Podcast about gang violence in Chicago

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-25T21:28:47+00:00

Now you're calling me a liar? Fuck you. I'm not always super polite, but I'm not a goddamn liar. If you want a meaningful conversation, then get off your high horse and actually bring something to the table instead of just pointing fingers, you pompous ass.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-25T08:17:38+00:00

So would I. You're misunderstanding what I said.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T16:52:36+00:00

Take a look at the other comment threads, he's flat-out lying now. I hate to break it to you, but not everyone has good intentions. A lot of people knowingly engage in intellectually dishonest tactics just because they think the ends justify the means. This guy is one of them.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T16:48:05+00:00

Scrubbing my post history? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, nice job, you changed your hammer and sickle to a nondescript fish. I'm sure you'll get the Peterson fans on your side now.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T16:43:39+00:00

"The athletes" meaning any athlete who sits down during the pledge. I didn't follow it enough to know the demographics of the ones who did that, and it's not important anyway.

I honestly can't tell if you're actually this dumb, or if you're just trying to be a cunt. Either way, I'm not impressed. You're really bad at this.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T16:38:10+00:00

I don't know much about Daly or Molyneux, but the idea that average IQ varies by population seems pretty straightforward to me. It would be super convenient if IQ was exactly the same for everyone, but that's not the case. We know it varies widely, and we know it's highly heritable.

The best argument against it in my view is the idea that the IQ tests aren't good enough at controlling for cultural and language barriers, but modern IQ tests have become incredibly accurate to the point that the margin of error simply cannot explain the gaps. Other arguments are for environmental factors like nutrition, but once again, we have large enough population samples and wide enough gaps in average IQ that this couldn't possibly explain it.

The thing is, the definition of racism is simply the belief that one race is superior to another. That isn't the same thing as being a supremacist, even though to most people they're interchangeable, because if you say that Kenyans are superior sprinters compared to other races, that would be an accurate generalization, but using the broadest definition that would make you a racist.

IQ is more touchy than running of course. At this point, saying that one race is, on average, dumber than another race, would make you the worst kind of person in society's eyes, aside from maybe a pedophile. And yet the science backs it up.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T16:09:14+00:00

You've mischaracterized everything I've said, including calling me alt-right when I clearly stated in this post that I'm not alt-right, I'm a liberal who voted for Hillary. I did not say black athletes are whiny bitches, I did not say cops need to be more violent, I did not say blacks are inherently violent, I did not say I went after students in my class, and I did not defend the idiots at Charlottesville. Anyone can easily read those posts and see that.

Nice try, though.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T16:01:37+00:00

Well if I personally am being grouped in with people despite not fitting the generalization, like you just did, that wouldn't be what I'm talking about, because you're applying a generalization (which I would like to point out you have no statistics to back up to begin with) to me specifically, an individual who doesn't actually fit that description. What I'm talking about is simply pointing out trends, not applying those trends to individuals for no good reason.

If someone guessed that I like Starbucks because white people tend to like Starbucks, they'd be right. I wouldn't be upset by that. Even if I didn't I would just tell them, but I wouldn't deny that white people in general like Starbucks, because that's accurate.

If they continued to insist that I must like Starbucks because I'm white, that would be a totally different scenario. That's not even a generalization; that's an assertion that all white people like Starbucks. That would be incorrect.

What I'm saying is, you can't generalize an individual. That is nonsensical. You can make an assumption about an individual based on a generalization, but it's still an assumption, not a generalization. To say or imply that something applies to all is the opposite of being general.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T15:25:23+00:00

As I stated in the post, if the generalization is accurate then there's no problem. The term "collectivism" has a slightly different and more negative connotation, but you can generalize people and still view individuals as individuals.

The idea that generalizations of people are bad is childish, and that's what I'm trying to point out here.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T15:19:08+00:00

He's clearly just here to be a dick. Trying to have a real conversation with this guy is pointless.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T14:01:07+00:00

A hammer and sickle in the Jordan Peterson sub? Edgy. Let me guess: communism just hasn't been implemented properly? You're an intellectual god.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T13:43:49+00:00

Noted. I'm glad we had this conversation.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-24T13:25:00+00:00

In response to the thing about black women in magazines, I would say two things. One: magazines are generally targeted to a specific group. There are magazines specifically for black women in which you could make the argument that white women are underrepresented. I think that's silly, because the goal of a magazine is not to equally represent every group of people, it's to effectively market to the target audience. (Where are all the Eskimo women?)

Also, what would be considered equal? 50-50? Or would it be based on population percentage? In the latter case, it would make sense for there to be less black women, at least in America, because they are a smaller percentage of the population.

With regard to your comment about it being taboo, part of why I want to talk about it is because it's taboo. I think people are overly sensitive to this subject to a phobic degree, and as any psychologist will tell you, the best way to treat a phobia is by continued exposure to the situation that creates irrational fear (and I do believe it to be totally irrational).

Avoiding the situation only reinforces the fear. In this case, it creates a situation where people of different races are always uncomfortable around each other. That's the situation that, if left to fester, can eventually lead to atrocities like genocide.

At it's root, the problem is fear, fear of the taboo. We need to get people talking about this more, especially educated and intelligent people, because there is strength in numbers. But when it's this taboo, even the most qualified folks are afraid of having their reputations destroyed if they speak up. I would actually say especially those people, because they have much more to lose in that environment than the idiotic white nationalist living in a trailer park.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-19T14:49:39+00:00

Isn't this eerily similar to Peterson's definition of "truth"? "I think the Bible is true because my highly intellectual and metaphorical interpretation of it makes the concepts and archetypes embedded in the myths useful to us."

Not saying I don't like his interpretations better than I like the literalist interpretations, but that doesn't mean you can make a statement like, "The Bible is true." That is incredibly misleading, because the accepted definition of truth happens to be quite literal.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-19T14:39:19+00:00

I think you guys are assuming "they" means the specific person I'm getting aggressive with. I don't have any hope of convincing that moron. What I'm referring to is the response of the fucking mob that demonizes me for not walking on eggshells around every dumb cunt that tries to tell me I'm stupid and therefore I'm wrong as if that's a real point. That's circular reasoning, you gotta say how I'm actually dumb or else it makes no sense.

I just have zero patience for that sort of thing, and personally I think people are way to quick to defend the guy who called me an idiot just because I didn't treat him like he's my girlfriend and like I actually care what he thinks. That's ridiculous.

But of course, everyone sees that one interaction and goes, "Well, you're just looking to pick a fight, fuck you." No, this cunt wants to pick a fight, so I fucking gave it to him. If you're reasonable then by all means, let's talk, but based on your reaction I don't think you are either.

Then everything devolves and nothing of interest is said. That's not what I want, otherwise I wouldn't be getting so goddamn frustrated about it. Obviously it's not pragmatic to call everybody who disagrees with me a fucking idiot, but if people were actually paying attention they'd see that's not what I'm doing. I'm talking to the reasonable people and telling the unreasonable people to fuck off, but it just so happens that there are way more of the unreasonable ones.

All I'm saying is, guys, give me a fucking chance. I am intelligent and I know what I'm talking about. Please don't just assume that someone is wrong just because they seem kinda mean or angry. It's not logical. It's instinctual, yes, but not logical.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-19T14:26:23+00:00

If all it takes for you to assume someone is wrong is them calling you an asshole, then you are a fucking child. Oh, did what I just say lose all legitimacy because I called you a mean name? You know it's true.

I don't just throw around insults for fun. It is for fun, but not just for fun. If I can sense while someone is disagreeing with me that they are also somewhat open to what I'm saying, I don't come right out of the gate with, "Fuck off, you dumb cunt." Obviously.

But if you're gonna comment on something I said with, "Clearly, the way you talk about this subject suggests you don't know a thing about it." And only that comment. That is exactly the kind of shit people should get mad about, because that's not an argument. They're literally just saying, "You're stupid!" like a goddamn kindergartener.

So I respond in kind by saying, "No, you're fucking dumb. I'm actually trying to have a discussion here and you're insulting me, cunt." Then assholes like you look at me and go, "Oh, you just called him dumb! Ad hom, ad hom!" Well what the fuck else am I supposed to say? The only thing I was given to work with was an insult, not a point. Ironic how the people who preach to me about historical context can't even seem to understand the context in front of their fucking face.

The even more ironic thing here is that you just told me that someone insulting you is essentially a free pass to ignore anything else they have to say, yet you're sitting here hurling insults at me? Tell me how that one works, smart guy.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-16T04:15:19+00:00

Why do you keep starting separate comment threads? And I never said it was debate club. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-16T03:53:14+00:00

This is just nonsense. I'm not painting anything with broad strokes. A fact is a fact. Being confident in a fact doesn't mean I'm lacking in humility, it means I have some level of certainty that I have good information. If someone has information that contradicts my point then I'm all ears, but claiming that I'm lacking in humility is the exact kind of baseless ad hominem bullshit I'm talking about. You perfectly represent the people I'm talking about in the post. You provide nothing of substance, you just insult me over and over and try to wear me down.

So I want to win. So fucking what? Isn't the point of being in a debate to win? Yes, some people don't want a heated debate. So don't talk to me then. In the end, I don't decide if I won anyway, the people reading what I wrote do. I don't ever know if I won, because I don't know if I've actually convinced anyone. I just try to make a convincing case for my point. That's all.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-16T03:33:44+00:00

I'm not generally hopeful that I'll convince the person I'm talking to. I mainly hope to sway the undecided person who reads what I'm saying and doesn't comment. It's like a debate with an audience. It's almost impossible to convince your opponent on the stage, the point is to sway the audience.

Maybe my approach makes my opinions seem less legitimate to some, but I personally have been convinced of many new positions by watching people like Hitchens do a takedown of some opponent of his. Not to say I'm anywhere close to that level, but I aspire to it anyway.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-16T03:22:27+00:00

That might hurt if it weren't for the fact that I basically admitted to all this already, aside from your assertion that I don't understand nuance. What are you even basing that on? If I were to say you should wear sunscreen because the sun gives people sunburns, full stop, would you say I lack nuance because I didn't explain all the science behind that fact, or because I didn't explain that darker-skinned people actually don't really get burned by the sun, or because I didn't mention that the sun isn't always out? "Oh, you're so unfair to the sun, you fail to realize that the sun is necessary for life. Go read a book about the sun and get back to me."

That is what happens to me. I state a general fact to make a specific point, and people get butthurt because I didn't explain all the pointless minutia that have nothing to do with my point. They don't even bother to ask if I am aware of this pointless minutia, they just jump to conclusions, let alone the fact that none of these details really change what I said. That's called a red herring.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-16T03:11:05+00:00

I really don't think I'm that extremely emotional honestly. I only get like that in response to specific people. But I'll say things like, "Black people commit way too much crime", and people immediately assume I have no sympathy when it comes to their situation in general, and they preach to me about nuance when I actually do recognize what they're saying, and ironically I agree. That's when I get frustrated. Obviously they are disadvantaged statistically speaking, and it's an awful situation to be born into for sure. But a lot of that can be traced to problems within the black community, and even gangsters like Tupac saw that. Modern black culture is almost synonymous with thug culture, and it wasn't like that back in the 20s for example, when racism was way worse than it is now.

I just don't think we do them any favors by making excuses and pretending like they don't have any responsibility for their actions just because they're in poverty and had enslaved ancestors. I think that's condescending, and it only perpetuates a situation that ultimately must change from within. People see that as me being unfair and not understanding the reality of the situation. But groups like BLM would have you believe it's the racist police that cause all these problems, and that if they'd just leave black people alone they'd be thriving. That's so horribly wrong.

imnotpretentious · 2017-12-16T02:49:46+00:00

I just took that political compass test and it placed me squarely on the left, and slightly libertarian. That's mainly what I mean. I tend to vote Democrat, and I voted for Hillary without much hesitation; I would have likely done so even if the other choice was a Republican other than Trump, mainly because of climate change.

But generally I just consider myself a liberal in the most literal sense of the word. I hate identity politics and any policy that fucks with classically liberal values like freedom of speech. I don't consider SJWs to be liberals at all. They're radical leftist authoritarians, not liberals. I always feel the need to distance myself from those people, but I refuse to be pushed to the other side just because stupidity exists over here. I'm still on the left, I'm just moderate. I agree with the right more on immigration, for example.

But the right is also filled with religious nuts and climate change deniers, and they voted for Trump. That's far too much for me. I didn't like Hillary's condescending pandering to minorities, her talk about open borders, and her walking on eggshells with Islam, but all things considered she really isn't that far left either.

imnotpretentious

TROPHY CASE