Also a pure power fantasy with one of the worst examples of a Gary Stu protagonists I’ve ever come across. Of course he is hyperintelligent, good looking, athletic and in good fascist tradition ultimately dies a heroic death for the organization. That the author didn’t mention that he has an enormous cock as well is honestly surprising.

A book in which the eradication of anyone not arbitrarily white is celebrated, in which pretty much depopulating and scouring asia with all sorts of weapons is seen as a breathtaking victory (nevermind the desastrous consequences for the rest of the world which are glossed over), which inspired actual real life terrorism multiple times; a book in which basically the eradication of anything decent about humanity is portrayed as the ultimate achievement.

In short: A book for the ultimate loser assholes. Not recommended.

Vijay Prozak #crackpot #elitist #psycho #wingnut

@Timjer #92181

I’m sorry, I vehemently have to disagree with both your and Citizen_Justin on eugenics being in any way shape or form worthwhile. You provided some of the reasons yourself (bias, that people who want eugenics to happen should be the first to go etc.), but there is more, and contrary to what you seem to believe (please correct me if I’m wrong) these issues are inherent to eugenics, not somehow things that can be solved while keeping eugenics alive.

Fundamentally, eugenics is about the idea that there are genetic (often also confused with social) groups with ‘bad’ traits should not have the right to procreate and ones with ‘good’ traits which should get that right, and that stopping the former from procreating will overall enhance the population (negative eugenics) or that we should support forcing people with desirable traits to procreate to do the same (positive eugenics).

Now first of all, eugenics are extremely based on pure biological determination, something no biologist today would support. Worthless parents beget worthless children, and great people will get great children, that’s the idea. Even in a lesser, stochastical form (i.e. worthless people more often get worthless children and therefore…) this is patiently absurd and reductionist. We know now that genetics and environment interact in a multitude of (often chaotic) ways, and many traits (arguably intelligence for example) rely much more on environmental factors like nutrition, education and social standing than genetics. And coming to the conclusion from there that we should cull socially weak groups is horrendous and callous (and also isn’t eugenics anymore).

So the whole idea of improving humanity via eugenics is already inherently flawed. Even the overpopulation argument is not worthwhile, since this is ALSO something that can be improved via social means, not by killing off people or forcing them to not have children (see China’s one child policy to what THIS can lead to).

And in the end, and this is only my own opinion, there are no worthless human beings. Who decided that? There is no entity who could (let’s definitely not get into theologically justified eugenics now). All human beings either have inherent worth or no one has, but there can’t be a non-subjective distinction between any groups in this regard.

As I previously said, eugenics is an inherently flawed concept. There is no point in saving it unless you want to use it as a weapon against the poor or those you deem less worthy.

The irony of Eugenics, that if one would take its goal to create better human beings seriously, none of the people supporting it should be selected to survive and procreate.

It’s a fundamentally broken concept that should have died almost a century ago.

George Stanciu #crackpot

@Skyknight #91769

Is there a continuation of consciousness and perception? New brain cells can be generated, but only to a certain degree and apparently mostly in the amygdala and the hippocampus. Many brain cells of ours can get lost without ever being replaced. I’d argue that the continuity of perception is an illusion. If we wouldn’t get context cues from our environment (having fallen down, some form of pain or similar things) we would never notice falling unconscious for example. For me this clearly means that there is no ‘meta-consciousness’, nothing that would make us aware of lapses in consciousness, which means in turn that the continuity of perception is an illusion itself. Also, one single cell dying will not change the emergent property of consciousness that much. Most likely it will lead to an unnoticeable difference that we only begin to be aware of once multiple clusters of nerve cells have died and the changes have become too great to ignore. This in turn strengthens the illusion of continuity, even though a constant change has been going on.

Various Commenters #dunning-kruger #pratt #racist #wingnut

You can always tell that you’ve come across racist idiots who are also anti-environmentalists by their constant screeching about overpopulation being the actual problem, when in fact only the richest third of the world’s population is consuming the most resources and pumping out the most CO2, with poorer people’s consumption and waste output being almost negligible in comparison.

In addition to that it has become blatantly obvious that population growth is curbed by rising education and wealth. In fact worldwide growth rates are slowly declining even in many african countries.

Add to that that our current economy could easily provide for two times the earth’s population if the produced food and other such resources were distributed more equally across the world. There is still plenty of space on Earth, the problem quite frankly are people thinking that they deserve dozens of times more than other people and should also be able to generate dozens of times more waste.

Like you OPs. Right-wing idiots like you constantly can’t think further than “this arbitrary group is not my arbitrary group, therefore they deserve nothing while we deserve everything”. You are not interested in the obvious solutions (higher education levels for example) because that would go against your simplistic worldviews. You are the problem.

Socrates #conspiracy #crackpot #dunning-kruger #racist #wingnut

Oh dear lord, does the OP only speak in PRATTs? Because this is just painful to read. And can that damn ’it’s just a theory’ bullshit finally die soon?

It’s almost funny to what lengths right-wing assholes will go to deny climate change (or evolution or whatever other scientific theory isn’t to their liking), while at the same time always proving that their understanding of these subjects exhausts itself on PRATTs, misquoting and conspiracy theories, while not even putting a dent in the actual theory. That makes their mission blatantly obvious: Fool idiots just as gullible as they are into believing that THEY are the smart ones, the ones who actually ‘get it’. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

ClutchNes #sexist #crackpot #dunning-kruger

Women were trophies because the patriarchal society made them into these! And yet even under these circumstances, in which women were forced into the role of kitchen, pregnancy and total obedience towards their husbands many achieved greatness most men could only dream of! Queen Elizabeth I and Victoria, Hatschepsut and other female monarchs were quite successful, the main idea for computers stems from a woman, the only human with two nobel prices in the natural sciences is a woman and I could go on and on. Who knows how far humanity could have come if women always had the same rights as men, oppressing half of your population certainly didn’t help us progress.

What on the other hand do you MGTOW bring to the table but your immense sense of entitlement? At least some creationists are respected scientist themselves (just incredibly ignorant of evolutionary research), but I’ve never heard of any of you being a contribution to society. So perhaps you should finally START contributing instead of moaning about women allegedly not doing so.

Marjorie Taylor Greene #dunning-kruger #conspiracy #fundie #crackpot #quack

Ok, I missed the last sentence the first time around, if she thinks that mankind has created the ability of viruses to dock onto human cells, then how did we even find out about their potential to do so? How did viruses reproduce before? Did we also give bacteriophages their ability to dock onto bacteria? Why is it that viral diseases predate our knowledge about DNA then, not to mention our techniques of genetic engineering? Does she think all previous diseases were caused by miasma? And if she thinks it was bacteria, why on Earth do THEY cause illnesses if humans didn’t interfere with them at that time?

She apparently doesn’t think that God created these diseases, but it wouldn’t help either if she believed he did (considering it would make him seem like an asshole). And the devil from what I remember isn’t supposed to be able to create stuff on Earth, that’s God’s domain. Not to mention that it would yet again just contradict her adamant belief that it was humans creating “bioweapons” that caused viruses to cause diseases in the first place. Fuck, I usually don’t say such a thing lightly, but she may be one of the most aggravatingly and aggressively stupid persons I’ve ever heard about!

BH Times #moonbat #pratt #racist

@Peacemonger373 #90482

It’s less about its status as a superpower and more about it being a neocolonialist state, which in my opinion it definitely is. I can only hope that you are right though and the communist (*cough* state-capitalist *cough*) party of China goes down in flames as soon as possible.

Oh so much wrong in such a small text, I can barely get trough it all. So just a few highlights:

-”It is nothing more than a military satellite for the u.s. to control the lives of Arabs in the so-called Middle East and their resources.”
If that was the plan then it freaking sucked from the get-go. Israel would have done nothing towards any arab country if not for their continued insistence on not acknowledging it as a country themselves (it’s telling that most subsequent wars were defensive wars on Israel’s part). Which oil fields on the ground of arab-dominated nations does Israel control? It’s also hilarious to describe Saudi-Arabia and other rich arab countries as being oppressed somehow by Israel. The Palestinians are just as much under oppression from the arab neighbors of Israel and their own people, if not more so, than they are under the oppression of Israel. Am I condoning the discrimination against them in Israel? Absolutely not. But ignoring the actual problems and using the Palestinians as a blunt weapon against Israel without actually caring for the people themselves is EXACTLY what Iran and others are doing. If that is not a form of oppression I don’t know what is.

- WW1 AND WW2 were not really about colonization, at best it had some influence on WW1, but that was more of a power struggle between the nations of Europe in general, with colonization being one of the many things that they were in constant idiotic competition over, but the Allies in WW2 had no interest in further colonies (and mostly disbanded their empires slowly but surely after the war) and it was much more about stopping the insane and disastrous fascist ideologies of the Axis powers from taking over the world (and subsequently ruining it).

- But the most egregious thing the OP states here is probably that the rise of China will end colonialism. China is the biggest neocolonialist power in the world and I’m not even kidding about that. They are just a little less pompous about it than the european powers were. Economic colonialism is where it’s at now. Though they showed with Tibet that they can go the other, more brutal way too if they deem it necessary.

JohnM84 #fundie

No it’s not “scientific fact”. Sexual maturity (even if it was reached at 12) is not the same thing as being able to give informed consent nor the same as being able to bear children. So shut up you pedophilic asshole and find someone who IS old enough for you (or if you lack any other form of sexuality aside from pedophilia, find some goddamn help instead of trying to rationalize it!).

Kaito Itsuki #fundie #pratt

Ok, can someone explain to me what the OP’s beef is with angels not always being described as totally average young guys in the bible (which was the case quite a few times)? Do they think this is some sort of atheist conspiracy to discredit the bible? How does that even make sense?

And the less said about that stupid christian exceptionalism and the anti-atheist libel, the better.

Diocel #homophobia #psycho #transphobia

Just like others here I’m very much wondering what the first one is even trying to accomplish. I think this is about the pseudoscientific notion that gay men allegedly have a bad or very distant relationship to their fathers and have become gay because of their subsequent closeness to their mothers (because having a feminine role model means you become feminized yourself, and being feminine == being gay you see?). So sending these pictures is supposed to “trigger” us by reminding us about our alleged bad relationship to our fathers. This is almost too stupid to take seriously, but it’s the only possibility I could think of that made any form of sense.
Saying this as a pretty manly gay guy with a good relationship with both my parents myself.

Actually these three things come across as annoyingly lazy and ineffective trolling rather than terrorism to me. They’ve become so enamored with the idea that everyone slightly left to themselves is easily triggered that they don’t even put effort into it anymore. A bit of a relief actually and very revealing.

Alisher Kadyrov #fundie #homophobia #transphobia #wingnut

Oh that’s rich! “Yeah sure, we fucking despise LGBT people… I mean don’t approve of their lifestyles, and we definitely won’t change our inhumane… I mean totally legitimate laws against them, but how about we simply get rid of the problem… I mean those people by forcing them… suggesting to them to get the hell out of this country… I mean leave amicably once they lose their citizenship here? Doesn’t matter that they have families here, we just want them gone and it is obviously their own problem how to achieve that.”

Reminds me of other states that at first just “suggested” to certain unwanted minorities to leave the country and then started eradicating them in other ways. Like other such homophobic regimes, Uzbekistan’s leaders don’t seem to realize that they can’t get rid of LGBT people unless they forbid procreation entirely, since its usually straight cis people having LGBT children. Our sexual and gender identities are not “lifestyles”.

Prussian Society of America #racist #psycho

Well, I don’t know with whom you think you are talking here, random racist society from the US naming themselves after a country that neither exists anymore nor you have any idea about, but it’s certainly not Germans. I should know, I am one. It’s almost adorable that you think all Germans share your pathetic fascist ideals and hatreds and your stereotypical ideal of how Germans are and should be like is frankly ridiculous and horrifying. And you can trust me on this, I’m German after all!

Excellent-Grass6180 #wingnut

Ok, if that poll is correct then I have to say it’s actually quite sad and hilarious that the polled people in Spain, France, Germany and Great Britain see themselves as the “most powerful country” (globally apparently). That certainly IS quite delusional. Did they ask only the most right-wing patriots and conservatives they could find?
On the other hand the question is pretty strange. What does “most powerful” even mean? If it means military strength then it would be the US probably, but is power entirely defined by who invests more into their military? I don’t think so.

Meus & andinocel #racist #sexist

Yet another try to self-victimize by Incels, this time with racism thrown into the mix too. How quaint. It’s almost funny how they accuse women of racial stereotyping while at the same time racially stereotyping themselves. No self-reflection at all. I’d almost pity them if I didn’t know better. Incels certainly don’t deserve even just that much.

SlavicPridea-count68 #crackpot #fundie #racist #wingnut

Ok, wow, that takes some serious delusions on the part of the OP to get to THAT conclusion based on this graph (it’s pseudoscientific in the first place, but let’s just assume it isn’t).

First of all it’s certainly not very “high IQ” to take two measurements and throw them together haphazardly, one of which is not even portrayed in the graph and probably couldn’t even be measured. The OP never gives any definition of “high” and “low IQ” countries, aside from it apparently being the average of the entire country? And what kind of IQ test or study does he get that data from? Hopefully one that eliminates the bias of using it on all these very different cultures! Not to mention that he seems to believe that country populations are a single homogeneous mass… I could go on.

So then, to his “hypothesis”: Higher “amounts” of sexual morals (apparently highly conservative, patriarchal morals, though I have to guess that from context, so another point against him) correlate negatively with HIV prevalence in larger groups. Later added additional ad-hoc hypothesis: “High IQ” also lowers HIV prevalence, whatever that means. That second one is painfully necessary, because NOTHING in the above graph shows the first one to be true. Relatively non-religious states like the western european states, Canada and New Zealand, which are pretty lenient towards sexuality nowadays, have very low HIV rates, while the much more religious US, many african states and Russia have quite the higher percentage.

It gets worse, confronted with this fact the OP tries to sell not one but actually two additional ad-hoc addendums: 1) That it also has to do with the average intelligence of the country and 2) To not have to admit that Russia for example, a deeply conservative, authoritarian and nowadays relatively religious country thanks to Putin’s unholy love affair with the orthodox church is either still high in HIV prevalence or has to be a low IQ country (both would be detrimental to his views), he distinguishes between “ethnic” and “general” Russian IQ. So it’s just the foreigners and minorities who drag right-wing’s favorite country down.

So he moves the goalpost multiple times, his hypothesis is falsified immediately by the graph he himself provided, and his ad-hoc addendums are just that and lack data, context and are also ethnicist to boot.

The less said about his view that “IQ” is genetic (I guess he still means the average IQ of countries?) the better. Hint: It has not been proven and what he actually means is that it is heritable (that it might have a genetic component wouldn’t favor his argumentation at all, though heritability wouldn’t either really… I think he actually just doesn’t care.)

Delusions upon delusions. That’s all this is. If I had to take an educated guess (NOTHING more) I would say HIV prevalence most likely correlates negatively with levels of (sex) education and use of safe sex techniques. And that’s probably it.

MadMonarchist #wingnut

Leaving out the fact that in all these examples it’s not like the monarchy preceding them was so much better. It seems that people are just not fond of royal bloodlines being in charge, and while previously limited communication options, education and inability to gather enough force to push them of their thrown themselves made it difficult for the people to destroy the institution of the throne, this is fortunately not the case anymore.

- The Shah regime had previously replaced a democratically elected government on behalf of the US and is infamous for its oppressive tendencies. The reason the people flocked to the mullahs was that they were pretty much the only force strong enough to dispose of it. The results for the Iranian people were (as much as I hate to say it) a net benefit at first, even if the theocratic government turned out to also be extremely authoritarian.

- Czar Nicholas of Russia was a poor leader with quite the authoritarian tendencies, and is therefore at least partially to blame for the Bolshevics to gain enough support to overthrow him.

- China’s monarchy was always a changing one, with the state splitting, refusing, splitting again more than a dozen times, with different warlords always going after control of either the entire region or parts of it. Saying that the monarchy provided stability here is naive at best. No one denies that the autocratic rule of the communists wasn’t and isn’t awful, but this only further proves that authoritarianism is bad overall, whether it’s in a monarchy or a dictatorship.

- The Weimar Republic was unstable mostly BECAUSE monarchists and other right-wing and conservative groups undermined it from the start, inventing the Dolchstoß myth, giving the Reichspräsident too much power to undermine the democratically elected parliament and make him a “quasi” king, etc. etc. Our current german state is a democracy, prosperous and stable and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Overall you make a good point that authoritarianism leads to death and destruction. You fail to see though that absolute monarchies are not much better, if at all and that people disposed of them for a reason.

Leda Fisher #moonbat #racist #sexist

When has the marginalization of one group based on skin color ever helped other such groups? I don’t even get the basic argument here, because white men are a privileged group they shouldn’t be allowed to share their opinions anymore? What kind of evil and tyrannical way of thinking is that? I agree with the others, this generalization is sickening.

Even if the OP meant to say “in regards to black history” or the like I find this unacceptable. Of course everyone is allowed to have an opinion and share it in a discussion (and of course those should be critiqued or in particularly awful cases like Holocaust denial punished). The fragmentation of society into those that should be allowed to speak about a topic and those that shouldn’t based on their ethnicity and other identity traits is deeply oppressive and counterproductive. To lead it ad absurdum, such fragmentation would mean that no one would ever be able to talk about anything that isn’t about their own person ever again in the long run. Science (especially history and social sciences) would die. This is obviously unacceptable except for deeply anti-intellectual people.

Brett Stevens #homophobia #wingnut

Nope, as I peviously stated in other comments, tolerance is NOT a two way street when the other side is in fact intolerant. Multiple studies now have shown that the more people get to know and to interact with homosexuals (or any other minority), the less they fear and hate them. The goal of people like you (and Putin’s Russia as well as states with similar laws) is to keep gay people out of the public eye to make propaganda against them more effective (for example that homosexuality is only based on lust, a canard you seem to believe in). THAT is the way “barn burnings” will happen again and you clearly would love that to happen.
Your deceit doesn’t fool anyone with half a brain though, so no dice.

farstar #quack #pratt

You know, why is it so much easier for some people to believe in made-up toxins which were never observed in a human body instead of viral infections, which have been observed and studied in great detail? Are all these pointless inventions only there to keep up the pretense of having esoteric knowledge that scientists simply neglect or oppress? So ultimately just another way for some people to make them feel special about their own apparently pitiful lifes? That's quite sad if true.

Various Anti Vaxxers #conspiracy #crackpot #quack

Once again it seems the best way to deal with irrational people is to use their irrationality against them to do get them to do the right thing. That’s actually really depressing.

DWarren #wingnut

@Malingspann #88949

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is a fact- and source-denying hypothesis that the South had another reason than keeping slavery as an institution alive for its secession (i.e. some imagined and undefined ‘northern aggression’).
That this extreme distortion of history is taught in schools is frankly as disgusting as creationism being taught there. The confederates themselves were more than clear about the fact that the reason for seceding was slavery and the fear of it being abolished. They wrote and told it themselves, multiple times in fact!

Revisionism is necessary when new data and the removal of biases force us to change our understanding of history. Using it as a propaganda tool is dangerous and an unforgiveable intellectual crime in my opinion.

Fuck the Republicans and anyone else who does that! So much of history has been lost because people changed documents, banned names, tried to make themselves look better and their enemies worse, it’s already a mess. Don’t add to that for short-term political gain!

Various Comenters #dunning-kruger #homophobia #psycho #racist #wingnut

Yeah yeah, “everyone is secretly as homophobic and racist/ethnicist as us”, not surprising that you find even these relatively worrying numbers an affront. And no, caring only as long as we go out and about like anyone else doesn’t make you less of a bigot.

So I will ignore all of you and just say damn! I am seriously disappointed if these numbers reflect the truth at least to a degree, especially when it comes to Germany. Around a third of all people would have problems with black, asian or jewish people dating their children? And more than half if they were dating muslims? Still! Sigh.

Governor Greg Abbott #fundie #psycho #sexist #wingnut

Ah yes, Republicans love to support unborn, potential life, but once it is out of the uterus, or even regarding the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy they couldn’t bother less. This makes it very much clear that actually they don’t give a shit about the potential child, they only care about punishing and controlling the mother for her free sexuality and even more disgustingly for being raped and abused. They sicken me to my core.

Mark English #sexist #wingnut

@Passerby #88812

I actually ignored his first sentence because it was phrased so strangely but dear god, you are right, that IS what he is suggesting, isn’t it? That guy seriously thinks he is smart and rational when stating this. He is even more deluded than I thought!

I don’t even know where to start. I only have some basic philosophical knowledge, especially when it comes to the philosophy of science, and even I can see what a bunch of hogwash and strawman-building this is:

- The OP states that feminist thinking is “typically hostile to science and mathematics”, no evidence given. There are some radically postmodern feminist groups who believe that science and its methodology only show certain consistent results because they were done and invented by mostly (white, cis, hetero) men (and therefore should be discarded), but no one, not even other feminists take them this seriously. They make for good strawmen of “all feminists” though. Don’t get me started on all the ways that anti-progressives deny science…

- Objective knowledge of the world IS impossible, by the simple fact that we are bound by our senses, the comprehension abilities of our mind and the rather specific circumstances of our environment (both terran and universal). But that’s not what science is about in the first place! In contrast to religions, science only ever makes approximate, not truth statements. We can create models which somewhat explain and predict how the world works, but we do know that these models are not the objective truth, that’s why we continue to research after all! We are constantly improving our models, but we are aware that they will never be “the full and absolute truth”. And that’s absolutely fine.

- I have yet to find any anti-progressives showing “rigorous scholarship”. Feminism, as in “men and women having equal rights” is not an idea that “cannot sustain itself”. That’s just what you want it to be. “Emotional manipulation”, ah yes. Here the “entirely rational” line of thought would falter anyway, since human beings are never entirely rational. Believing differently is folly at best, hubris at worst (and this guy obviously thinks of himself as “rational”, so it’s the latter). Of course there is much emotion in identity politics, they are after all mostly about the discrimination someone experiences as part of a marginalized group. But in what way is that emotional manipulation?

- No, objective truth being impossible to discern doesn’t mean that suddenly anything goes. We humans can prioritize and classify after all. Theories can still be tested if they are scientific, or at least logically thought about using philosophical methods. If they are obviously contrary to Occam’s razor and our empirical methods and models we can still prioritize other theories with more evidence.

- And ultimately this whole screed boils down to the fallacy of seeing ones own ideology and actions as purely rational while those you don’t agree with as emotional and irrational, while not engaging with their arguments at all. But what did I expect from someone who believes to be objectively right.

Anyone know whether the OP is an objectivist? Some of it sounds suspiciously like their train of thought. Don’t know why it’s such a popular philosophy in the US, here in Europe it is usually laughed out of philosophy classes.

Jillian Becker #wingnut

Ah, how the willfully ignorant just create the world in their mind as they want it to be. The Abraham Accords have basically nothing to do with the Palestinians, it’s from my understanding a treaty that some arab and african states have signed to indicate a normalization of relationship between them and Israel (most based on a two state resolution of the Palestina-Israel conflict). While certainly not a bad thing honestly, it has nil to do with resolving the conflict itself as long as the involved parties are not willing to go through with it.

And from what I can tell, nearly none of the states signing the Accords is actively engaged in it. On the other hand neither Saudi-Arabia, nor the Iran, nor Libanon signed, and they are much more important here. In fact, the only reason Trump did this was to antagonize Iran further. Seeing as the Hamas are financed by Iran it’s more likely that this accord at least heightened the conflict. Which is not to say that Hamas and Iran are in the right, they are definitely not. But seeing Trump as a peace bringer here is more than just a stretch.

The whole thing about Biden on the other hand is pure fantasy.

Varg Vikernes #crackpot #dunning-kruger #racist #wingnut

I already wrote a lengthy text about it, but now I realize that this guy actually thinks genetics of all topics is “politicized” because it doesn’t favor his insanely dumb jerk-off fantasy of some magically existing “nordic race” which doesn’t stem from Africa at all, no sir. And where prey tell does he then get his information from? Apparently phrenology or something similarly stupid… or simply because “well, they look different”. Yep, totally bias-free opinions here. Fuck, what an asshole.

Varg Vikernes #crackpot #racist #wingnut

Yeah, remember those statements for their utter ridiculousness. Buddy, where do you think humans come from? Do you believe people from Africa are a whole different species from Europeans now? Because ultimately humanity stems from Africa and this is true for all hominins who spread around the world, including Homo erectus and Homo sapiens (which actually seems to have spread out twice or more, giving rise to Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens). And yes, that means that just a few thousand years ago, Europeans were black! Oh the humanity, right?

Our genomic studies show quite clearly that every non-african group of people underwent a genetic bottleneck effect in the past and at the same time. It also shows that we Non-Africans have more genetically in common with any random group of humans from Africa than these groups have in common with each other. Both can’t be explained rationally unless we assume the Out-Of-Africa hypothesis to be correct and there has not yet been any sufficient evidence to the contrary, even though there are tons of people who would love to get their hands on it.

We ARE mixed, our genetic variance as a species is already very low, mostly because of multiple bottleneck effects in the past. Just because you think slight superficial differences in appearance are reason enough to hate and discriminate people and want to validate that with pseudo-biological reasons and magical thinking (Seriously, where the hell did the people from Bulgaria and the Neanderthals even come from in your mind? Spontaneous creation?) doesn’t mean you are correct or that others have to see your point. Very much on the contrary.

yeahskam #moonbat

@Vgal #88187

Indeed, sorry, my bad, I forgot about that fact. I don’t think that it changes that much in regards to the rest of my statement though.

Vijay Prozak #wingnut

Ok, now I would seriously want to ask (though I have bad feelings already about the answer) why exactly he thinks that National Socialism is the superior way and especially after allegedly having a number of “political and philosophical thinking under his belt”? That part must have been meant literally considering the superficiality he shows, probably in the form of a single piece of paper under his belt.
For the Nazis everyone is a cog in the eternal war machine, friends, music and other delights all just there to further the Führer’s interests, they were and are terrible about finding solutions to anything (most boil down to racism, eugenics and war) and most look-alike rows of houses I have seen were build during WW2. So what is the appeal for this guy?

Vijay Prozak #elitist

Oh yeah, sure, such revolutions are always just based on jealousy according to this guy. Fuck what an elitist prick. Probably considers himself part of the “wealthy, powerful, good-looking, gifted” too. Do I think that violent revolutions are the way to go to dispose of the (often incompetent, decadent, abusive and still powerful) “elite” if they become oppressive? No. But there can be peaceful revolutions, something the OP here leaves out entirely. Wonder why.

Vijay Prozak #elitist #racist

Once again class, please tell me how many nucleotide sites there are in the human genome which are only found in one specific ethnic group?
Exactly, none.
What is bigger, the difference between two random people from groups inside Africa or outside Africa?
Exactly, inside Africa.
Even if there was some huge genetic difference between ethnic groups across humanity, would crossing them be a good thing or a bad thing biologically speaking?
It would be better, correct, because it would enhance genetic diversity, something very important that racists constantly seem to ignore even though they allegedly are trying to state “biological truths”.
So are there human races, and especially to such a ridiculously fine degree as the OP states here?
No, the whole concept is not applicable to humans.

Oh how I wish that every racist would get these facts hammered into their skull until they finally relent. Alas…