@HlynkaCG's banner p
BANNED USER: /comment/193024

HlynkaCG

old man yelling at clouds

12 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:58:45 UTC

Failed repeatedly in his attempts to die a hero and has now lived long enough to become the villain.


				

User ID: 659

Banned by: @cjet79

BANNED USER: /comment/193024

HlynkaCG

old man yelling at clouds

12 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:58:45 UTC

					

Failed repeatedly in his attempts to die a hero and has now lived long enough to become the villain.


					

User ID: 659

Banned by: @cjet79

What I don't understand is what you think there is to reconcile. To me you seem to be to be starting from a desired conclusion IE on of strict race-essentialism and bio-determinism and then working backwards. If I am not someone who believes in those things, or who otherwise does not buy into the Left's wider narratives about group and class identity, where is the contradiction?

  • -11

HBD is a worse substitute than existing policy frameworks.

Indeed

I would even go so far as to posit that this is precisely why it is so popular amongst dissident activist types. I suspect that a lot of them recognize on some level that, in a world where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin they would be the ones left out in the cold.

  • -11

This is a laughable assertion.

No it is not.

Near as I can tell, the sort of view expressed by @Folamh3, @self_made_human, and others here that...

it's all genetics, the children whose parents can afford to send them to private school tend to be smarter than the children whose parents can't; "school quality" and "teacher quality" have pretty much zero bearing on educational outcomes and are almost pure signalling; if you sent all of the private school kids to a public school and vice versa, you would see essentially zero change in educational outcomes in either cohort; and so on and so on.

...is not an extreme or hyperbolic take, it's the median.

Charitably you are engaging in a very blatant Motte and Baily where you try to play the "group differences in outcome" card right up until someone asks how exactly you determine group membership for the purposes of determining group differences. IE Is a dark-skinned man who votes Republican "black" or is he, as Joe Biden and the Hosts of the View assert, "white". (Edit: See Slate and the LA Times' treatment of Clarence Thomas and Larry Elder)

Less charitably you are simply lying.

  • -11

It's not descriptive at all. HBD as it is espoused by yourself, @RandomRanger, @Folamh3, @self_made_human @SecureSignals Et Al is not about describing a position it's about justifying a position. It is normative through and through.

  • -11

So quit whining and get good.

We all go before the judge sooner or later.

  • -10

It's ok, in his defense he's only pretending to be a retard.

  • -10

Again, this is a stupid question.

If you were to fire your gun blindly into a crowd and kill someone, do you believe that claiming that you never intended to shoot that person in particular would be a valid defense against the subsequent criminal charges?

  • -10

What facts? I'm not commenting on the guy's home life, I'm commenting on the guy's essay and the wider movement he is touted as representing.

  • -10

The only rational conclusion one can draw is that as stupid as the working class may be, the sort of person who votes democrat is even more so ;-)

  • -10

What is the end goal of white nationalism?

To see our founding principles utterly discredited and destroyed so that they might be replaced with a load of post-modern psuedo-marxist intersectional nonsense.

If you want to understand "white nationalism" as it exists on twitter and various rat-adjacent spaces, you need to understand that they are motivated by the same thing the intersectional left is. Specifically, certain sense of entitlement/having been chosen coupled with belief in the ideology of victimhood that ultimately manifests as a deep and abiding resentment of what the West in general, and the Anglosphere/US in particular has historically represented. The idea that all men are created equal is simply intolerable to them because it means they have to actually work at being better if they want to be perceived as being better.

Idiots like Steve Sailor and Greg Johnson can bitch about dysgenics all they want but at the end of the day the middle-class white guy who marries a thicc Latina and pumps out a couple of kids is doing more to actually implement and embody the 14 words (not to mention build a nation) than the vast majority of so-called "white nationalists" are.

Look man, you and I have been doing this for years. 10 years this October by my count. What do you think my "engaging charitably" would look even like in this context?

The way I see it I have been eminently charitable, and in the decade I've been participating in this specific community I've seen an HBD post that rose above tired "arguments as soldiers" or "look at me I'm so edgey" maybe a handful of times at the most.

What this look likes from my end you have staked out a position in the Motte, and because your position in the Motte may have some merit (emphasis on the may) I am expected to cede the Bailey as typified by the linked post without a fight in the name of "charity".

If that's what is expected of me then, yes. I will admit that I do take a certain amount of pride in refusing to "engage charitably".

Right back at you, link me an example of yourself or some other prominent HBDer arguing that cultural attitudes matter more than melanin content and I'll shut up concede the point.

as I've told you before, HBDers don't think genetics is the be all and end all.

And yet HBDers keep arguing the contrary.

To be blunt, you either endorse the linked comment or you don't. Which is it?

Did he? I don't know, all I have is your word for it and you aren't exactly an unbiased source. The More interesting question from my perspective and more relevant to this discussion is "Has @cake? or "Have you?" and If not, why not?

Edit to add: Like I said above I'm not commenting on Hood's home life I'm commenting on his writing and the consumers thereof.

The obvious anser to me would seem to be that academia is not a particularly rigorous field and that especially at the highest levels it's primary role is to sort aspiring members of the chattering class into "winning" and "loosing" buckets rather than to educate, hence why so many professors grade on a curve rather than against knowledge of the material.

As such I think claims made based on anything produced by academia in the last half-century or so it should be taken with a grain of salt. Anecdotally the sort of naive symbol manipulation that seems to be measured by IQ tests and academic achievement seems to be only tangentially related to conscientiousness, foresight, and ability to take-on/integrate new information. In fact, there seems to be a tipping point +1 or 2 SD where it actually becomes negatively correlated with outward signs of intelligence as the Higher IQ/Symbol-Manipulation Quotient gets turned towards rationalizing previously held opinions/beliefs rather than updating one's model to reflect changing circumstance or generating accurate theories of mind.

Meanwhile correlation to income and criminality is easily explained by academia's role as a means of sorting aspiring members of the chattering class into "winning" and "loosing" buckets, though I would question the "criminality" claim. Are we certain that the Bidens are less crooked than the median family "unlicensed pharmacist" living in the projects? Or are "the elite" just looking out for their own? Personally, my money would be on the latter.

I am keeping it in mind.

No they are not, They are Woodrow Willson lite. Claims to the contrary are lies sold to you by your jewish marxist poli-sci professor.

A flattering thought if you're a member of the atheism plus crowd but the sad truth is that there is nothing particularly Christian or egalitarian about Marxism, just the opposite in fact

I see what you're trying to do, and I am not going to change tack

The other 80% has fuck-all with who this guy is, only what he wrote. So why do you believe that your appeals to his alleged Bono Fides should change my assessment of his writing?

Again, we've been over this, you might not like it but yes you do. After all, all you're doing in this post right here right now is mindlessly parroting progressive propaganda like a good little stooge.

1: questionable

2: shrug (see my previous posts about academics grading on a curve)

3: questionable

4: questionable

5: questionable

6: questionable

Identitarians who get fixated on HBD also seem to get weirdly hung up on the Jews for some reason, and a cynic might suspect that this is because the Jews are their dark mirror. They got this whole complex around how they are "the chosen" but then what they think ought to be the choice doesn't get chosen.

Again, I am not "dodging" anything, I am questioning the entire framework upon which the question rests.

A plot can be made to demonstrate anything. To demonstrate, if I were showed you a plot showing that the ratio of squantches to dingflarbs amongst the black population is less than one, and appended a bunch of Jewish sounding names to the end so you could tell that it had come from a serious academic source would you agree?

You tell me. What value does HBD awareness add unless one is looking to justify discrimination based on qualities other than individual merit?

This is absolutely something liberals and the Blue Tribe have as a perspective

Is it though?