War Room Lounge V24: Mental Illness

[Fedorable]

1:23 would make a great av.

 

[Lead]

Oh absolutely not. Don't get it twisted. @Lord Coke's vote should be weighted infinitely more than a cuck like @Fawlty's . Like you said, fundamentally its about ideology.

Doesn't it make more sense to argue you want those of the same viewpoints/"values" to just group together rather than races specifically. You cite information about some races leaning to different things but those are percentages which would mean a large amount still would match up with someone outside their race. It makes little sense to divide by race if it's the goal you stated.

 

[Fawlty]

Oh absolutely not. Don't get it twisted. @Lord Coke's vote should be weighted infinitely more than a cuck like @Fawlty's . Like you said, fundamentally its about ideology.

You are getting closer to wanting to murder me every time you log in. You might want to put that sociopath lawyer on retainer.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Doesn't it make more sense to argue you want those of the same viewpoints/"values" to just group together rather than races specifically. You cite information about some races leaning to different things but those are percentages which would mean a large amount still would match up with someone outside their race. It makes little sense to divide by race if it's the goal you stated.

He's arguing that those "values" are due to genetic predisposition but not 100% exclusive, if i'm understanding his racist nonsense well enough.
Masculine social norms, philosophy, intellectual freedom, competition, liberty, voting Republican are all genetic tendencies of the white race (whatever that is) according to ol Greoric iirc. Some people from other races are capable of achieving a white level of interest and value to some degree, though, but are largely incompatible with white interests generally, and definitely incompatible in a total value sense.
That sounds about like what he blathers on about.

 

[Lead]

He's arguing that those "values" are due to genetic predisposition but not 100% exclusive, if i'm understanding his racist nonsense well enough.
Masculine social norms, philosophy, intellectual freedom, competition, liberty, voting Republican are all genetic tendencies of the white race (whatever that is) according to ol Greoric iirc. Some people from other races are capable of achieving a white level of interest and value to some degree, though, but are largely incompatible with white interests generally, and definitely incompatible in a total value sense.
That sounds about like what he blathers on about.

But earlier, wasn't his evidence using different polls showing whites as a whole agree on certain things more than another race might? If that's the basis of his evidence, all that would mean is more whites distribution wise would be in that country. Like if 60% white, 40% blacks, 20% Asians all agree on a certain view/ value, you don't say only whites and all whites should be in the one country. I thought he's proving my point too with the cubo/ Fawlty comment. Is Cubo nonwhite?

 

[Trotsky]

Guys, guys, white people are the only ones not playing identity politics....

Which is why they are the only US racial group that is voting for a party/movement with zero empirical credibility whose platform has been panned by technocrats, economists, scientists, social scientists, consumer advocates, and historians and includes a multitude of policies that white America opposes individually like environmental deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, slashing of consumer protections, gutting of worker organization rights, cuts to the social safety net, and making healthcare more expensive and less accessible for the purpose of increasing corporate profits.

It's that they're really for those policies in the aggregate even if they're against them individually. White America is just a pragmatic bunch.

 

[Lead]

@Greoric , if a black or Asian person believed in freedom of speech, gun rights and limited government, why wouldn't they be allowed in the same group/ country?

 

[Trotsky]

But earlier, wasn't his evidence using different polls showing whites as a whole agree on certain things more than another race might? If that's the basis of his evidence, all that would mean is more whites distribution wise would be in that country. Like if 60% white, 40% blacks, 20% Asians all agree on a certain view/ value, you don't say only whites and all whites should be in the one country. I thought he's proving my point too with the cubo/ Fawlty comment. Is Cubo nonwhite?

I believe that @Cubo de Sangre is white, but I've heard that he has a little bit of Vietnamese in him

@Lord Coke

 

[Captain Davis]

So damn racist lol

I don’t take that as racist, it’s more genetic. I think there is truth in what he’s saying.

You hear these attributes described in spurts all the time.

In MMA we of course have “Athletic and Explosove”

In football, the black receivers are “track stars.” White receivers are generally referred to as “possession” type. Meaning they catch the ball wrll, but don’t have the speed the black receivers have.

Noticing differences in physical attributes isn’t racism, it’s just facts.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but these factors are the most common.

 

[Captain Davis]

@Greoric , if a black or Asian person believed in freedom of speech, gun rights and limited government, why wouldn't they be allowed in the same group/ country?

Where I stand, they would if they wanted to be.

 

[Captain Davis]

Have you even seen any of Greoric's posts the last two months? He literally responded to a thread about a Nazi running for Congress in a Chicago suburb and was able to transition his argument into "multiculturalism is doomed to fail and white people are the only benevolent race" within a few pages.

I just don’t get all this Nazi shit. I literally never see if hear anything about it unless I read it hear or see it on Liberal media.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don’t take that as racist, it’s more genetic. I think there is truth in what he’s saying.

You hear these attributes described in spurts all the time.

In MMA we of course have “Athletic and Explosove”

In football, the black receivers are “track stars.” White receivers are generally referred to as “possession” type. Meaning they catch the ball wrll, but don’t have the speed the black receivers have.

Noticing differences in physical attributes isn’t racism, it’s just facts.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but these factors are the most common.

You know these ideas originated as a pseudoscientific justification of aristocratic privilege in the 17th century?
It really hasn't changed much when you're saying civilisation is the result of inherent racial differences in intelligence.
That sort of belief in a biological basis supporting racial superiority and discrimination is the definition of "scientific" racism.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

 

[Quipling]

@Lord Coke

After mulling over that case I think that I'm sympathetic to the dissent. I found the majority's reasoning pretty persuasive, but there are a couple things that swayed my mind:

1.) Treating this as a contract dispute, I don't believe that either of the parties meant to convey fossils when they sold mineral rights.

2.) Plain meaning of the term: I don't think that most people understand "minerals" to include fossils in anything except the broadest meaning of the term (technical v. work-use). I liked a version of the categorical argument: if something is a mineral, it must be a mineral in all instances- and therefore there is an inherent physical property. The idea of an emergent mineral is nonsensical. I'd have to reread the section of the opinion that is responsive to this, but I remember not finding it sufficiently persuasive.

3.) I wasn't persuaded that Montana would consider these to be minerals.

That said, this really isn't a proper analysis. I might have to read the Montana opinions to get a better sense. I'm also feeling compelled to reread the 9th circuit opinion, since I read it after a few drinks on Saturday

 

[Captain Davis]

You know these ideas originated as a pseudoscientific justification of aristocratic privilege in the 17th century?
It really hasn't changed much when you're saying civilisation is the result of inherent racial differences in intelligence.
That sort of belief in a biological basis supporting racial superiority and discrimination is the definition of "scientific" racism.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with intelligence. Its just physical fact.

 

[Greoric]

@Greoric , if a black or Asian person believed in freedom of speech, gun rights and limited government, why wouldn't they be allowed in the same group/ country?

As far as I'm concerned they absolutely would. But its unmistakable what the distribution of that community and country would likely look like. For instance, its not a coincidence that libertarian conventions have a make up of 90%+ whites, despite their groveling to welcome other groups.

The observation isn't even partisan. Joy Reid even made the comment that its not as if California Republicans abruptly switched to become more liberal and make a perma-blue state. What changed was the population.

 

[Greoric]

You know these ideas originated as a pseudoscientific justification of aristocratic privilege in the 17th century?
It really hasn't changed much when you're saying civilisation is the result of inherent racial differences in intelligence.
That sort of belief in a biological basis supporting racial superiority and discrimination is the definition of "scientific" racism.

I guess you're making the claim that selection pressures of ecologically separated human populations over tens of thousands of years, just stopped at the neck? Cool story bro!

 

[Jack V Savage]

He's arguing that those "values" are due to genetic predisposition but not 100% exclusive, if i'm understanding his racist nonsense well enough.
Masculine social norms, philosophy, intellectual freedom, competition, liberty, voting Republican are all genetic tendencies of the white race (whatever that is) according to ol Greoric iirc. Some people from other races are capable of achieving a white level of interest and value to some degree, though, but are largely incompatible with white interests generally, and definitely incompatible in a total value sense.
That sounds about like what he blathers on about.

I brought up how what the left in America wants is basically Nordic-style governance, and many white people in other countries (*cough*) also like that. He somehow rolled that into his racial voting theory, too (whites are uniquely egalitarian).

 

[Greoric]

I don’t take that as racist, it’s more genetic. I think there is truth in what he’s saying.

You hear these attributes described in spurts all the time.

In MMA we of course have “Athletic and Explosove”

In football, the black receivers are “track stars.” White receivers are generally referred to as “possession” type. Meaning they catch the ball wrll, but don’t have the speed the black receivers have.

Noticing differences in physical attributes isn’t racism, it’s just facts.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but these factors are the most common.

To @Limbo Pete the only reason people of western* African descent are dominating the 100m dash in the Olympics is because whitey oppressed them from competing in the powerlifting competitions... or something.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The observation isn't even partisan. Joy Reid even made the comment that its not as if California Republicans abruptly switched to become more liberal and make a perma-blue state. What changed was the population.

Joy Reid is at least a step up from Molyneux, but she's wrong. For example, Clinton won CA whites 55%-40%. To the extent that demographic changes have led to improvement in CA voting, it's at least partly related to the fact that it's harder to demonize groups that people are familiar with (note that the people most opposed to immigration are the places with the least experience with it).

 

[Greoric]

You are getting closer to wanting to murder me every time you log in. You might want to put that sociopath lawyer on retainer.

Don't flatter yourself. I think more highly of the shits my dog takes ....if that makes you feel safer.