This article does a pretty good job of explaining "What is in it for them." It is all part of a grand plan to make a world that is tailor suited for them, where they have all the advantages. All the privilege. Everything is self serving. The people that scream the loudest about "white privilege" are the ones benefitting the most from it. And all their screams are going outward castigating people who dont have a fraction of the privilege the they do.

Richard Dawkins calls religion a "virus of the mind," but many (most?) biologists reject this because all evidence is that religion has been highly adaptive for as long as it has been around, and possible still is. Religion has stood the test of time.

SJW liberalism on the other hand, has not. And the way things seem to be going, as classes become more and more stratified, and inequality continues to increase more and more, and social cohesion breaks down more and more, it is entirely possible this "virus" will destroy itself.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ocracy/559130/

Ok. IMO everyones response to that post (including your own) was missing the forest for the trees. But perhaps that is reason enough to decide it wasn't a very good post and delete it, is that everyone is focusing on the wrong thing. The point was that I don't think "white identity" is a very big component of how SJWs view themselves as a tribe or act in the world as a tribe. And they for the most part use it in a very self serving fashion.

I doubt anyone disagrees with this, fwiw.

The article here is incredibly long but it's well worth reading to see just how badly Kelhus missed the point. It's about how the upper middle class is fiercely defensive of its economic privilege. There's almost nothing in there about race or culture war ****. You didn't read it, did you, kid?

And even on your third try you still just restated your vague conspiracy! HOW is it self-serving? How does "screaming" about white privilege make a world tailor suited for wealthy SJWs, and if that's true why the **** are the Koch Brothers funding Dave Rubin's show but not Pod Save America?

(because of just how entrenched these guys are in, they seem to think that only white people complain about racism? But no, black people notice that **** too. The majority of BLM activism comes from poor people. The outside agitator trope is vital to these people's worldview which is that racism is a trick the Jews use to rile up the blacks against Real Americans)
Again you just got your Turner Diaries **** deleted but I want you to think as hard as you can about how IF everything is self-serving what if the rich people telling you that being nice to gay people is a conspiracy might not be just doing that out of the goodness of their own hearts.

Buddy he's talking about you

It's really just a fancy way of saying that correlation doesn't equal causation, and the detail about the interdependence between environmental and genetic factors is the explanation for why correlation/causation issues are particularly difficult in this field. When Tom reads that section he quoted as evidence for a genetic component in IQ differences between groups (again, leaving aside that the groups being compared are not actually population groups in a well-defined sense, genetically, which is an entirely separate issue) it's like hearing that geneticists can distinguish people with English ancestry from those with Scandinavian ancestry and taking that as evidence for a genetic explanation of the Scandi fondness for saunas. It's just not evidence either way.

Also I think "genetics accounts for 50% of a person's overall being" is too generic. Heritability varies by trait.

To elaborate a little bit further, this is the reason why Relethford (2009) proposed the definition of race as a "culturally constructed label that crudely and imprecisely describes real variation".

The real variation is geographically structured and very complex. Racial groups in popular imagination don't conform to that structure because racial designations are much simpler. It is not scientifically valid to obtain some genetic data from a group of African Americans and think that it represents all people labeled "black" everywhere in the world. Nor to take one group of people with European descent and make them stand in for all people called "white". There is no valid generalization to "white" and "black" as more generalized population groups.

I am not on a computer for awhile, so I can’t really go point by point or really get into the weeds. But you weren’t born in a cave, so I think you can figure some things out yourself. But it seems the main schism is that you view the worldview you adhere to as an altruistic one (hoe convenient), and I view it is a very self serving one.

You are actually a pretty good example of how the rhetorical weapon of calling out other people as racists is really just a weapon to silence opposition and control the rhetorical space, in a very self serving Fashion.

In the last regime I am sure the mods would have been more than happy to exile/ban most of the people arguing with you in this thread for the posts they made.

If you can control the dialogue and control the language and decide who gets to talk and who doesn’t, it makes it a lot easier to protect your economic privilege, wouldn’t you agree?

Actually, I am well entrenched in the 9.9%. Except for the inherited wealth part (I came from the middle class and neither of my parents graduated college). But if things go as planned my kids will have every benefit of being part of the 9.9%, including inherited wealth. Most of the rest of his description of the 9.9% fits me perfectly.

In the way I act out my life I am a SJW liberal. I even vote Democrat I just masquerade as a warrior against wokeness online, and I am very self aware of the hypocrisy in all of this.

But I do genuinely worry that there is some truth to what the Jordan Peterson’s of the world are saying, in that society is heading in a destructive direction.

Conservative societies have a lot of problems. But they do seem to serve the purpose of achieving social cohesion and psychological well being for most. There is no indication to me that our brave new world is capable of accomplishing this at all.

You are misreading me. You're associating my dislike of your style of debate with Sam Harris being an "intellectual hero". I think Harris is the most reasonable member of your golden triad, but don't enjoy listening to Peterson and am about as far from conservative judaism as they come.

Where you able to stomach listening past Harris "full throated" endorsement of Murray, or are you just talking out your ass?

Are you going to answer the straight forward question asked of you on the topic of g?

Are you going to do anything beyond flailing about making wild assumptions and fabricating scenarios that make this anything but a steamroll for you?

In an ideal world I would like a liberal society with social cohesion and psychological well being. I just don’t see how decrying the Sam Harris’s of the world as rascist and deplatfeoming them is working in this direction.

I think the whole rhetorical conversation around racism and white privilege that is doing the rounds in liberal societies today is very toxic, destructive and counterproductive.

In what way does calling out racism erode social cohesion?

Yeah man you don't need to keep saying that you believe this, what I keep asking is what your explanation is. Anti-elite rhetoric while actually working to support the entrenched hierarchies of society describes one side of this conversation, but it ain't mine.


I know that's what racists say, but one step of critical thinking would show they aren't silenced at all and this is them just asking for a Safe Space from disagreement.

So like, you're whining about hypothetical moderation that isn't happening?

No. SJWs are farther left on economics than their opposition. This is why you knowing like very basic facts about politics would help you form opinions worth paying attention to. You are accepting transparently bull**** fairy tales with no introspection, you just keep repeating yourself.

The twist here is actually almost clever. The problem is that social progress produces reactionaries, so the solution is just to do what the reactionaries want and who gives a **** about minorities and poor people?

Huh. I wonder why that is attractive to you.

Over and over again these people accidentally admit that they really do only think middle class+ white men count as people, every other group is a tribe doing identity politics.

You need to avoid a common cognitive bias here. A tiny fringe element get most of the attention but they do not represent the group.

A silliness-by-association argument comparing to something with no known heritable component? Seriously?

Maybe how he worded it was sloppy then. Saying "most" isn't a strong indicator that behavior is significantly less than 50%.

I took the chopsticks problem as saying, we don't know enough about the subject to have a discussion free of assumption and prejudice, not that correlation doesn't mean causation.

You'll notice wording gets really blurry and evasive when scientists start talking on these touchy subjects. Probably because they are one misworded sentence away from having their careers ruined by loons.

And over and over again SJWs show how the only people that really matter to them is themselves.

Mountain View Is SJW central. They will give poor Minorities low paying jobs (through 3rd party contractors so they don’t have to pay benefits), but heaven forbid someone tries to build affordable housing in the city. They’ll fight tooth and nail to make sure that doesn’t come to pass. Could you imagine the gall of a security guard thinking they are allowed to live in the same zip code as a software engineer or have their kids go to the same school? Preposterous.

If it gets most of the attention then it's no longer fringe

Which is a huge issue with media and fear mongering and spinning false narratives and how it relates to shame culture and the virtue signlaing culture of social media and SJW

I don’t now where you live. But I live in a SJW world. These are my people. My kids classmates parents drive them to school in Prius’s with “Resist” and “BLM” bumper stickers on the back, and are seemingly completely oblivious to the reality there are like 3 black kids in the whole school, and they are all rich. It’s a farce.

But these same people are morally outraged and indignant when CNN tells them that white communities in Alabama are gerrymandering school district lines to accomplish the same end.

The cause of the day in my world is how evil Zionist settlers are and how Palestinian refugees deserve right of return. And yet within 200 miles are like 10 Indian tribes living in poverty on ****ty reservation land nowhere near their ancestral land. The hypocrisy is astounding.

Okay, but you jump from self-serving hypocrisy (an almost universal human problem) to some grand conspiracy.

Yeah, that Murray fellow sure had trouble finding work after The Bell Curve.

I highlighted that phrase for a reason and then forgot to get back to it. It is not a overt conscious conspiracy of elites in secret meetings in Swiss retreats (cue Luckbox), it is more subtle and the people living the conspiracy are barely conscious of it, if at all. Similar to systemic racism.

But you seem to be pushing that rich whites are (consciously or not, whatever) pursuing SJW causes in order to entrench themselves.

This seems nonsensical.

I would easily accept a softer claim:
Rich whites pursue SJW causes but also want to entrench themselves, which leads to them not always acting in the way they say others should act.

----

This is a story of conflicting drives, not deception.

But also, the 9.9% class aren't particularly liberal so it's odd that you use them as the prototypical "SJW"