WR Exercise: Steel man a fellow WR poster

I'm going to try @TheComebackKid on his arguments regarding why integration was bad for the black community.

First and foremost I don't think you are arguing that legal equality for blacks is the problem, you'd agree that's a good thing. However, that's distinct from the phenomenon of integration. You'd argue that many immigrant communities are not really integrated the way the black community is in the sense that they keep to their own and the businesses that cater to them are owned and run by their own but they nonetheless have equal rights.

Essentially, the way integration was done in practice led to the integration of blacks as an economically dependent underclass within other communities instead of having their own cohesive community. Despite the legal inequality before integration at least black communities were more or less self sufficient, with black owned businesses hiring black employees serving a black community., and that this helped reduce or prevent certain social ills that plague the black community today. Now often times you find that the businesses in black communities aren't owned nor do they employ blacks and are often run by some immigrant community like the Koreans if not by whites and you see this as bad.

Is that a fair assessment?
 
Not sure if this will work but it's worth a try.

I'm sure many of you have either been victim or guilty of using a straw man argument in the past, whether in the WR or elsewhere. For definition:
'a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man.""

Tag a WR poster and steel man their political point of view / ideology (whether on a specific topic or just their general frame of thinking approaching any issues) and see if they agree with your post. You aren't necessarily agreeing with the viewpoint but are presenting it in a manner that the poster themselves would agree matches their viewpoint. The hope of this exercise would be to learn more about the poster than you originally had assumed/ignored and possibly give you more insight in the next thread you engage them in. Vice versa, a poster being steel manned will also have to consider what their core beliefs are in they really align with what the other poster said.

For those who really don't see value in certain posters they disagree with, see this as a challenge for yourself rather than appeasing the other poster and possibly a jumping off point for debating their core beliefs as they currently have framed them.
Regardless of success, great thread idea.
 
I'm going to try @TheComebackKid on his arguments regarding why integration was bad for the black community.

First and foremost I don't think you are arguing that legal equality for blacks is the problem, you'd agree that's a good thing. However, that's distinct from the phenomenon of integration. You'd argue that many immigrant communities are not really integrated the way the black community is in the sense that they keep to their own and the businesses that cater to them are owned and run by their own but they nonetheless have equal rights.

Essentially, the way integration was done in practice led to the integration of blacks as an economically dependent underclass within other communities instead of having their own cohesive community. Despite the legal inequality before integration at least black communities were more or less self sufficient, with black owned businesses hiring black employees serving a black community., and that this helped reduce or prevent certain social ills that plague the black community today. Now often times you find that the businesses in black communities aren't owned nor do they employ blacks and are often run by some immigrant community like the Koreans if not by whites and you see this as bad.

Is that a fair assessment?
That's a good example of a steel man because it's about 3 million times more articulate and thought out than TCK could ever do.
 
I'm going to try @TheComebackKid on his arguments regarding why integration was bad for the black community.

First and foremost I don't think you are arguing that legal equality for blacks is the problem, you'd agree that's a good thing. However, that's distinct from the phenomenon of integration. You'd argue that many immigrant communities are not really integrated the way the black community is in the sense that they keep to their own and the businesses that cater to them are owned and run by their own but they nonetheless have equal rights.

Essentially, the way integration was done in practice led to the integration of blacks as an economically dependent underclass within other communities instead of having their own cohesive community. Despite the legal inequality before integration at least black communities were more or less self sufficient, with black owned businesses hiring black employees serving a black community., and that this helped reduce or prevent certain social ills that plague the black community today. Now often times you find that the businesses in black communities aren't owned nor do they employ blacks and are often run by some immigrant community like the Koreans if not by whites and you see this as bad.

Is that a fair assessment?

Yep, pretty much. Makes an awful lot of sense huh? The one thing you left out though is that the entire integration movement was pushed by white liberals, black communists, cia operatives, and luciferian pansexuals.

Here's a good video regarding the true nature of MLK and the civil rights movement. If you ever got time to kill this is a great listen.

 
That's a good example of a steel man because it's about 3 million times more articulate and thought out than TCK could ever do.

Actually it was your own biased attitude toward me that prevented you from seeing and accepting a straight forward argument. Yet, let it come from someone else and it makes perfect sense to you. That is a reflection on you and how you take in information than it is me.
 
Actually it was your own biased attitude toward me that prevented you from seeing and accepting a straight forward argument. Yet, let it come from someone else and it makes perfect sense to you. That is a reflection on you and how you take in information than it is me.

No one thinks it makes sense. It's just that it's a fair description of what you think. That's the point here.
 
Yep, pretty much. Makes an awful lot of sense huh?
I suppose so.
The one thing you left out though is that the entire integration movement was pushed by white liberals, black communists, cia operatives, and luciferian pansexuals.

Here's a good video regarding the true nature of MLK and the civil rights movement. If you ever got time to kill this is a great listen.


<6>
 
@ultramanhyata @Trotsky

p9veey7iigm11.jpg

@HomerThompson

147156.jpg


@58miles

Your new av

4fb95fa8c4f371c3356491b3e0151db3_XL.jpg


@Kafir-kun

Growing up poor in Brazil is better than growing up in Cuba

Did I do it cool like the prez’s cabinet?
 
@AlexDB9

Anyone to the left of Pinochet needs a free helicopter ride to Cuba to learn what communism is.
 
Sorry @Lead , I'm only giving what I'm getting.


Rights are nothing more than the necessary conditions of ones proper existence.

At least I got you halfway to the truth!

We've already been over how that's a non sequitur, and you chose not to even disagree.

"Proper existence" is completely vague, subjective, fact-intensive, and just meaningless. If "proper existence" is the mere prospect of survival, then you should be legally entitled to a positive right of access to food and water, against interest, and nothing else.

Likewise, you could properly exist without your farm land, but not without water, but I bet you'd say your rights were being violated if I confiscated all your land in exchange for access to a public lake.

@Trotsky : Your entire ideology is a copy and paste of someone else's ideas. Conforming to an authoritarian collectivist ideology doesn't make you "revolutionary", or even unique.

Well, I've never seen you actually trace my points to anyone else's beliefs or ideologies, but it's good to see that, instead of failing to understand my posts, you're just scrolling past and doubling down on failing to understand others' past ideologies, I suppose.

I'm going to try @TheComebackKid on his arguments regarding why integration was bad for the black community.

First and foremost I don't think you are arguing that legal equality for blacks is the problem, you'd agree that's a good thing. However, that's distinct from the phenomenon of integration. You'd argue that many immigrant communities are not really integrated the way the black community is in the sense that they keep to their own and the businesses that cater to them are owned and run by their own but they nonetheless have equal rights.

Essentially, the way integration was done in practice led to the integration of blacks as an economically dependent underclass within other communities instead of having their own cohesive community. Despite the legal inequality before integration at least black communities were more or less self sufficient, with black owned businesses hiring black employees serving a black community., and that this helped reduce or prevent certain social ills that plague the black community today. Now often times you find that the businesses in black communities aren't owned nor do they employ blacks and are often run by some immigrant community like the Koreans if not by whites and you see this as bad.

Is that a fair assessment?

Most well-polished turd I've seen in some time.
 
Yep, pretty much. Makes an awful lot of sense huh? The one thing you left out though is that the entire integration movement was pushed by white liberals, black communists, cia operatives, and luciferian pansexuals.
My man always delivers.
 
Lmao at "luciferian pansexuals"

That's a friggin demon!
 
Yep, pretty much. Makes an awful lot of sense huh? The one thing you left out though is that the entire integration movement was pushed by white liberals, black communists, cia operatives, and luciferian pansexuals.

giphy.webp


Regardless of success, great thread idea.
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.
 
This thread needs some @waiguoren.

His unauthorized immigration argument, as far as I can tell:

Though there are efforts to try to figure out how many people are here illegally, their methodology is flawed and their motives are suspect. Given that unauthorized immigrants increase the total number of crimes committed in America (even if they reduce the rate--also a dubious proposition) and that they have a greater impact on supply of low-skill labor than demand for it, it's better to err on the side of excessive caution than excessive laxity when we decide on how much scare resources to apply to reducing the flow and population of unauthorized immigrants.

Also, since statistically, at least some of them have to be Luciferian pansexuals (if we conservatively assume that about 40% of the population fits that category, even a lower number among the immigrant population is disastrous), which further bolsters the case for restrictionism.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top