Im not sure why youre getting defensive. i mean we were just referencing your wife. not only does that mean its not directed at you but its obviously also directed at victor and a generalization. what would be even more weird is that you would be defending victors comment. a bunch of male feminists are going to defend or ignore this? maybe stand up for the principles you guys claim to have. his comment was pathetic

the reason i asked how your wife would hypothetically react to you declaring you don't believe its a systemically racist or sexist society is because i already believed it would create a big problem. some people leave work at work and others would have their face melt off if their partner held opposing views. i came to this conclusion prior to debating race, crime, and poverty with you. before that, toothsayer was trying to explain to you she was involved in a bunch of junk science. i told you that you were going to behave religiously about this stuff for a reason. just like a religious person you were heavily motivated to not change your views. you werent seeking to discover the truth, you were seeking to confirm your bias. just like a lot of religious people, you have negative consequences to your closest personal relationships in discovering the truth

you just responded to the hypothetical question i didnt ask, and thats probably for a reason also. i didnt ask if you would get married, i asked how it would impact your marriage if your views changed. thats obvious. im also not implying you have any obligation to answer questions about your marriage either

the reason i assumed you were in this situation is because you're clearly more intelligent than the other SJW dopes posting here. they cant articulate a basic coherent argument and not so coincidentally spend a disproportionate amount of time hurling empty insults. my assumption that the far left SJW's being full of bitter losers is something that many people have observed. now we can also listen to personality psychologists and evolutionary psychologists analyzing this scientifically and coming to the same conclusions. i assumed you were biased by the motivation of your personal relationships because youre married to a sjw and you can actually articulate ideas and arguments. you go in to long detailed studies to confirm your bias, not discover what is true imo

i know im beating a dead horse here but thats why i structured the race, crime and race discussion and asked the questions i did. i knew you were going to go down the path you did and then be forced to confront the fact that there is a massive gaping hole in your pov. i predicted you would respond like a religious person. thats exactly what happened. i started by explaining that the actual theory of evolution is what creates races. you would have to be clueless about the theory of evolution to assume that people evolved differently and at the same time you expect the same outcomes. thats exactly what you did when i asked you to quantify. i made this flaw crystal clear when i asked you about the racial disparity in the NBA or USA track n field. your ignorant and clearly wrong understanding of group outcomes left you completely stumped by the most obvious and easy example. your ignorance creates a moral panic where there should be none. its actually very easy for open mined people to demolish identity politics. i've never even looked up or checked the stats to racial disparity in the nba or usa track n field. you probably noticed that all the sjw's like to demand a "cite" but nobody even bothered in this situation. the disparity is just far too obvious that nobody even bothers to dispute it. and yet the sjw's cant deal with such a basic and obvious truth they cant dispute

This is good stuff from the guy who linked to an online personality test as a citation for his psychology ramblings.

no amount of citing will satisfy you. i could also have an expert explain bears have empathy but watching everyone laugh at you drown yourself in idiotic ramblings is far better than wasting my time citing it and have you pivot endlessly

I think that's a no, then.

There's a lot of your usual nonsense and misrepresentation in there but I can't be bothered to correct most of it for the Nth time. I'll offer one correction though: as far as evolution goes, I have never claimed that there do not exist genetic/physiological differences between human sub-populations as a result of evolutionary processes. I have instead claimed that those differences are only crudely and inaccurately described by the concept of "race". I offered this definition, from a biological anthropologist: Race is a "culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation". See also: The Genome Factor (Conley, 2017, Ch. 5)

The thing is, I would be willing to engage you in actual discussion on these issues, but the entire reason I stopped doing so is because you won't stop lying about what I've said. I don't know if that's because you're intentionally trolling (this has been my assumption) or you are just incapable of actually reading and understanding what has been said. Either way though, it gets tedious.

We get it. You're a high status male. It's obvious. Only a high status male would keep talking about how low status all the other males are.

Hey, how about a link to this research?

which is the other tactic i predicted you would use. you constantly claim im hurting your feelings as an exit strategy when things get uncomfortable. its predictable. just like i stated in the last post, youre not responding to the question i asked or the statements i made. i never claimed you deny darwin, i claimed your pov contradicts it and thats why i asked you to quantify the racial disparity in outcomes. you attributed factors such as bias, segregation, and discrimination that totaled 100% of the disparity. that is clearly wrong. that contradicts darwin. you are also pretending like you havent ducked the absurdity of an obvious and straight forward question about racial disparity in athletics. noted. you also spun a story where black people were not responsible for their own mating habits. its just totally baked in absolute nonsense. what isn't tedious is your attempt to answer the racial disparity in sports. you havent even attempted to do this and ducked the question over a dozen times. your have an exit strategy every single time. im not trying to fire this back up. im explaining to you that someone married to a sjw who would have their face melt off if you changed your tune provides every bit of motivation you would need to be blindly biased instead of interested in what is true here

thats the reason i asked the question. thats the reason i made the assumption she would react very negatively. im not asking you to answer the question im just explaining why i made my assumptions and why i asked it

lol look who showed up with the usual nonsense. i just posted some a couple posts up. im sure you dont have time for it so who cares, right?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=578

Juan brings this argument up again and again. "SJW"s are weak beta males with weak jaws and they are bitter losers. Even if this were somehow objectively true, I should start being racist so I won't be a loser? Should I go punch a Muslim or two and gain instant life success?

The claims of "virtue signaling" from the far right make a whole lot more sense when you realize that so many of their own arguments employ this appeal to masculinity and toughness. "You can't agree with a woman, that means your own masculinity has been compromised!" But those arguments only appeal to the insecure who need the validation of their peers to prop up their own fragile self-worth. They must keep signalling to one another how manly they are.

And that's why the Alt Right and gamergate have spread so quickly through internet fora like reddit and 4chan.

Please link to the actual research, not youtube videos. I don't care about someone's opinion. Let's see the research.

weird reaction to receiving all "cites" you asked for. i was expecting some productive dialogue sprinkled with a bit of reflection. color me surprised

they were the people conducting the research you dope. if you dont care about their opinion, thats fine. this is why i don't bother citing or even interacting with the majority of you dopes. you dont care what actual experts in their field say. when i claimed the research existed i was called a liar. has that been retracted? of course not

You are surprised because you are ignorant and uneducated. Youtube videos are not research. They don't contain citations to research. You said they were "analyzing this scientifically" but have provided zero evidence to back this up.

I've responded to this misrepresentation at least twice previously. More to the point, there is no evidence that biological differences contribute significantly to differences in social outcomes between racial/ethnic groups in the US, and pointing out the lack of empirical evidence does not contradict evolutionary theory, despite your assertions to the contrary. Here is Conley:

I also said all this a long time ago.

What research? Where is it?

You haven't cited anything ever. You link to youtube videos and online personality tests.

You still haven't provided links to the research, you ****ing idiot. Of course we think you're lying.

UTOOOOOOOOBZ.

We both know I didn't watch them, and we both know that's because youtube isn't a citation.

As I recall, you abandoned thread in the bears discussion, but my argument was never that bears definitively DON'T have empathy.

Here, I'll help you out, juan. This is a list of all of Jordan Peterson's research papers.

Which one says that "far left SJW's [are] full of bitter losers"?

So, the first video refers to the work of a PhD candidate, Christine Brophy. I found this Scientific American article about it but I don't see a publication. It may still be in peer review, or maybe it's intended to be her thesis, although that's not clear since the article says they did the study together.

The study does not appear to have anything to do with the idea that SJWs are low-status. It also employs a fairly novel definition of "political correctness", which includes a type of "political correctness" (PC-Authoritarian) that applies more to personality traits they associate with conservatives. While "PC-Egalitarian" is supposed to be the liberal version. It looks interesting enough I'd read it if it were published.

It's not clear from a cursory listen to the first few minutes of the second video what research he's going to talk about and I'm not going to listen to an hour of it, so gl hf :P

See, not everyone's as good as or has the same access to info as WN obviously does, and I don't really expect quite his depth from most forum discussions, but all I ask is something a little closer to this than two hours of video without so much as a time stamp.

Thanks. It does look interesting.

I laughed at this:

Glad they defined that

It's too bad that so many right wingers here are infected with a learning disability that prevents them from grasping any information from sources other than Youtube videos. Can you even imagine how angry they would be if we subjected them to the left-wing equivalent and were constantly like "here, listen to two hours of this SJW presenting an argument, it's really good, we promise"? I seriously don't understand why it's only idiots on the right who do this. Or maybe there's a parallel forum somewhere where the leftists all post videos of people having serious discussions about $15 minimum wage laws while wearing hipster glasses, idk.

Also this bit:

I guess I'm not much of an SJW if I'm not really bothered by these things?

Yeah, you're off the force. Hand over your badge and opinion on gun control.

Yeah, you guys only post worthwhile stuff like multiple retweets of fake news and links to news stories with anonymous sources. LOL

It doesn't take two hours to read a tweet.