I don't know what Mat wants to be made public at this time.

I will say that the back-and-forth between the two went over the line (in Mat's view). You can PM Mat if you want to know more (no guarantee that he will say anything).

Not sure that chezlaw or I can or should say anything more than that.

Please let you be the next one nuked!!

It's more what you learn if they DO get callbacks at the normal-white-name rate. Then you're pretty much left with racism as the only explanation. If they get black-level callbacks, then it's possible that evaluators just hate names they think are stupid/signal low-class, but maybe they hate names they think are stupid and are racist too.

You're the snowflake that cried for a month about your homophobic joke getting deleted? You whined so much about getting censored that you eventually got exiled? That's you, correct?

What exactly is a demented thought process in this context and how specifically does it lead to brainwashing? Include some empirical evidence in your answer please.

I was thinking maybe we could use your advanced understanding of the human brain to brainwash those with dementia into remembering the names of themselves and their family members since demented thoughts lead to brainwashing. I don't want to jinx it, but this could be Nobel worthy- very excited to hear you explain this stuff.

Seriously these people.

Search poster: FoldNDark
Search term: "Sarsour"

****ing transparent. Why should we humor these people, again? What progress has the "developmentally disabled mods bend over backwards" plan made here?

He's really actually doing rubber-glue and 'i kno u r but what am i'. It's incredible.

And I would stress that each. and. every. person who champions the "we need to hear bigots out to engage them" line has ~no history, ever, of actually disagreeing with racists. Not one. Not ever.

My favorite twist on this is how they act like nobody has ever heard of bigotry so quite obviously it will all be new and interesting. I don't think they even understand that the implied corollary is they're saying, 'Hey, I know you might THINK you're against bigotry, but wait 'til you hear THIS guy!'

The part where he blatantly lies about what I wrote and continues to, and how you somehow can't see that when it's right in front of your face is a good sign of a kool-aid stained tongue. I'll add the parts where anything that possibly could be racist is most definitely, and people who bother to question things are just adding to white supremacy (consult the only MLK quote you care about from Birmingham jail), mix that with the posts directly above and you could start a civil war, but it will hopefully just fizzle out like most cults do these days.

That's a fairly extreme stance so you should have more substantial reasoning behind it. One problem is that racism is too widespread and replicates too much across generations to be simply shunned out of influence. It's not going to die off with the olds as you probably think.

Racist or bigoted views appeal on a lot of levels. A white person goes to school and sees all or nearly all the black kids do poorly. Their parents tell them black kids are stupid. Some guy at Harvard writes The Bell Curve. If you don't look at it in finer detail the question can appear satisfactorily settled. The young racist in training doesn't understand cross cultural studies of educational achievement of aligned minorities. They don't understand the behavioral adaptations to slavery carried by black people which can be maladaptive in the present context. They aren't aware of the massive flaws of The Bell Curve. They just know Harvard and MIT said blacks are dumb.

From that point it doesn't seem productive to treat such individuals who hold backward and ignorant opinions on race as evil ******s. They've been taught a worldview which seems consistent to them. In order to address that they have to be engaged and taught something which makes more sense.

And I don't lack extremist positions, nor am I a pacifist. If I could push a button and neuter every climate change denier and fascist in the world I would not hesitate for a second. However, I think we are at a place in race relations in which nuance will be required for further progress. Segregated facilities and voting rights are open bigotry which can be seen and confronted head on. While drastically unequal disparities still abound and the occasional singular outrage occurs, the mechanisms of Racism operate in much less exposed channels now. Without engagement and the drawing of the connections of those mechanisms with the outcomes, simpler, convenient, and self-serving ideas about race will have occasion to maintain or develop.

There's a strong argument as well (thanks Zizek) that I have some discomfort with but I think is very forceful that, actually, we all prefer to live in a society with a certain level of accepted dogma. To steal the example, does anybody want to live in the society where every day starts by reiterating the arguments as to why rape is wrong? Lots of great arguments about moral nihilism to consider, so let's not shout them down. But no, the vast majority of us, outside philosophy lectures, would like to live in the world where everybody takes it for granted that rape is of absolute abhorrence.

So, yes, sometimes I might have to engage with the arguments, but in broader society I'm happier with people just accepting a certain amount of "racism is wrong and those guys need to stfu".

This only works if the dogma is broadly accepted - if the dissenting group is large enough you can't get them to shut up without using authoritarian methods. Seems to me that most Democrats view Trump's election as evidence there isn't a broad acceptance of the claim that racism is wrong.

Very much so. A dissenting voice can be loud enough that it needs addressing. What I'm talking about is something of a rebuttal to the general idea that people hold with regard to open dialogue; that we ought never shout people down, reject the voices of the pro-murder, pro-rape, pro-whatever people, as though they always have some validity.

I'm glad you in particular responded, because I think a long time back in RGT we talked about my openness toward various forms of amorality and so in certain contexts (like a philosophy class) I'm honest in saying I wouldn't reject some arguments out of hand and I think neither would you (even if ultimately you don't agree with them).

My point is that there are very few people who would genuinely want to live in the society where there is absolutely no dogma regarding any moral and political issues, where arguments have to be rehashed daily and we act with constant uncertainty. Some things we're happier to accept are a settled issue. I don't think it's a terrible thing for people to say they'd like racism to hit that level some day.

We don't need LG, you are a good parrot.

Can we please bring this thread back on topic?

OK. So I think it's clear here that FoldnDark is suggesting that a more skeptical, some might even say radically skeptical, view of social science research would make this forum more welcoming to conservatives.

Is this something that our other conservative friends can get behind?

If so, what rules and norms could be changed ITF to foster said skepticism, perhaps even a radical skepticism? Perhaps disallowing any and all social science research would be a step in the 'right' direction ??

pretty sure they would advocate the social science practiced by that jordan peterson clown or the guy who wrote the book about black ppl having low iqs.

theres also the idiotic notion that if we just logic better that these ppl will change their views. as if they are somehow willing to accept logic, and research, and facts that undermine their atrocious opinions.

and if they arent able to accept such arguments, then it means that we must be poor at logic and their abhorrent notions must have some legit basis.

The idea that in 20 ****ing 17 people just plum haven't encountered the concept that racism exists and is bad and some anonymous dip****s on a poker forum are going to be the bearers of frankly terrible news is laughable.

This is a good point.

Just off the top, I see we have three options to consider regarding social science research and making this forum more welcoming to conservatives...

1. The null option, the Status Quo. However, given the consistent yearly drumbeat of complaints similar to FoldnDark's, regarding research similar to what well named linkeed, I think we can conclude that the status quo is distinctly, perhaps even extremely, unwelcoming to conservatives.
   
   
2. Rules that Ban All and any social science research. Sure, peeps wouldn't be able to post content similar to J.Peterson or C.Murray. But consider, as FoldnDark echoed nicely, we've heard a yearly drumbeat that academia is a 'leftist' racket since the beginning of the cold war. I'm sure our conservative friends would agree that, on net, banning all and any social science research would make this forum more welcoming to conservatives. Of course, we need to have our conservative friends here ITF opinions to verify this conjecture.
   
   
3. Rules that Selectively Ban social science research that conservatives find unwelcoming.

I often wonder what actually goes on in people's heads when they want to throw out theories and ideas based on research but are very willing to accept opinions backed by phrases like "common sense says that...." and "it's obvious if you think about it".

Hmm.

Right... but not on any account 'lol conservatives'.

Hmm. Double hmm.

It's obvious if you think about it.