Right wing disinformation mill in full swing

Are they all Lefties? That has not been my impression at all.

And the one who has started posting here recently and who is particularly obnoxious, not to say rather stupid, may be a rightwing troll, just trying to make the Left look bad. Don't assume he is at all representative of Aussies, not even of their Left wingers.

Australia punches above its weight in all the intellectual fields. A nation of 25 million, but they have an intellectual output two or three times that, considering their numbers. I'm not talking about politics here, but in all fields of which I am aware. Like the Americans, geography favored them.

But as for politics, have a look at this site: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/ -- lots of intelligent articles and discussion, some of it Australia-specific, some of it broader, well worth subscribing to and keeping up with.

 

Wrong

His beliefs do not alter the accuracy of what he said

 

I'm just guessing here, but, given my observation on a couple of all-lefties discussion boards, I suspect a lot of Leftists are young, in or just recently graduated from, fairly elite colleges, possibly now working in jobs where everyone is like them, as was the case on their campuses.

In that environment, everyone is a liberal, or to the left of liberals. (There may be those who aren't, but they will keep their mouths shut.) They see pictures of Trump rallies, people in overalls, people without a full set of teeth, badly-dressed women. We all like to feel superior to someone, and they feel superior to these poorly-educated non-college-grad types, whom they consider their social inferiors.

They will not have come across intelligent, articulate conservatives, nor have read anything written by them. They have been educated in what is effectively a one-party state. I've noticed here on this forum that there are areas in the social sciences -- the question of IQ, for example, or the causes of Black poverty, or the unique character of American patriotism -- where you get people on the Left who are adamant about their views, absolutely convinced that the social science research supports them, and yet who clearly have read little or nothing in the field. They might quote one obscure paper, but if you raise issues like preference falsification or the crisis of replicability, they just go silent. It's astonishing, actually. I don't think I've every had a serious debate with even one of them. They just shut up, or say 'Google it' or 'I stopped reading your post when ... '. No intellectual self-respect. I would be mortified if I had to do that.

I try to keep up with the Left, especially the intellectually-capable Far Left, and I know that there are actually some very smart people on the other side. But most of our Lefties don't seem to be familiar even with them, much less the intellectual conservative sources. Then I go onto YouTube, search for Jay Leno interviewing American college students, and my prejudices are confirmed. These people are not just ignorant of conservative thought, they're just plain ignorant. But they have been taught to have a very high opinion of themselves.

However, this is just an impression, and I should temper my remarks by saying there are some very intelligent and well-informed Leftist (or at least non-Rightist) posters here, and they're not responsible for the Neanderthals on their side. (Oops ... is that racist?)

 

It really is exhausting.

It's my opinion at this point that, for the most part, they know full well what they are doing...even most on forums such as this one.

From admitting "strategies" to the constant purposefully obtuse questions.

The question I suppose, is can truth and sense win out over all this endless BS.

 

The only intelligent, articulate conservatives I'm aware of are a few journalists. On forums such as this, well.....

Hmmm, give a brief overview of what you believe here, or what the science shows in regard to IQ or the causes of "Black poverty".

 

Gun Ownership is just as much for Protection of one's Home
and Loved ones as it is for Sport and Hunting.
Originally meant by our Founders as a way to guard against
an overbearing corrupt Government by force if necessary.
Obama's Government was doing all in it's power to make sure
average Joe gun owner could not buy rounds or purchase a
gun legally.By striking at Gun shops by denying them credit
accounts or Bank affiliation.
" Big Sis " Janet Napolitano Lied for a couple years about our
Government purchasing all the rounds of certain type ammo
for her Homeland Security.Forbes reported in 2013 the number
of rounds to be at 1.6 Billion.How many were armor piercing.
Plus news of new heavily armored " mine resistant " MRAP
vehicles used for the streets of America.

 

It was a rebellion against the authority of a newly constituted Federal government.

 

A lot of bluster, no content (as usual). The age variable is easy to understand. Youngsters have no capital and therefore go with standard perceptions of right and wrong. Older folk gain capital and, particularly in a neoliberal society, are likely to gain selfishness. A general comment of course. Regression comment no less

 

The research into how guns are more likely to be used against one's loved ones than protecting them is a tad inconvenient.

 

Interesting essay by Andrew Codevilla. (His bio:

Typical ignorant conservative redneck.
Here's his take on what is happening in America:

I think Codevilla lets Trump off the hook here. And he should also acknowledge the terrorism of far right groups, and anti-abortionists, over the years -- indeed condemned by all conservatives I know of, with their perpetrators not protected by the police. But if you're discussing violence in America, it should be mentioned. On the other hand, he left out the violence of the Left in the late 60s and early 70s, the bombings and shootings. But since these were condemned by most of the Left, as the KKK/neo-Nazi violence was condemned by the Right, and he was no doubt working under a word-limit, I suppose he didn't have room. but he definitely should have said something about Trump.

However, overall it's good to see someone in academia who sees what's coming in America. Time for responsible people on the Left and the Right to start talking about the terms of an amicable divorce. It will be difficult, no question about it, but hey ... we put a man on the moon, we can do this too.

 

I'm afraid you're talking about yourself there in the first sentence. You're like some kid who has opened a book, read a few big words, and goes around proudly quoting them, hoping to intimidate his mates. You're just afraid to argue your points. However, I'm grateful to you for bringing up George Orwell, which caused me to look again at The Lion and the Unicorn, a very perceptive essay, which I'm going to bring to people's attention here at some point. His point about genuine workingclass patriotism, and the utter phoneyness of Leftist blowhards, is particularly relevant.

 

You're not making sense. I'm an entrepreneur and an old fart. I'm of course referring to a determining variable. You can't guarantee someone with no capital will be left wing; neither can you guarantee that someone with buckets of capital will be right wing. However, its a key factor. This is particularly relevant in Thatcherite Britain. Hadn't you noticed?

 

I could be wrong, but due to his association with incel groups, I think the Dayton shooter was motivated by his hatred of women. Just a thought . . .

 

How about this: I've put my views on these questions forward on this forum several times. They're just the standard average views of almost everyone who has studied this subject: IQ -- and yes, it's a valid measure -- is subject to both genes and environment. People differ on the exact proportion which each contributes. Black mean IQ is lower than white, which is lower than Asian. Almost no one who knows anything about the subject disagrees with what I have stated. (There is one fellow, who boldly asserts that all IQ differences among groups are entirely environmental. He doesn't dispute the fact about differences in mean intelligence, of course, because it's a well-known fact).

I thought his book on the subject was interesting, but the appendix, in which he states this, was not convincing. I would like it to be true, but the evidence is overwhelmingly on the other side.)

I have often argued that there is an overlooked aspect to intelligence, which I've sometimes called 'the social environment' (as opposed to the individual, home environment), which must have a big influence on whether innate biological intelligence can be expressed. My favorite example is the people who live in Guatemala today -- they score pretty poorly on the IQ scale, but ... their ancestors invented a positional-exponential numbering system, did astronomy, constructed monumental public buildings... so what happened? I don't think their genes all mutated, although it's possible the Spanish did a systematic culling of all the intelligent ones.

On a smaller scale, I note the existence of the 'acting white' phenomenon, which friends of mine experienced, via their dark-skinned adoptive daughter, directly. If you're a bright Black kid, especially a male, in a mixed-race school, you are pulled down by other Blacks if you 'act white', i.e start to excel academically. (Roland Fraser at Harvard has discussed this, and the reasons for it, in more detail.)

And my personal experience in prison long ago (political reasons, not conventional crime) observing Blacks and whites was that the Blacks were very quick-witted verbally, much more so than the whites -- I think there is/was a phenomenon called "rapping the dozens" which may have provided some training, but you would have to have had the talent for it to take. And yet I doubt they would have scored well on written tests.

Since I'm an 'ameliorist' with respect to our species -- I think we can do a lot better -- my sympathy is with people like Nisbett, whose book I linked to above. But I'm also a strong believer in seeking disconfirming evidence for one's views, and the disconfirming evidence is too strong to ignore. But I note that things like the Flynn Effect, and its recent apparent recent reversal, mean that there is a lot that we just don't know yet about this subject. And I certainly agree with Flynn that the toxic sub-culture of the Black underclass is something that should be attacked, if possible. I think he wants a teacher and a policeman in every Black apartment block, but that might be rather expensive. (He made a good point, too, that I had not thought about before: Black one-parent families are common, he said, because Black women cannot find enough responsible Black males to marry. So it's single parenthood or nothing.)

Of course this is a radioactive subject, and it's one on which white Leftists usually have a hard-and-fast opinion, without knowing anything about it. They use it as a kind of shibboleth -- if you don't agree that Black problems in general, and test scores in particular, are entirely a result of white racist capitalism, then you are a pariah. (Which is probably, c'mon, why you asked me for my views on the subject. Ah ha! A racist! Got 'im! But if not, then good for you. It needs discussing.)

I loathe herd-thought. I don't care a fig what the herd thinks, Left or Right. So a few years ago when I read a book by someone, in which he compared white Europeans with some non-whites, and says that while the different environment of the two groups has probably played a role in the superior intelligence of one group, that genetic differences have contributed to their superior intelligence too ... well, I just said maybe, let's do more research, but I will continue to admire him for his other writings. It doesn't invalidate his other work. It's just an empirical question, and he may be wrong on this particular issue.

I should also say, we'll be choosing our descendants' genomes in another few decades so the whole issue will be moot.

Which is how we should all think about the views of each other. Anyway, that's what I think about the Black IQ question. What do you think?

 

I know you don't follow my growing Collected Works on this forum, shame on you, but if you did, you would find several places where I have argued just that position.

Usually against some snotty little Lefty college boy (or so I suspect) who says politics is a result of intelligence. Smart people are Leftists, you see, because they're smart and any smart person can look at the wonderful results brought to people by socialism in those countries lucky enough to have implemented it and ... but let's stop laughing and get serious

I've pointed out that in the past and in most countries, higher education -- sometimes any sort of education -- was restrict to the better-off, and that in general college students reflected the beliefs of their social class. My stand-out example was Weimar Germany, where university students, with a small exception, were very rightwing and nationalist, like the social layer from which they came. I believe that, when looking at large numbers, people vote for the political party which they believe will advance or defend their self interest, and this is usually a question of economics -- except in a country unfortunate enough to have serious 'diversity' and in that case it's often one tribe against another.

Thomas Frank famously pointed out a kind of paradox with respect to the Republican base, which apparently let social issues trump economic ones, and I think he had a point, but that's now fading away for various reasons. I've said about a dozen times on this forum that many social conservatives are also economic 'liberals'. Trump knew that and took advantage of it.

 

I should also add that I'm an Old Fart too and very definitely not an entrepreneur, more's the pity.

 

You are wrong

 

Well I'm not a scientist or qualified. Are you?

I'm pretty sure there is plenty of evidence that disputes your "findings".

Have you searched for it?

I suppose my first reaction to you would be, what's the point? What is to be gained exactly from separating out people based on their IQ? And if we do separate them out, why do it a long racial lines? Why not just separate out people strictly along IQ lines?

 

https://nypost.com/2019/08/06/dayton-shooter-may-be-antifas-first-mass-killer/



You seem to be 100 % correct.

 

Talking about dangerous lies and disinformation.Any decent person knows that Trump didn"t call those extremists decent people.Yet they keep lying to this day.

Trump, the Dem Media and the Charlottesville Lie

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ing_in_the_lefts_lies_about_trump_140950.html

 

You're deliberately mixing up points. Age effects does not lead to rejection to the importance of intelligence effect. Education, other things equal, switches folk towards "leftism" (although that's a cobblers term which gives you away somewhat)

Inequalities of opportunity are easily embedded within comparison. Its easy to control for class etc. A nothing point.

You're not even making sense here. An economic liberal is right wing. A social conservative is right wing. Your urge to refer to American consensus politics has perhaps let you down?

 

Then you couldn't make BS racist claims

 

As long as the media purposely lies and distorts the facts to fit their own false narrative and not so well hidden agenda things can only get worse.To this day no one apologised for the Charlotesville disgusting lie.You can't be that stupid mot to see the blatant liberal lies regarding Trump's statement.Watch the video for yourself.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ing_in_the_lefts_lies_about_trump_140950.html

 

The video is clear...trump gave a shout out to the angry white men that support his bigoted views

 

That was shut down..............HARD