Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Youtube to remove thousands of videos pushing extreme views

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

    Just curious, what’s your problems with CP...?

    I mean, he hasn’t convinced me that if you chop your dick off and change your body shape, even drastically, that you’re a girl, and stuff like “feminine penis” is...

    Laughable.

    But sometimes I find the videos an interesting listen and I feel like the arguments are at least more bearable than a lot of other stuff.

    Best one was probably the one on “The West,” and while I didn’t eat up everything in it, it did make me think that viewing things through “The West” lens as many tend to do is a bit flawed (can’t remember everything from the videos or my problems with them precisely tho).
    His take on race is really bad. Really bad. Not as bad as the self-contradicting ones that have been posted here on this forum -- at the very least, Contra will commit to scientific anti-realism more than some of the people here who want to have it both ways -- but it's just all the same nonsense, ultimately. "More variation within than between", the continuum fallacy, false claims that there is some sort of consensus on the existence of race, and in between it all he kept doing these cringey skits that pandered to the presumptions of his far-left audience, all which were made even worse by the fact that they just weren't satirical of anything in reality....they were just making fun of imaginary straw men, it was annoying. That stuff alone is bad enough, but then he got slammed by Ryan Faulk on the topic of race twice and failed to respond to any of it, so I was like, "yeah, I'm done...this guy isnt very funny or particularly insightful and he uses way too much loaded terminology, this is the final nail in the coffin."

    Every now and again, I'll check in just because I'm pretty obsessive about information, and sometimes he might bring up an obscure event or article that I wouldn't have found otherwise, but for the most part I'm pretty over this guy tbh.


    Originally posted by Kajin_Style
    Completely denouncing every bit of evidence I present WITHOUT any counter evidence to point to the contrary is not logic; it's outright denial.
    Originally posted by Kajin_Style
    I'm sure you'll come up with some debunking excuse.

    Comment


    • RussianCoffeeAddict
      Editing a comment
      My opinion on race now has been to just stop talking about it and treating it as important at all. Not as a sign of awesomeness or badness or anything.

      If we could all agree on that...things would be pretty great in the racial sense.

    • Helly
      Helly commented
      Editing a comment
      RussianCoffeeAddict well, you know what my opinion on idealism is, but good luck decollectivizing a social species i guess.

    Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

    Just curious, what’s your problems with CP...?
    Yikes
    Originally posted by Kajin_Style ;n513566
    Why should I even give a damn that some faggot is being stoned to death in another country?

    Comment


    • RussianCoffeeAddict
      Editing a comment
      I was mostly just curious about what his particular take on CP was, seeing as I have problems with him of my own, lol.
      Last edited by RussianCoffeeAddict; June 10th, 2019, 11:34 PM.

    Originally posted by Helly View Post

    It's not on me to do your research for you. I already tried looking for a source and didn't find one. If you have the passage where that figure comes from, please show it to me.
    I'll go fishing for it at a later date, I'm over the KKK shit atm but until then reserve your accusation of "fake news" because I've been transparent with you this entire discussion.




    "We are united, except we're not because holy crap look at the absolute STATE of political discourse"

    Also, "nation of immigrants"? Pretty sure there was a point in time where slavery was also legal and women couldn't vote, so this fallacy is not going to do you any favours at all.
    And who's to blame for that?

    And holy shit dude, are you really going to compare nation of immigrants to slavery being legal and women suffrage lol. Now you're really being dishonest and obtuse.



    Sure, evicting people forcibly is immoral, but that's a very specific stipulation that's not inherent to having an ethnostate.
    The majority of WN wan to retake america is a white nation boyo.


    Which is not what the WNs want, you even expressed your fear yourself of what would happen to get non-whites out of a country.
    Lmao that is EXACTLY what they want, that's what they've always wanted. If you don't think WN's are entitled to America then you definitely don't talk to them. Go ahead, hell you don't even have to ask an extremist, just ask a Trump supporter how they feel about America being majority brown. Jesus Christ, do you really want to fight me on this?


    Which countries, specifically? Link me the relevant studies.
    Try sweden, germany, and norway for one. You're the one that made the claim that they're shit countries because of migrants, can you back that up without using biased sources like breitbart and youtube righties?



    My proof is the fact that most of their videos have a positive like/dislike ratio in spite of the attempts by neo-Nazis to take them out, what are you talking about? This is like the easiest thing to demonstrate.
    Buddy, the alt-right ARE neo-nazis.





    Actually, no, there isn't a razor-precise definition of what a door is. I'll show you right now let's get to brass fuckin tacks on this anti-realism you keep pushing: tell me what exactly a door is to you.
    You can suspend that "anti-realism" bullshit until you can give me a hardline definition of race. I'll make it easy for you, explain to me what a black person is.

    A door is typically an entrance to somewhere with a revolving barrier that can be closed and opened.



    Congratulations, you've just described the vast majority of taxonomy in the animal kingdom.
    Do you really want to hop back into comparing humans to animals?



    Why is geographic in caps? What did you think "geographical races" meant?
    Because geographic lineage is a better predictor of genetic clusters than phenotype and that's typically what people use? Does a northern european look the same as a southern european Helly?



    What the shit.....you're not even in reality at this point lol....do you have any proof of this assertion?
    Which one? You mean the one about indigenous folk in southeast asia?

    You don't think this can pass for black in america?



    If you don't expect them to be violent, then everything you've said about them makes no sense. They've been given the power disparity, the moral justification, and the legal justification to kill people who were coming at them with battery acid to blind them, and yet you're telling me at no point did any of them pull the trigger and put a bullet through one of their heads.

    FBI statistics don't matter in this context, I don't care about them for the same reason I don't care about what percentage of Muslims an hero themselves in a crowded space. They're a violent minority, nothing can be said about the greater group by using them.
    They're ideology is violent, much in the same way some sects of islam are. If you don't care about actual facts then I'm not interested in continuing this little tidbit, you're clearly too emotionally invested in this to admit you're wrong.

    IIRC some white dude shot at a black guy after shouting "hey nigger!" for no reason, and then obviously you have shit like Heather Heyer, then you have the new zealand shooter, the TWO synoguge shooters. Like holy shit guy lol you have no leg to stand on with this violent left shit.




    I'm not even talking about the city's negligence, I'm just talking about how these people always show up wherever WNs go, wearing clothes meant to hide their identity because they know they're doing something nefarious, and immediately the situation becomes much more tense. There's a reason they are called domestic terrorists.
    And? They have a right to show up and counter-protest, the majority of the time they're peaceful anyway.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Helly View Post

      His take on race is really bad. Really bad. Not as bad as the self-contradicting ones that have been posted here on this forum -- at the very least, Contra will commit to scientific anti-realism more than some of the people here who want to have it both ways -- but it's just all the same nonsense, ultimately. "More variation within than between", the continuum fallacy, false claims that there is some sort of consensus on the existence of race, and in between it all he kept doing these cringey skits that pandered to the presumptions of his far-left audience, all which were made even worse by the fact that they just weren't satirical of anything in reality....they were just making fun of imaginary straw men, it was annoying. That stuff alone is bad enough, but then he got slammed by Ryan Faulk on the topic of race twice and failed to respond to any of it, so I was like, "yeah, I'm done...this guy isnt very funny or particularly insightful and he uses way too much loaded terminology, this is the final nail in the coffin."

      Every now and again, I'll check in just because I'm pretty obsessive about information, and sometimes he might bring up an obscure event or article that I wouldn't have found otherwise, but for the most part I'm pretty over this guy tbh.
      Oh Jesus Christ, and now you're literally lending legitimacy to Ryan Faulk? The gay nazi that can't provide a single peer-reviewed study to back up his claims?

      Comment


        Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
        I'll go fishing for it at a later date, I'm over the KKK shit atm but until then reserve your accusation of "fake news" because I've been transparent with you this entire discussion.
        Okay, so you don't have one. I mean, I'm fine letting it go, I don't need it since there are plenty of examples of you getting things completely wrong, but I'm just pointing it out to you that you're trying to hold onto this figure and you don't even know where it came from. Like I said, even just comparing to trends of the previous years, it looks way off.



        And who's to blame for that?
        The far left, without a doubt.



        And holy shit dude, are you really going to compare nation of immigrants to slavery being legal and women suffrage lol. Now you're really being dishonest and obtuse.
        I'm not comparing them, I'm showing you why this justification of how things were or how you think they were is wrong because it would justify things you wouldn't agree with.


        The majority of WN wan to retake america is a white nation boyo.
        Since "nu-uh" has been your only response for 5 or 6 or 7 consecutive posts, I'm just going to ignore this now.


        Lmao that is EXACTLY what they want, that's what they've always wanted. If you don't think WN's are entitled to America then you definitely don't talk to them. Go ahead, hell you don't even have to ask an extremist, just ask a Trump supporter how they feel about America being majority brown. Jesus Christ, do you really want to fight me on this?
        What I'm saying is that they aren't interested in having a "dominant" culture, they instead want to have a homogenous one. Ergo, they have no interest in ruling over brownies.


        Try sweden, germany, and norway for one. You're the one that made the claim that they're shit countries because of migrants, can you back that up without using biased sources like breitbart and youtube righties?
        Well, first off Germany is neither Nordic nor socialist, at most you could call them a social democracy.

        If you're going to have a problem with any sources that criticizes your preconceived notions, maybe stop being lazy and link me to something so this isn't an even bigger waste of time for both of us.


        Buddy, the alt-right ARE neo-nazis.
        "nuh-uh"


        A door is typically an entrance to somewhere with a revolving barrier that can be closed and opened.
        "Typically"? That doesn't sound very precise. You can't have "typically" and "usually" in Star Trek science, my guy, next you'll be saying racist things like "Nubians typically have these allele frequencies", or "East Asians typically have this genetic cluster"


        Do you really want to hop back into comparing humans to animals?
        Humans are animals. This is genetics, laddie, egocentric religion isn't allowed here.


        Because geographic lineage is a better predictor of genetic clusters than phenotype and that's typically what people use? Does a northern european look the same as a southern european Helly?
        No, but I never asserted otherwise, because I recognize geographical races, so....thanks for scoring on your own goal, lol?



        Which one? You mean the one about indigenous folk in southeast asia?

        You don't think this can pass for black in america?
        I'm referring to your claim that they only knew they were distinct ethnicities because of their geographical distance.


        They're ideology is violent, much in the same way some sects of islam are. If you don't care about actual facts then I'm not interested in continuing this little tidbit, you're clearly too emotionally invested in this to admit you're wrong.

        IIRC some white dude shot at a black guy after shouting "hey nigger!" for no reason, and then obviously you have shit like Heather Heyer, then you have the new zealand shooter, the TWO synoguge shooters. Like holy shit guy lol you have no leg to stand on with this violent left shit.

        I mean, you just keep trying desperately to claim that they're all violent and they want to hurt brown people and lefties, but so far I've only seen a few lone wolf attacks that are roundly disavowed by the larger movement. They don't go looking for trouble when they do their public demonstrations, unlike the left. They don't encourage violence against the people they're fighting, unlike the left. You said the VAST majority of them were sociopaths. Not "a few", "the VAST majority".....where's the proof?


        And? They have a right to show up and counter-protest, the majority of the time they're peaceful anyway.
        "The majority of the time, they're peaceful". Got anything to back that up, buddy? Why do they show up dressed like ninjas, if that's the case? Why were they labeled as a domestic terrorist group?


        Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post

        Oh Jesus Christ, and now you're literally lending legitimacy to Ryan Faulk? The gay nazi that can't provide a single peer-reviewed study to back up his claims?
        More proof you've been listening to lefties, lol

        Who fed you this one? Drallasta? CV? In any case, which study are we talking about here, exactly? Please tell me you at least know that much and aren't just regurgitating talking points without a second thought yet again.


        Originally posted by Kajin_Style
        Completely denouncing every bit of evidence I present WITHOUT any counter evidence to point to the contrary is not logic; it's outright denial.
        Originally posted by Kajin_Style
        I'm sure you'll come up with some debunking excuse.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Helly View Post
          scientific anti-realism

          continuum fallacy
          ^^^
          Case in point: this. this right here.

          Calling out first year philosophy major jargon in response to bad arguments is what passes for insightful commentary on youtube.

          Comment


            Lets try this Helly.

            Give me an issue you want to be informed on. And I'll give you the shobby rundown of how I'd approach it and where I'd go to start gathering facts + putting ideas together.

            You wanna know the difference between youtube bullshit artists and real policy analytics?

            I won't explain it to you. I'll show it to you. Name your issue.



            Comment


              Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post

              ^^^
              Case in point: this. this right here.

              Calling out first year philosophy major jargon in response to bad arguments is what passes for insightful commentary on youtube.
              I'm pretty sure what I said is the fact that Contrapoints would make such bad arguments - that are bad on such an obvious and basic level - is precisely why listening to just about anything he says is a complete waste of time. I'm not acting like I'm a 400000 IQ genius for finding these errors, I'm just calling Contrapoints retarded.


              Originally posted by Kajin_Style
              Completely denouncing every bit of evidence I present WITHOUT any counter evidence to point to the contrary is not logic; it's outright denial.
              Originally posted by Kajin_Style
              I'm sure you'll come up with some debunking excuse.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Helly View Post

                I'm pretty sure what I said is the fact that Contrapoints would make such bad arguments - that are bad on such an obvious and basic level - is precisely why listening to just about anything he says is a complete waste of time. I'm not acting like I'm a 400000 IQ genius for finding these errors, I'm just calling Contrapoints retarded.
                Take me up on that offer

                Imma educate your impressionable young mind if its the last thing I do

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                  Lets try this Helly.

                  Give me an issue you want to be informed on. And I'll give you the shobby rundown of how I'd approach it and where I'd go to start gathering facts + putting ideas together.

                  You wanna know the difference between youtube bullshit artists and real policy analytics?

                  I won't explain it to you. I'll show it to you. Name your issue.


                  Well, hold on, because you keep having these preconcieved notions about me and it's constantly leading to these misunderstandings. Firstly, the changes to YT are not strictly to do with videos on policy, the guidelines YT laid out were pretty broad which is why I was worried.

                  That's the first thing, the second thing is I definitely don't particularly count on any opinions on policy from Youtubers. To start with, I'm in Mexico, so alot of what goes on up north in terms of policy isn't going to concern me as much as how my country handles itself. That's not to say US policy is completely irrelevant to me, obviously not, but it's not to the point where I care about what randoms on the street have to say about it.



                  Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                  Completely denouncing every bit of evidence I present WITHOUT any counter evidence to point to the contrary is not logic; it's outright denial.
                  Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                  I'm sure you'll come up with some debunking excuse.

                  Comment


                    Did I just get called a rando on the steet

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post
                      Did I just get called a rando on the steet
                      no lol, that was in reference to the talking heads of Youtube, who are basically glorified randoms on the street. Their proposed ideas for policy aren't as important to me as their political and sociological takes, which can be easily more generalized to seeing how people interact in different societies.


                      Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                      Completely denouncing every bit of evidence I present WITHOUT any counter evidence to point to the contrary is not logic; it's outright denial.
                      Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                      I'm sure you'll come up with some debunking excuse.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Helly View Post

                        Okay, so you don't have one. I mean, I'm fine letting it go, I don't need it since there are plenty of examples of you getting things completely wrong, but I'm just pointing it out to you that you're trying to hold onto this figure and you don't even know where it came from. Like I said, even just comparing to trends of the previous years, it looks way off.
                        Do please name something else I've gotten wrong without pulling something out of a hat? Regardless, I'm not trying to "hold on" to the figure, I have little to no investment in the number. If there's anyone who got it wrong, it's wikipedia, not me.




                        The far left, without a doubt.
                        I'm just gonna take this comment seriously and ask you to elaborate on how the "far-left" has ruined political discourse this day and age. You're wrong, but I want to hear it.



                        I'm not comparing them, I'm showing you why this justification of how things were or how you think they were is wrong because it would justify things you wouldn't agree with.
                        You're using your favorite fallacy and making yet another false equivalence, it's almost like the opposite of a slippery slope. "Well we also had slavery so that means a nation of immigrants is also an outdated concept!" so therefore what? We should be okay with the far-right wanting to forcibly make America majority white?



                        Since "nu-uh" has been your only response for 5 or 6 or 7 consecutive posts, I'm just going to ignore this now.
                        That wouldn't be my response if you'd stop using hearsay unfounded arguments, "nuh uh that ain't what the alt-right wants despite all the evidence!" is unfounded. Literally, anyone and their mom could dip their toe in /pol/ or any other alt-right forum and see how shitty these people are.



                        What I'm saying is that they aren't interested in having a "dominant" culture, they instead want to have a homogenous one. Ergo, they have no interest in ruling over brownies.
                        Oh but they very much do, why do you think they whine and cry whenever a minority gets a lead roll in a movie or tv show? In any case, can you substantiate anything you're saying? Can you give me anything outside of the alt-right circle you fraternize with?



                        Well, first off Germany is neither Nordic nor socialist, at most you could call them a social democracy.

                        If you're going to have a problem with any sources that criticizes your preconceived notions, maybe stop being lazy and link me to something so this isn't an even bigger waste of time for both of us.
                        Uhhh? No european country is actually socialist, they're mostly social-democracies.

                        So you're literally admitting that every source you have is biased in favor of right-wing fear mongering then? Pick a country that you think is somehow being ruined by immigrants and we'll go from there.

                        ]
                        "Typically"? That doesn't sound very precise. You can't have "typically" and "usually" in Star Trek science, my guy, next you'll be saying racist things like "Nubians typically have these allele frequencies", or "East Asians typically have this genetic cluster"
                        So what is this weird double-think thing you have going on here? You seem to have this galaxy brain take of "everything is a social construct!" yet you get triggered when someone says race is one too and therefore isn't real from an objective standard?



                        Humans are animals. This is genetics, laddie, egocentric religion isn't allowed here.
                        Sure and our biology works very differently compared to a lot of different animals, I'll give you credit for not bringing up the now overused dog-breed analogy though.



                        No, but I never asserted otherwise, because I recognize geographical races, so....thanks for scoring on your own goal, lol?
                        You were taking interpreting that SIRE study as black, white, asian, all being under one race though.




                        I'm referring to your claim that they only knew they were distinct ethnicities because of their geographical distance.
                        How else would they tell them apart Helly? I wasn't even referring to ancient-colonist, I'm talking about your average layman that thinks a black person is anyone with big lips and dark skin.




                        I mean, you just keep trying desperately to claim that they're all violent and they want to hurt brown people and lefties, but so far I've only seen a few lone wolf attacks that are roundly disavowed by the larger movement. They don't go looking for trouble when they do their public demonstrations, unlike the left. They don't encourage violence against the people they're fighting, unlike the left. You said the VAST majority of them were sociopaths. Not "a few", "the VAST majority".....where's the proof?
                        And in that same vein, if the left is so violent then why is far-right extremist terrorism still far FAR higher than left-wing terrorism? I'm not sure why you're trying to obfuscate, literally, anyone can make a single google search and see that you're dead wrong. You ever stop to maybe think that this Antifa shit is sensationalism by the far-right to make it seem like the right are more victimized than they let on?

                        This is hilarious, you literally had people in the Charlottesville rally calling Dylan Roof a hero, there's a whole ass video on youtube with a collection of footage from that rally showing just how shitty these people are. But "Oh no, muh poor nazis!" whatever you say. Christopher Cantwell is on record saying he wants violence. There were people within that rally going on about wanting a race war, we can go on and on.



                        "The majority of the time, they're peaceful". Got anything to back that up, buddy? Why do they show up dressed like ninjas, if that's the case? Why were they labeled as a domestic terrorist group?
                        I find it really fascinating how you're equating the entirety of the left with Antifa, yet you seem to have a more nuanced perspective on the alt-right and how "not all of them" are terrorist, despite them having far higher numbers than the left. You also ignore how the vast majority of the left disavow Antifa's violence, yet you "recognize" the Alt-Right also disavows extremist(they don't).

                        Then earlier you said you don't care about FBI stats, yet bring up Antifa being labeled a domestic terrorist group despite that they were labeled such by the FBI. This is Sargon of Acuck levels of dishonesty, except even worse because you're not even being paid to defend right-wing interest, you do it for free.



                        More proof you've been listening to lefties, lol

                        Who fed you this one? Drallasta? CV? In any case, which study are we talking about here, exactly? Please tell me you at least know that much and aren't just regurgitating talking points without a second thought yet again.
                        No, I personally checked all of his sources and couldn't find anything peer-reviewed. Not only that but upon further inspection, he's a dishonest piece of shit and doesn't give all the information in his videos, there's an excellent critique on him by a small channel I found a while back calling him out for what he is. There's a plethora, I don't know the names off the top of my head but there's definitely the stats he gives on apartheid and housing discrimination back in the 50's and 60's.
                        Last edited by Tezcatlipoca; June 11th, 2019, 10:30 AM.

                        Comment


                        • RussianCoffeeAddict
                          Editing a comment
                          "Uhhh? No European country is actually socialist, they're mostly social-democracies."

                          You know...it's funny. Because I've seen both Lefties and Righties make this mistake; Righties to slam Social Democracy, and Lefties to try and elevate it (by mistaking it for Socialism, lol).

                        Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post

                        Just curious, what’s your problems with CP...?
                        this man right here officer

                        Comment


                        • Aure0lin
                          Aure0lin commented
                          Editing a comment
                          pssst CP is also an acronym for underage smut

                        • RussianCoffeeAddict
                          Editing a comment
                          ...

                          You know, at this point, I could smash my head into the keyboard and the acronym would still represent some sort of sexualized degeneracy that someone else already came up with...

                        • Aure0lin
                          Aure0lin commented
                          Editing a comment
                          cp is a pretty famous one though, along with its other qualities

                        Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                        Do please name something else I've gotten wrong without pulling something out of a hat? Regardless, I'm not trying to "hold on" to the figure, I have little to no investment in the number. If there's anyone who got it wrong, it's wikipedia, not me.
                        Again? I mean, it's grown quite a bit since last time, but: the idea that nationalism and supremacy are the same, that the alt-right pretends to be free speech absolutists, that they're against socialist ideas like regulating social media platforms, that the "vast majority" are violent sociopaths, and in this post you're going to add a few more.

                        I mean, you say you have no investment, but you also want to look for the source later because it was the crux of your argument that the KKK was a menace and that its membership is rising exponentially, and then we found out that the complete opposite was true and the KKK has been on a steady decline for years now. By the way, I guess that's another entry on the "things Tez got wrong ITT" list.

                        As for "Wiki got it wrong, not me", that's just pedantry. You got an unsubstantiated stat, you made an erroneous claim that tried to use said stat, thus you were wrong.




                        I'm just gonna take this comment seriously and ask you to elaborate on how the "far-left" has ruined political discourse this day and age. You're wrong, but I want to hear it
                        They created the divide that led to an opening for spooky "Nazis" like Spencer to gain a foothold. You've admitted it yourself in past conversations, the alt-right grew as a reaction to far-left ideologues.



                        You're using your favorite fallacy and making yet another false equivalence, it's almost like the opposite of a slippery slope. "Well we also had slavery so that means a nation of immigrants is also an outdated concept!" so therefore what? We should be okay with the far-right wanting to forcibly make America majority white?
                        I'm not using it as a justification for anything, nor am I invoking a genetic fallacy. I'm showing you why it doesn't make sense to use it as a justification for gods sake tez i thought English was your first language what the fuck is going on


                        Oh but they very much do, why do you think they whine and cry whenever a minority gets a lead roll in a movie or tv show? In any case, can you substantiate anything you're saying? Can you give me anything outside of the alt-right circle you fraternize with?
                        because they dont want to share a country with minorities, period. they want to be homogeneous, not dominant. I'm giving you the literal definition of what they describe themselves as, open a dictionary, i promise it wont hurt goddamnit tez


                        Uhhh? No european country is actually socialist, they're mostly social-democracies.

                        So you're literally admitting that every source you have is biased in favor of right-wing fear mongering then? Pick a country that you think is somehow being ruined by immigrants and we'll go from there.
                        You sound really American right now.

                        There's a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism, that's the first thing.

                        The second thing is, I honestly don't know why the fuck you're putting these strictures about "right-winger sources, reeee" if you care about data. If I were to come here, and I were to say "give me a study that says 'migrants DON't inrease crime, oh but it can't come from a biased liberal source", what the FUCK would there be left to talk about at that point? I'd be signalling to you that I actually don't give a shit and I just want to hold onto my beliefs.

                        Notice I DIDN'T do that on my end, though. Notice I asked you to just bring me a study, and it can be ANY study at all from ANY source so we can evaluate it and see if it stands by merits alone. You know why?! Because I don't CARE what the source is as long as it's valid and it can stand against scrutiny, because I'm not an ideologue who IMMEDIATELY starts discounting people before they're even brought to the table. It's retarded. Just show me something you think is appropriate and we can go over it together, I promise I won't complain just because it's from the most libcucky source you can find.



                        So what is this weird double-think thing you have going on here? You seem to have this galaxy brain take of "everything is a social construct!" yet you get triggered when someone says race is one too and therefore isn't real from an objective standard?
                        Hey, whoa

                        Tez

                        Are you a pro basketball player, because that pivot was insane

                        I take it your lack of a direct response means you've finally realized there isn't anything razor-precise about the construct of "door".

                        Anyway, the reason I take issue with it is that it's a meaningless criticism. You're trying to deny the existence of racial differences solely because "muh social constructs" and ignoring that these same "problems" exist with virtually everything we assign a word or category to. It'd be like saying "door isn't a valid distinction because of all these grey areas between them and windows, gates, etc". Which I was actually going to go into in the next step, but you didn't even get that far and instead used "typically" in your definition of a door.


                        Sure and our biology works very differently compared to a lot of different animals
                        yea dude, our anatomy is magical and has a soul, no other species are unique from each other its just us - what the veritable fuck are you talking about tez



                        You were taking interpreting that SIRE study as black, white, asian, all being under one race though.
                        Do you think acknowledging the continent of North America means I don't think Philadelphia exists?


                        How else would they tell them apart Helly? I wasn't even referring to ancient-colonist, I'm talking about your average layman that thinks a black person is anyone with big lips and dark skin.
                        We're not talking about laypeople, though. If that's your new standard, I guess we're gonna start doing away with the overwhelming majority of subspecies in the whole entire animal kingdom.


                        And in that same vein, if the left is so violent then why is far-right extremist terrorism still far FAR higher than left-wing terrorism? I'm not sure why you're trying to obfuscate, literally, anyone can make a single google search and see that you're dead wrong. You ever stop to maybe think that this Antifa shit is sensationalism by the far-right to make it seem like the right are more victimized than they let on?

                        This is hilarious, you literally had people in the Charlottesville rally calling Dylan Roof a hero, there's a whole ass video on youtube with a collection of footage from that rally showing just how shitty these people are. But "Oh no, muh poor nazis!" whatever you say. Christopher Cantwell is on record saying he wants violence. There were people within that rally going on about wanting a race war, we can go on and on.
                        Cantwell is a literal Nazi, there you go again conflating two distinct political ideologies.

                        Violence doesn't always mean terrorism. I'm not just talking about the BLM serial cop shooters or the random Bernie supporter who tried to kill a right-wing congressman, I'm also just talking about random fits and riots, the "punch a Nazi" meme, the frankly childish throwing of beverages at UKIP candidates. All of these things generally seem to fly under the radar for the left because they just happen so often. They generally don't care, they sometimes even openly laugh about it on social media and pass around GIFs of right-wingers being publicly assaulted with little to no repercussions whatsoever, they make "figurative" posts that encourage white genocide "figuratively" and don't get fired from their jobs. It's insane. Meanwhile, one Chris Cantwell who isn't part of the alt-right tries to incite violence and still it gets pinned on all of the alt-right. What sense does that make?


                        I find it really fascinating how you're equating the entirety of the left with Antifa, yet you seem to have a more nuanced perspective on the alt-right and how "not all of them" are terrorist, despite them having far higher numbers than the left. You also ignore how the vast majority of the left disavow Antifa's violence, yet you "recognize" the Alt-Right also disavows extremist(they don't).

                        Then earlier you said you don't care about FBI stats, yet bring up Antifa being labeled a domestic terrorist group despite that they were labeled such by the FBI. This is Sargon of Acuck levels of dishonesty, except even worse because you're not even being paid to defend right-wing interest, you do it for free.
                        In that specific section, we were talking about Antifa.

                        Do they mostly disavow it? I dunno dude, I saw a lot of Spencer GIFs where he got punched in the face all over social media and even on this site. I think I'm just gonna be really annoying and assert that most of them endorse AntiFa instead based on my feelios.


                        I didn't care because it's not reflective of the majority, that's why they're not labeled monolithicly as domestic terrorists.



                        No, I personally checked all of his sources and couldn't find anything peer-reviewed. Not only that but upon further inspection, he's a dishonest piece of shit and doesn't give all the information in his videos, there's an excellent critique on him by a small channel I found a while back calling him out for what he is. There's a plethora, I don't know the names off the top of my head but there's definitely the stats he gives on apartheid and housing discrimination back in the 50's and 60's.
                        tez, what does "peer-review" mean to you? I can already tell this is going to be another pain in the ass, but just go ahead and lay that out for me so I can dispell this mythos.


                        Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                        Completely denouncing every bit of evidence I present WITHOUT any counter evidence to point to the contrary is not logic; it's outright denial.
                        Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                        I'm sure you'll come up with some debunking excuse.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Helly View Post

                          Again? I mean, it's grown quite a bit since last time, but: the idea that nationalism and supremacy are the same, that the alt-right pretends to be free speech absolutists, that they're against socialist ideas like regulating social media platforms, that the "vast majority" are violent sociopaths, and in this post you're going to add a few more.

                          I mean, you say you have no investment, but you also want to look for the source later because it was the crux of your argument that the KKK was a menace and that its membership is rising exponentially, and then we found out that the complete opposite was true and the KKK has been on a steady decline for years now. By the way, I guess that's another entry on the "things Tez got wrong ITT" list.

                          As for "Wiki got it wrong, not me", that's just pedantry. You got an unsubstantiated stat, you made an erroneous claim that tried to use said stat, thus you were wrong.
                          Oh we aren't just talking about nationalism my guy, we're talking about race-based nationalism, in which said nationalist want their country to be majority white at the expense of brownies, you continue to play dumb though. Again, you claim I'm wrong about the free speech thing but you can't give me anything substantial beyond "my fees fees tell me no.", but even in that regard you admit they're dishonest shitheads that only use free speech for their own gain and you see no problem with it. I literally never even claimed they were against socialist ideas, you're just building strawmen at this point. Yeah, they are my guy, they're a hate group, keep pretending like they aren', your stock depends on it I guess.

                          I want to look for it later specifically because it wasn't the crux of shit, the KKK is just a part of the symptom and the example of many far-right groups that I lumped together. We could leave the KKK out of this entirely and my point still stands, you want to pretend like it's the crux of my argument so you can have an easy strawman to beat up. The same reason why you lasered in on the alt-right with this "friendly neighborhood nazi" trite despite me never mentioning them explicitly, regardless of how absurd that stance even is.





                          They created the divide that led to an opening for spooky "Nazis" like Spencer to gain a foothold. You've admitted it yourself in past conversations, the alt-right grew as a reaction to far-left ideologues.
                          Oh my god...lol.

                          Yes, I called them reactionaries because reactionaries ALWAYS arise at the sight of social change, you realize that right? This is like blaming black civil rights for the rise of the KKK during the '60s, but it honestly wouldn't shock me if you were to legit blame MLK at this point for his own assassination, his fault for being an uppitty negro I suppose, just like it's somehow the left's fault for reactionaries getting their panties in a bunch.




                          I'm not using it as a justification for anything, nor am I invoking a genetic fallacy. I'm showing you why it doesn't make sense to use it as a justification for gods sake tez i thought English was your first language what the fuck is going on
                          Should we also toss out the constitution while we're at it since according to you it's not justification for anything?



                          because they dont want to share a country with minorities, period. they want to be homogeneous, not dominant. I'm giving you the literal definition of what they describe themselves as, open a dictionary, i promise it wont hurt goddamnit tez
                          You seem to be pretty fucking clueless for a dude that hangs out with nazis on the regular, their main goal is a nearly 100% white ethnostate, you're right. Here is the thing, they want that ethnostate to be America and if they can't get their white supremacist Disneyland then they at LEAST want said land to be an "unquestioned majority" at this point I'm getting sick and tired of this hearsay back and forth because you're just going to reply with "but that's not what my nazis friends tell me, why would anyone lie on the internet?" so let's just hear it from the horses mouth.



                          You seem to not know very much about the idealogy you defend, else you'd know keeping America majority white is apart of it.



                          You sound really American right now.

                          There's a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism, that's the first thing.
                          I'm confused, when have I said otherwise?

                          The second thing is, I honestly don't know why the fuck you're putting these strictures about "right-winger sources, reeee" if you care about data. If I were to come here, and I were to say "give me a study that says 'migrants DON't inrease crime, oh but it can't come from a biased liberal source", what the FUCK would there be left to talk about at that point? I'd be signalling to you that I actually don't give a shit and I just want to hold onto my beliefs.

                          Notice I DIDN'T do that on my end, though. Notice I asked you to just bring me a study, and it can be ANY study at all from ANY source so we can evaluate it and see if it stands by merits alone. You know why?! Because I don't CARE what the source is as long as it's valid and it can stand against scrutiny, because I'm not an ideologue who IMMEDIATELY starts discounting people before they're even brought to the table. It's retarded. Just show me something you think is appropriate and we can go over it together, I promise I won't complain just because it's from the most libcucky source you can find.
                          Because right-wing sources tend to be biased and don't actually present all the facts at face value, there's always a bit of fear-mongering sprinkled in. You clearly don't have any non-biased sources jjudging by your reaction, just give me the raw data that shows a jump in crime from the migrant crisis to now, if you can't do that and there has to be an asterisk at the end of everything you link then that should tell you something. Trust me, it's not as hard as you think to provide a non-biased article, especially if the said article is looking at raw data.

                          I've never even linked you a biased source unless the FBI are somehow "libcucks" this day and age.




                          I take it your lack of a direct response means you've finally realized there isn't anything razor-precise about the construct of "door".

                          Anyway, the reason I take issue with it is that it's a meaningless criticism. You're trying to deny the existence of racial differences solely because "muh social constructs" and ignoring that these same "problems" exist with virtually everything we assign a word or category to. It'd be like saying "door isn't a valid distinction because of all these grey areas between them and windows, gates, etc". Which I was actually going to go into in the next step, but you didn't even get that far and instead used "typically" in your definition of a door.
                          Buddy, if I ask someone to describe a door they aren't going to give some pretentious pseudo-intellectual answer about how maybe a "window" can also count as a door and you know it. Everyone has the general idea of what a door is, everyone has the general idea of what a floor is, we don't have to speculate.

                          "The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race." - A Hochman

                          if this doesn't describe you to a T, then I don't know what does.


                          yea dude, our anatomy is magical and has a soul, no other species are unique from each other its just us - what the veritable fuck are you talking about tez
                          So humans and chimpunks, what's the difference I guess?

                          Do you realize every human being on the planet shares the same genetic ancestor? I'm not talking about a group either, I mean a single individual that was born thousands of years goa.




                          Do you think acknowledging the continent of North America means I don't think Philadelphia exists?
                          Not even sure what you're trying to say, let me ask you this, do you think nationality is genetic?

                          Let's take it even further, are the Amish people of a different race?



                          We're not talking about laypeople, though. If that's your new standard, I guess we're gonna start doing away with the overwhelming majority of subspecies in the whole entire animal kingdom.
                          Too bad humans don't have enough genetic distance from each other to be classified as "sub-species" though.



                          Cantwell is a literal Nazi, there you go again conflating two distinct political ideologies.

                          Violence doesn't always mean terrorism. I'm not just talking about the BLM serial cop shooters or the random Bernie supporter who tried to kill a right-wing congressman, I'm also just talking about random fits and riots, the "punch a Nazi" meme, the frankly childish throwing of beverages at UKIP candidates. All of these things generally seem to fly under the radar for the left because they just happen so often. They generally don't care, they sometimes even openly laugh about it on social media and pass around GIFs of right-wingers being publicly assaulted with little to no repercussions whatsoever, they make "figurative" posts that encourage white genocide "figuratively" and don't get fired from their jobs. It's insane. Meanwhile, one Chris Cantwell who isn't part of the alt-right tries to incite violence and still it gets pinned on all of the alt-right. What sense does that make?
                          Cantwell identifies with the Alt-Right and I didn't see anyone at the rally rejecting his presence.

                          Except for everything from breaking windows to assaulting people is counted as terrorism under the eyes the law, and no they don't happen so often. Is there any doubt at this point that you're completely brainwashed by right-wing propaganda? You're literally inching ever so close to becoming the Dave Rubin of T5 and you don't even realize it. None of what you said has come from any objective fact, just you ogling social media post and making a blanket statement about the entirety of the left, which if that's the case then everything you said fucking pales in comparison to the shit the alt-right post on their social platforms. From brown people being hurt and shot to jokes about torturing blacks. They're making fun of "white genocide" because it's a joke of a conspiracy theory and isn't actually genocide, nor real for that matter.



                          In that specific section, we were talking about Antifa.

                          Do they mostly disavow it? I dunno dude, I saw a lot of Spencer GIFs where he got punched in the face all over social media and even on this site. I think I'm just gonna be really annoying and assert that most of them endorse AntiFa instead based on my feelios.
                          Which I'd be in agreement that Antifa should be disavowed and should be stopped.

                          The thing is they are not as big of a threat s right-wing terrorist groups and they're a small drop in a massive pond, literally every expert agrees that Antifa is of least concern as far as terrorism goes. I mean you have no argument beyond your fee fees so it checks out. I have yet to see data from you that shows that Antifa is a bigger threat than the far-right.

                          tez, what does "peer-review" mean to you? I can already tell this is going to be another pain in the ass, but just go ahead and lay that out for me so I can dispell this mythos.
                          It simply means the evaluation by other experts in the same field.
                          Last edited by Tezcatlipoca; June 11th, 2019, 09:08 PM.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Post-Crisis Shob View Post

                            Take me up on that offer

                            Imma educate your impressionable young mind if its the last thing I do
                            Don't bother. He's a lost cause. He cares more about cows in farms than people trying to survive.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                              Oh we aren't just talking about nationalism my guy, we're talking about race-based nationalism, in which said nationalist want their country to be majority white at the expense of brownies, you continue to play dumb though. Again, you claim I'm wrong about the free speech thing but you can't give me anything substantial beyond "my fees fees tell me no.", but even in that regard you admit they're dishonest shitheads that only use free speech for their own gain and you see no problem with it. I literally never even claimed they were against socialist ideas, you're just building strawmen at this point. Yeah, they are my guy, they're a hate group, keep pretending like they aren', your stock depends on it I guess.

                              I want to look for it later specifically because it wasn't the crux of shit, the KKK is just a part of the symptom and the example of many far-right groups that I lumped together. We could leave the KKK out of this entirely and my point still stands, you want to pretend like it's the crux of my argument so you can have an easy strawman to beat up. The same reason why you lasered in on the alt-right with this "friendly neighborhood nazi" trite despite me never mentioning them explicitly, regardless of how absurd that stance even is.
                              I shortened it to nationalism to save time, quite being dumb. I gave you a verbatim quote from the main figurehead himself who has the continued financial support of most of the alt-right, which indicates they agree with him and his views. This "hiding your power level" autism taken from one single post on 4chan or whatever is retarded and was never heeded by anyone, everyone from Spencer to Enoch openly talks about their opinions and they aren't sneaky about it.

                              Please stop selectively reading the first half of sentences. I specified that it was the crux of the argument that the KKK was growing and that it was a threat. It's steadily shrinking, your assertion in regards to the KKK hasn't a leg to stand on



                              Oh my god...lol.

                              Yes, I called them reactionaries because reactionaries ALWAYS arise at the sight of social change, you realize that right? This is like blaming black civil rights for the rise of the KKK during the '60s, but it honestly wouldn't shock me if you were to legit blame MLK at this point for his own assassination, his fault for being an uppitty negro I suppose, just like it's somehow the left's fault for reactionaries getting their panties in a bunch.
                              Do you really think the far left can be likened to the civil rights movement? The far left, the people who antagonize literally everyone to the right of them? The same people who hijacked a Bernie Sanders event and hate him to this day even though he was a civil rights activist? Really?


                              Should we also toss out the constitution while we're at it since according to you it's not justification for anything?
                              If the only justification for using it is historical precedent, then yea, you should probably revisit the constitutiin and make changes to it. Which is precisely what has happened several times in the US's history.



                              You seem to be pretty fucking clueless for a dude that hangs out with nazis on the regular, their main goal is a nearly 100% white ethnostate, you're right. Here is the thing, they want that ethnostate to be America and if they can't get their white supremacist Disneyland then they at LEAST want said land to be an "unquestioned majority" at this point I'm getting sick and tired of this hearsay back and forth because you're just going to reply with "but that's not what my nazis friends tell me, why would anyone lie on the internet?" so let's just hear it from the horses mouth.

                              [video=youtube;fWCPMvWo5qQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWCPMvWo5qQ[/video]

                              You seem to not know very much about the idealogy you defend, else you'd know keeping America majority white is apart of it.
                              This is quite possibly the most disappointing response you've posted so far. I've listened to this clip several times now hoping you'd actually posted something that could challenge me, but there's nothing indicating supremacy in it. Even the caller was able to pick up on the fact that Jared's vision of an ethnostate is one that isolates itself completely from outside groups, this is just completely ridiculous.

                              Even if that weren't the case, this clip is so old it could have been handwaved away as irrelevant, but I don't even need to do that to show that it doesn't support your claims.


                              I'm confused, when have I said otherwise?

                              Because right-wing sources tend to be biased and don't actually present all the facts at face value, there's always a bit of fear-mongering sprinkled in. You clearly don't have any non-biased sources jjudging by your reaction, just give me the raw data that shows a jump in crime from the migrant crisis to now, if you can't do that and there has to be an asterisk at the end of everything you link then that should tell you something. Trust me, it's not as hard as you think to provide a non-biased article, especially if the said article is looking at raw data.

                              I've never even linked you a biased source unless the FBI are somehow "libcucks" this day and age.
                              That's the implication when you say things like "no euro countries are socialist, they're all social democracies." Sweden is a democratic socialist country.

                              The same can be said for left-wing and "unbiased" sources. I mean, how many times has the term "white supremacist neo-Nazi" been used by CNN or BBC to describe white nationalist figureheads? There's no such thing as an unbiased news outlet.

                              I didn't call the FBI libcucks.


                              Buddy, if I ask someone to describe a door they aren't going to give some pretentious pseudo-intellectual answer about how maybe a "window" can also count as a door and you know it. Everyone has the general idea of what a door is, everyone has the general idea of what a floor is, we don't have to speculate.

                              "The problem with weak versions of racial naturalism is that they do not contrast with anti-realism about biological race. When race naturalists weaken their position they end up agreeing with their opponents about human biology, and defending a trivialised definition of race." - A Hochman

                              if this doesn't describe you to a T, then I don't know what does.
                              Sure, but I could say the same about races. It's really funny, your little outburst perfectly illustrates my own frustration when you try to be really dumb about race when you supposedly believe in the validity of approximate truths - AKA the scientific method.

                              We have a pretty good idea of what a black person is, we have a good idea of what a white person is, just like we have a good idea of what doprs and windows and gates are. All these concepts have been proven to have a genetic component as well, we've demonstrated this repeatedly through cluster analyses. If it were all random and you really had an equal chance of being more genetically similar to a member of another racial group as you did to your own, then these results would not be replicable. And yet we find them, over and over, whether you tell the computer to sort the data into 3 categories or into 7, or you tell it to find a number of categories on its own which typically ends up mapping onto geographical races perfectly.


                              That is one spicy take, I wonder what his thoughts would be on how we distinguish subspecies from each other. Lol. Hochman is a retard on this subject and he's attacking a strawman, don't cite him or you'll end up making a mess for yourself again.


                              So humans and chimpunks, what's the difference I guess?

                              Do you realize every human being on the planet shares the same genetic ancestor? I'm not talking about a group either, I mean a single individual that was born thousands of years goa.
                              Yea, this is evolution 101. Did you think this was unique to humans, or.....? Have you never heard of the Cambrian Explosion?



                              Not even sure what you're trying to say, let me ask you this, do you think nationality is genetic?

                              Let's take it even further, are the Amish people of a different race?
                              I was making an analogy. You seemed to think that recognizing monolithic racial groups meant that I didn't acknowledge the smaller geographical races each one could be further divided into. Hence I asked "do you think acknowledging the North American continent means I don't think Philadelphia exists".



                              Too bad humans don't have enough genetic distance from each other to be classified as "sub-species" though.
                              That depends on who you ask. Let me remind you of the article you yourself posted the last time you tried to invoke Star Trek science, wherein researchers were using genetic analysis to divide subspecies into smaller and smaller groups, with variations much smaller than those found between existing racial categories. The response from biologists was mixed, but the article highlighted those who were unhappy with the science you were praising, and some of them used the much more archaic standard of just eyeballing things. Now, regardless of which standard you pick, you're going to have problems because because human races satisfy both of these criterion. Ultimately, though, none of this should even matter and you should be happy with best-fit genetic clusters if you truly believe in the scientific method.


                              Cantwell identifies with the Alt-Right and I didn't see anyone at the rally rejecting his presence.

                              Except for everything from breaking windows to assaulting people is counted as terrorism under the eyes the law, and no they don't happen so often. Is there any doubt at this point that you're completely brainwashed by right-wing propaganda? You're literally inching ever so close to becoming the Dave Rubin of T5 and you don't even realize it. None of what you said has come from any objective fact, just you ogling social media post and making a blanket statement about the entirety of the left, which if that's the case then everything you said fucking pales in comparison to the shit the alt-right post on their social platforms. From brown people being hurt and shot to jokes about torturing blacks. They're making fun of "white genocide" because it's a joke of a conspiracy theory and isn't actually genocide, nor real for that matter.

                              Which I'd be in agreement that Antifa should be disavowed and should be stopped.

                              The thing is they are not as big of a threat s right-wing terrorist groups and they're a small drop in a massive pond, literally every expert agrees that Antifa is of least concern as far as terrorism goes. I mean you have no argument beyond your fee fees so it checks out. I have yet to see data from you that shows that Antifa is a bigger threat than the far-right.
                              Even assuming that's the case, the alt-right sure as shit doesn't identify with him. The whole reason Nazis like Cantwell and his supporters started attacking the alt-right was because they (the alt-right) continually rejected them, though their efforts to distance themselves from Cantwell's ilk would begin doubly in earnest after the horror that was Charlottesville, which prompted a bitter mass flagging campaign on various alt-right videos including those of Ryan Faulk.

                              Well, hold your horses there, fella, you keep conflating all these things together and it's just making things more confusing than they need to be. Not every act of terrorism and political violence is classified as a "terrorist attack". If an AnCap breaks some guy's windows, that's not going to be added to the tally of left-wing terrorist attacks, it's absolutely ludicrous to think so. That's why they're called domestic terrorists - they don't do many grandiose terrorists attacks like blowing up abortion clinics, but they still go around intimidating civilians, causing mass property damage, dragging disabled people out of wheelchairs, punching black people in the face when they don't agree with them, the list goes on and on. If white nationalists were doing this type of stuff every time they made a public appearance, we would have heard about it by now, but instead we get a few lone wolf attacks dotting here and there that are disavowed by the alt-right. All things considered, I'd be much safer being a brownie posing as a leftist ideologue and approaching a white nationalist on the street than I would being a brownie posing as a milquetoast conservative approaching a member of AntiFa.

                              It simply means the evaluation by other experts in the same field.
                              Well, that's what it's supposed to be in theory. The reality is alot less impressive.

                              As someone who hopes to study and become a pharmaceutical scientist one day, let me tell you that peering into the various stings conducted on not just science journals in general, but also journals relating to medicine - the science that is supposed to improve well-being and save lives - has been extremely disappointing to me. Here are a few stings, along with some very scathing reviews on science journals and peer-review by a few veterans of this noble field.


                              Randy Schekman, Nobel prize winner lashing out viciously at various science journals and swearing off of them.

                              https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...damage-science


                              One cheeky Robert Smith finds various issues with peer-review, perhaps the most disheartening discovery being an apparent bias against papers that come from less prestigious institutions. Evidently, peer-reviewers and journals are not safe from mythos, either.

                              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/


                              British Medical Journal peer-reviewers fail to catch many critical errors

                              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586872/


                              There was another one I used to have bookmarked where the guy went HAM about how the reviewers were often juniors to the people whose paper they were reviewing, but I don't remember the name of the guy.

                              Anyway, the point I'm making here is that there are all sorts of biases and horrible malpractices that bastardize the concept of peer-review. Whether or not you get published in a journal is not indicative of how valid your work is, it's just kind of a proxy for people who don't have the time or interest in sifting through the data themselves. And it's not inherently wrong to do so, but they will be exposing themselves to the biases and errors of the reviewers.



                              Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                              Completely denouncing every bit of evidence I present WITHOUT any counter evidence to point to the contrary is not logic; it's outright denial.
                              Originally posted by Kajin_Style
                              I'm sure you'll come up with some debunking excuse.

                              Comment


                                You two need to get a bed, lol.

                                Comment


                                  can you guys stop, this is embarassing

                                  Comment

                                  Working...
                                  X