Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I have two points here. One, I'm not an anarchist, I'm thinking more along the lines of Robin Hanson's recent blogging, so calling it 2006 is improper. Maybe my post pattern matched to 2006, and I don't know if I'm to blame or if you're to blame. I was not around debating during GWB so maybe give me some pointers on how to avoid pattern matching to whatever it is you're thinking? For one thing I have some familiarity with 2010s lolbert arguments and the main issue was blank slatism, so I'm trying to be original by making points like the state breeds the violent criminals only to act like the hero when it locks up a portion of them, and that if you tone down statelyness most of the new violence is these exact people slaughtering each other or being killed in self-defense, so it's both a self solving problem and it's not actually relevant to higher types of people (this includes, I believe, motters, and more generally the top 20-30% of people at least if not more, so hear me out), who are only burdened by the state. These types of points in particular was ignored by FC probably because it was not able to be responded to with stock phrases taken from 2006.
Second, even if some of my points are 2006, you never debunked them, so just saying they're old is a fallacy. HBD is from the 1960s. So what? You might as well be saying in 2018 when basic HBD was still controversial, «why would anyone want to put in the effort to recreate a Clinton-era argument about IQ gaps? I'm amazed you got one taker... the only step you missed was bringing up the MTRAS...» that pattern matches clearly to someone who doesn't want to talk about it for the obvious reasons, and the reason is not because it's a boring debate or because it's trivial that the controversial position is factually incorrect.
More options
Context Copy link