top 100 commentsshow all 128

[–]Retardation_station 17 insightful - 10 fun17 insightful - 9 fun18 insightful - 10 fun -  (1 child)

Nice username. I'm positive that you're not arguing in bad faith.

[–]Froglich 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Nice username. I'm positive that you're not arguing in bad faith.

Encore!

[–]Yin 19 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 3 fun -  (52 children)

You think Wikipedia isn't filled with subversive propaganda.

You think the media sources that Wikipedia's controlling writers cite, in a game of circular logic propaganda, aren't the lying subversive propaganda that they are.

You think that the resulting biased portrayal of topics involving people and political topics on Wikipedia equates to truth.

This is funny.

What do you want to debate the "alt right" about?

[–]Horrux 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

BINGO.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

^

[–]Yin 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]Enza 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

↕️

(i just wanted 2 be included)

[–]socks[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

This is the thread with the recent comments that were considered to be beyond the pale:

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/83fb/studies_that_show_that_race_mixing_is_a_bad_thing/

Why did I want to debate? I wanted to respond to this: "I am against race mixing", among other comments in the thread.

[–]Yin 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (46 children)

https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/83fb/studies_that_show_that_race_mixing_is_a_bad_thing/

I only skimmed some of your comments in that thread.

"Moreover, Watson refers to Africans, not necessarily mixed race people, who do tend to be smarter, more attractive, more physically capable, and more interesting, taller, and with bigger dicks than people like you."

You dismiss James Watson of all people with the term "racist asshole", like an emotional redditor, and then reply with subversive NYT opinion anti-scientific propaganda as if that's going to impress anyone who's sane, as if that invalidates Watson's factual statements.

"Not only do they give you false information like - "Mixed race people have IQ that is intermediate between IQs of their parents" (which is not how genetic traits are passed on)"

Except that is how genetic traits are passed on. Depending on the genes, there's [approximately on average] half coming from the male and half from the female. In a theoretical model where there are 1000 large markers that (for sake of this example) equally comprise what would result in the birth of a human with a more equipped brain (which any type of IQ study would reflect, for example), then if Person A has high percentages of those genetic traits and Person B does not, then: when Person A and Person B mate, their Child X will on average have pulled somewhere in the middle from those sets. Anecdotes and extremes exist in addition to averages. It's a highly-directed lottery. It's a lottery extremely deterministic with the inherent fact that it's based on genes of the participants and what they're capable of producing. Therefore, it's even more deterministic at the large macro collective levels: large populations. If Population 1 is producing a high number of 130+ IQs and Population 2 is producing rare numbers of 130+ IQs, then if Population 1 and 2 equally force-bred, the offspring norms would be a new Population X somewhere in the middle.

This holds true for most aspects of humans and other animals that have wide varying evolutionary branches (sub-species/races/clusters/breeds) capable of breeding with each other. It's especially so for all aspects of the brain, not just the meaty body/shell. Brains are the base sources of intelligence, instincts, nurturing, impulse control, violent/aggressiveness, coping, stress, reflexes, and all other behaviors and aspects of the animal and how it may conduct itself and mature. Brains/bodies interacting in the world is the base of forming civilizations, which is later labeled "cultures" (culture being 100% downstream from genes, as is any other animal's output if characterized as "culture"). Hence, demographics is destiny.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Spot on, Yin. My family breed dogs and other animals. This holds water with me, there is a reason we get the results we get, it is careful selection of parents and their respective traits.

[–]Yin 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The funny thing too is all of this is totally measurable: 1. in the real world empirically with your own eyes and brain if not methodically: gathering physical and mental measurements. 2. but also measurable in the very fabric of life: genetics. Everything I and others are saying about these simple truths shouldn't be controversial. They are facts. Truth is damning to the subversive narrative, though, so it is has been systematically smeared and vilified to a point where anyone talking about it is "taboo" or doesn't want to be labeled "racist". Globalist communist propaganda merchants are playing a sick and evil game.

The other funny thing is that people arguing otherwise --- insert a stereotypical [clueless leftist / redditor / neoliberal / emotional smoothbrain] raised by anti-scientific fiction and mainstream cult opinion peaces disguised as "science" --- are arguing against nature and evolution. That umbrella of communism is the lowest tier of a cult that I can think of. They are religious zombies with no redeeming qualities who think they aren't in a cult. They are like The Borg or Terminators and they want to possess your society until you and I have no future. 100% predatory.

With certain other religions, at least the religious followers of them know they're religious and they have a lot of redeeming qualities and philosophies rooted, (ironically?), in the real world based on longstanding human behavior. Even people who think long term evolution never took place are at least inclined to be skeptical of the cult dogma of neoliberal and communist evil and be rooted in real world observation of human beings, rather than dumb enough to entertain neologistic psycho-vomit disguised as critical theories.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You should look at what socks responded to me with.

[–]Yin 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm on it, friend!

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

[–]cisheteroscum 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Dog breeds are notoriously inbred. Humans are not. Crossbreeding dog breeds can mitigate duplicates of many of the harmful recessive alleles present in either breed. This is not the case for major human races. So it's not a relevant analogy

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, mix-breeding within species is different. I know people don't like labradoodles, but those dogs can be amazing if bred correctly. You get the best of both the poodle and the lab, and folks with allergies can at least be around them.

[–]Yin 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

As with humans and any other species, mixing dog breeds can lead to much worse outcomes and undesirable traits and health problems.

It depends on the breeds.

This game of sex you're so enthusiastic about depends on your definition of a "good" outcome.

If you value things like intelligence, peace/impulse control, health, and all the other civilization-affecting outcomes dogs (or people) inflict, then you must be judicious in your examination of what constitutes "good" outcomes. Dogs are extremely human-manipulated and are simply normalized domesticated experiments.

Pit bulls for example are an abomination of an experiment in breeding animals to have high rates of lacking impulse control, strength, and violence. The rates of pit bulls that will violently maul a target to death without provocation is astronomically comparatively higher. Because they can. Because they were born with a high rate of that genetic disposition. Hence, pit bulls (and rottweilers, objectively) are a source of the highest disproportionate rate of human fatalities from dogs. Pit bulls should not be legal to have in unrestricted settings around unsuspecting people. Yet many owners will ignore all negatives, encourage their breeding, and they don't give a damn if your child or you or a loved one is harmed to death. In fact, they shriek and blame you and target you once you start defending yourself against their beloved wild killer. Sounds familiar. For them, "pit bulls" were a "good" outcome. They are usually the same people who regurgitate other emotional neoliberal propaganda ushering in the rape and murder of everyone around them, including themselves like lemmings off a cliff.

[–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This game of sex you're so enthusiastic about

Not true. I am merely repeating what one can find when searching for and studying mixed-ethnicities and mixed breeds of dogs (not that the two necessarily compare). It's easy to find more information on this. I've provided links in previous posts. Saiditors who want to argue for racist approaches seem to be rather enthusiastic about their claims, which are however not generally agreed upon in many cases.

[–]Yin 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're merely linking to propaganda that isn't true. Your term "racist" has no power. Communist and neoliberal rhetorical devises are a joke to people who care about the truth over your emotional cult behavior.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The main reason certain dog breeds show health issues is because the AKC selects for weird aesthetics and not functionality. For example they've spent that last 70 years or so breeding the German shepard's back legs shorter to make it look to their 'standard'. A farmer or a military breeding program wouldn't do this. You don't get these health issues among working dog breeds. The AKC breeding for profit program is really dysgenic not eugenic.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I was not necessarily arguing against mixbreeds, more was I arguing against your understanding of genetics, and those studies did not adequately compare Old World breeds to New World ones. There is a discernible difference. I personally think race-mixing could work, depending on the parent. While on average, mixing dogs might produce okay results, but I'd argue it isn't so for humans. Also, I should make it clear that we once created a new mixed breed on accident (female dog broke into male dogs area). The puppies they made were physically superior, but they were fucking stupid and acted like they were hyped up goofballs, and their coats/skin were jacked up.

[–]Ash 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Are you seriously comparing us to Dogs and animals? What is wrong with you people! My pets can't create art, shape their environment like we humans do or have the capability to love and hate as much we can do.

We are special and right now God's highest creation until the Aliens will turn up! You are not a dog, I am not a bitch, what is wrong with you, guys?!

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'll cross-post this in that thread too. Might as well.

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

I have explained elsewhere why I call James Watson a racist asshole, which boils down to the frequent quotations of his work by those who have no interest in the work of so many of the other geneticists and scientists who've arranged much better studies. Consider also that he calls mixed-ethnicity people 'hybrids'. Because of his obvious biases, his work cannot be trusted as purely objective science. Even when he's manipulated his findings, he can only propose a very small, insignificant difference in IQ points in 'hybrid' people. As I've noted earlier, any report must be compared and contrasted with other genetics studies, and especially studies by proper scientists who use objective scientific methods, rather than promote genetics and IQ numbers as a maths exercise that can be misused by non-scientists to make racist assumptions about mixed-ethnicity people with simple calculations, as these are unrelated to scientific genetics models. Moreover, the miniscule IQ differences are not the only measures of intelligencence or especially the other qualities of a person.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

I have explained elsewhere why I call James Watson a racist asshole, which boils down to the frequent quotations of his work by those who have no interest in the work

He has very little control over who quotes his work. Especially since he's old and not as directly involved with the promotion and dissemination as when he was younger. If you made a groundbreaking scientific discovery and some random blogger you don't like quoted it do you want the masses of people judging you for you or for the blogger? Really sounds like you're reaching for excuses here. You seem motivated by fear. Are you familiar with Bret Weinstein? Bret was the professor at Evergreen college driven out by radical marxist students when they decided, along with most of the staff at Evergreen, to have a, 'day without white people'. Bret is significant because he made the prediction then that Americans don't just have right wing authoritarian threats to deal. The primary threat to america according to Mr. Weinstein is left wing authoritarianism.

Socks you seem much more focused on right wing authoritarianism. Is this because of a fear of whites? If so where does this fear come from? I brought Bret up because even though he correctly predicted militant leftism in the US he also frequently says that at all costs we can't allow white people to 're-racialize'. In Bret's mind it always leads to gas chambers. May I be so bold as to assume that this is the real driving force behind your picking apart of scientists, activists and political groups like the dissident right? Is this why you insist on having a voice on DAR?

Consider also that he calls mixed-ethnicity people 'hybrids'

It's a scientific term. Does it really surprise you a scientist would use it? Mixed race people refer to themselves as hybrids on occasion. Looks like you're again just searching for something to be offended by.

IQ differences are not the only measures of intelligencence or especially the other qualities of a person.

Watson never said this.

[–]Yin 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You've surely touched on his underlying motives, if he's not just disingenuous. People prone to anti-white neoliberal cults are driven by inversion of history and existential fear, tactically and pathological drilled into them from birth by Hollywood news and academia fiction (a recursive function).

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

He has very little control over who quotes his work.

That's not the problem.

Especially since he's old and not as directly involved with the promotion and dissemination as when he was younger.

Also not an issue. And he's likely happy with the rise in popularity of his work among those who do not want to look at the approaches of others to genetics.

If you made a groundbreaking scientific discovery and some random blogger you don't like quoted it do you want the masses of people judging you for you or for the blogger?

I don't think it matters in this instance. Who he is does not matter. What happened to his studies is at issue.

Really sounds like you're reaching for excuses here.

No - I am merely responding to fallacies, pointing out ways in which those are fallacies.

You seem motivated by fear.

This doesn't make sense to me. What would I have to fear? If I am happy to argue with people on Saidit, what would scare me about this or the subjects we discuss? (You don't have to answer this, but fear is certainly not the motivation.)

Are you familiar with Bret Weinstein? Bret was the professor at Evergreen college driven out by radical marxist students when they decided, along with most of the staff at Evergreen, to have a, 'day without white people'. Bret is significant because he made the prediction then that Americans don't just have right wing authoritarian threats to deal. The primary threat to america according to Mr. Weinstein is left wing authoritarianism.

I've now looked him up, and I have to admit - after reading several websites - I have no idea what up with him. I'll give it more thought. It's odd that he got himself fired from a relatively good job at a small liberal arts College.

Socks you seem much more focused on right wing authoritarianism.

Yes

Is this because of a fear of whites?

No - certainly not - nor have I ever met anyone who was scared of white people (why would one be?), or who would have addmitted this; and you must appreciate that this is not really an issue.

If so where does this fear come from?

I've never heard of it outside of Saidit. It seems crazy. Are you trying to discredit my approaches by claiming that they are rooted in fear and the fear of white people? If so, you'd have to admit, that's really strange and virtually unknown among normal people who are merely having online debates.

I brought Bret up because even though he correctly predicted militant leftism in the US he also frequently says that at all costs we can't allow white people to 're-racialize'. In Bret's mind it always leads to gas chambers. May I be so bold as to assume that this is the real driving force behind your picking apart of scientists, activists and political groups like the dissident right? Is this why you insist on having a voice on DAR?

Thanks for letting me know about him. Isn't he a remarkably unusual person and example in this case? What he argues about - it seems - is very much on the fringe of social discourse, as is Watson's work - another fringe aspect of his field of work.

It's a scientific term. Does it really surprise you a scientist would use it? Mixed race people refer to themselves as hybrids on occasion. Looks like you're again just searching for something to be offended by.

Yes - referring to hybrid species is a scientific reference. What Watson has helped found is what's known as 'scientific racism' that's similar to the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. What's wrong with this is that it's part pseudo-science and part actual science, while also heavily biased toward one kind of outcome (which is not scientific). The other problem is the assessment behaviour, which is not appropriately considered by these pseudo-science racists, partially because it's impossible to get a realistic assessment of behaviour for large groups, as social psychology and other studies are always incomplete. Moreover, the science does not show significant variances for mixed-ethnicity people - if one looks at Watson's spreadsheets and sources. And if we want to call mixed ethnicity people hybrid species, we would be comparing them to all species, and thus not valuing the differences of humans from other species. Perhaps that's a good idea, but when trying to understand behaviour, human behaviour differs significantly from that of animals.

IQ differences are not the only measures of intelligencence or especially the other qualities of a person.

Watson never said this.

No - though followers of his work are fixated on this issue of IQ differences, as they oversimplify his work for their purposes, while also avoiding genetics research by so many other scholars.

Perhaps I should explain that my responses here are merely meant to offer feedback for your arguments (not about fear, or whites, &c), because you were good enough to respond with some important points, and to clarify that I do not really fall into some of the categories you mention. I am remarkably, boringly, middle of the road on many issues.

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Nonsense. You are emotionally triggered and can't handle the fact that "hybrid" is an accurate term.

'scientific racism'

That's a propaganda term devised by communist anti-white ideological cult members infiltrating science, the same set of folks who devised the term "racist". It is meaningless. Facts are "racist" to them, so they conflate the two as if the people talking about the truth have a motivation or devised nature itself. This equates to shooting the messenger.

[–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There's no need to attack me. Read the comments in the same thread and you'll see my responses. It's that simple. Leave me alone.

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I did read the responses and you're simply stating false things.

It's equivalent to a Scientologist pointing to official Scientology documents to praise Xenu while ignoring the entire basis of genetics and evolution.

[–]socks[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Again - Yin - just saying something is false obviously doesn't make it false. You don't seem to understand this.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

I've now looked him up, and I have to admit - after reading several websites - I have no idea what up with him

You're probably getting a mixed picture about the incident because there's a lot of disinfo about what really happened.

Here's the incident from Bret's perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-st73zhZL3A

Here are some raw clips left out of the national story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJ2TZ9Mvps

It's a pretty fascinating story. It's hard to believe something like this happened in a western liberal arts college.

Perhaps I should explain that my responses here are merely meant to offer feedback for your arguments (not about fear, or whites, &c).. and to clarify that I do not really fall into some of the categories you mention. I am remarkably, boringly, middle of the road on many issues.

I appreciate you clarifying. I think that 'middle of the road' isn't really a good term anymore considering how wild and crazy modern politics have become. I also feel 'middle of the road' on a lot of issues but something tells me there's still a HUGE gulf between our views. I will say that after chatting with you a bit more I do think you are at least partially operating in good faith. You are just very tricky in how you debate people. You exploit holes in people arguments and force them into the minutia of an argument. Personally I don't really mind that but I can see how others will see this as tedious and even trollish. You kind of remind me of David Suzuki at the Rushton/Suzuki debate. You are like the polar opposite of Sam Harris who steel mans people arguments (before he attempts to tear them down). That's the way I like to debate but to each his own I guess.

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Thank you.

I think Saiditors can focus more on the arguments, and much less on who I am and what I might want. These latter two issues aren't important and they're irrelevant in any discussion (per the pyramid od debate). Many response to me are nonetheless about me, which I don't want to talk about.

I'll look up the names you mention.

Looking back at my arguments for Saiditors, I think I've helped people understand fallacies and holes in their arguments, if they were curious about those problems. In this manner their next arguments should have improved. It's also helped me to think about ways of carrying on conversations with right-wing and alt-right people, which is very difficult.

My approach is much like Jeremy Paxman's. He's the best interviewer I've seen. Some of my conversations on Saidit are much like the Paxman/Brand interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk (But Saiditors do not talk of revolution. My main question is sometimes: if you don't vote, why is your political opinion important? ) More Paxman interviews here: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/30/jeremy-paxmans-top-10-newsnight-moments

[–]send_nasty_stuff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I've seen that interview but I'll probably watch it again. Brand is an interesting character. Looks like Jordan Peterson has changed his views a bit and I think he's trying to at least listen and entertain some new ideas. I can't help but feel a bit verbally hustled when I listen to Brand. He's very high IQ, especially verbally, but often lacks depth and experience on the things he talks about. The only thing he speaks on with any authority is addiction. I do think he might have a future if he doubles down and continues to explore politics and philosophy. Might be cliche but he has a beautiful mind.

Looks like you're a fan of fast paced brit wit. I am as well. If you stay on the edges of the dissident space you might learn about Johnathan Bowden. He's my my favorite British dissident. He had wit and verbal acuity in spades.

But Saiditors do not talk of revolution.

Saidit is so small I don't even see us as a distinct group. Most of us are either tech people, alt right that got kicked off reddit, curious conservatives, shareblue trolls, feds and of course indians. If you even mildly start to accept any of our views you will magically find your internet world shrinking. You will be stuck wandering in the intellectual desert for 40 years bouncing from social media site to site in a vain attempt to carve out a space for discourse.

My main question is sometimes: if you don't vote, why is your political opinion important?

Good question. You have to get more historical perspective. The citizens can exercise power in a LOT more ways then voting (I'm not necessarily endorsing any of these). They can riot. They can be non compliant. They can boycott. They form political parties. They can be hostile towards representatives of the government. They can form black markets or commit more crime. They can train their children to resist the system. It's not uncommon in history for governments and elites to rise and fall quickly because of these non voting power tactics. I mean are you really trying to say that black and female opinions were not important in the US before they gained suffrage? I think not. Both those groups had some level of influence on the political process even though they couldn't vote. Being a dissident doesn't mean not voting either. Some dissidents still vote, we just think that it's a forgone conclusion with the current two party system. Some of us even vote for more tyranny and more debauchery in the hopes the normies* will wake up to the corrupt system they are living in and join dissident political factions. That's called acceleration. Acceleration is NOT a push for violence. It's simply a strategic push to allow more radical left wing policies and politicians into power to speed up the creation of a viable third position party that can peacefully get involved in the political process and thus oppose the two party system.

*normies is a term we use for normal people not privy to dissident ideas and 4chan meme culture. Normies eat up everything the mainstream world sells them without critical thought. There's a women name Angela Nagel that even wrote about this internet subculture in a book called, Kill All Normies.

https://www.amazon.com/Kill-All-Normies-Culture-Alt-Right/dp/1785355430

Personally I don't think she did a good job and left some very important things out.

Andrew Anglin does a better job here of describing the rise of this internet dissident culture

https://dailystormer.su/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you vote for corrupt assholes, why is your political opinion important?

Personally, I think you just want to rule us up into saying that all politicians need to be lynched or something. You know there are good reasons for not voting, and you know there are solutions that do not involve voting.

You just think we can peacefully change the world, and it's stupid. You don't convince villains to walk away, and you don't convince normies to help force villains out. It doesn't happen.

There are better ways in dealing with these villains, and it's not by playing ball in their court that they've convinced you is fair and just.

[–]Yin 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Consider also that he calls mixed-ethnicity people 'hybrids'

Yes? That's accurate. Why does truth and accuracy offend you? Effectively, everyone is a hybrid of their two parents, but the term hybrid only becomes semantically useful when the two parents are distant enough in their evolutionary tree so as to noticeably result in offspring that would be "mixed" (in between, hybrid).

The rest of what you wrote is nonsensical and laughable.

Your religious-cult dogma can't grapple with the fact that evolution applies to (the very large tent of) humans and has resulted in large differences. "Celebrate diversity!?" People of your cult are hypocrites and ignorant from head to toe.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 15 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 3 fun -  (28 children)

I'm discussing this with my fellow mods now. You did go down the pyramid it's not like you did nothing wrong and you have had a warning before.

What I don't understand is why it's so important for you to be included in conversations with people you don't seem to respect or agree with on anything? I wasn't offended when I was banned from latestagecapitalism on reddit. I didn't feel entitled to be in that sub even though there were several topics I wanted to talk to them about.

If you can acknowledge that you went down the pyramid with the indian user we can work with you on shortening or lifting your ban. The mod who banned you has agreed to some flexibility on this. I assume saidit admin would agree with me here considering it's their pyramid you're breaking not ours.

[–]Horrux 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

It's called trolling.

[–]TheJamesRocket 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Its what socks is best at.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

^

[–]mahavishnunj 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

What I don't understand is why it's so important for you to be included in conversations with people you don't seem to respect or agree with on anything?

yeah, because the internet needs to be a dumbshit echo chamber where no actual conversation can take place right?

[–]send_nasty_stuff 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This comment doesn't make sense.

[–]d3rr 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I assume saidit admin would agree with me here considering it's their pyramid you're breaking not ours.

quality pyramid enforcement, your inner m7 is strong

[–]Retardation_station 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not the user you were speaking to, but if nothing else, I appreciate a vocal response from administration.

More sites need transparent moderation.

And I'm not trying to kiss ass, I'm genuinely kind of a shithead who hates authority, because authority tends toward corruption inevitably.

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I appreciate this response. My answers:

You did go down the pyramid it's not like you did nothing wrong and you have had a warning before.

I remember the warning, though I see my comments as much more informative - and thus not so far down the pyramid - than the comments by others. For example, my point to the Indian user was to point out - as clearly as I could - that he too (by virtue of his agreement with those who think mixed race people are dumber than whites) could be a victim of others who don't like mixed-race or non-white people. I am not sure if there is a better, more informative way of pointing this out. The comment was about the username, not anything personal. (I might note that mods on Saidit are never bothered when I get spammed with insults, but that's a different discussion.)

What I don't understand is why it's so important for you to be included in conversations with people you don't seem to respect or agree with on anything?

I have to explain this periodically to Saiditors: I joined Saidit months ago in order to learn about right-wing and alt right points of view, to read the stuff you read, to learn about the commonly used websites here, to see why we all seem to be concerned about the 99% but have very different ideas on how to engage in political solutions, and to see which political solutions anyone would want to discuss (and I've had no responses that include actionable options or voting preferences, or even ideas about revolutions). Just as Saiditors should try to understand what centrists and the left are reading, I should try to understand what Saiditors are reading.

Why do I argue with Saiditors? I try not to make a habit of this, but once an argument starts, I feel it's responsible and respectful to respond to the arguments of others. Also, I want to know more about the reasons for some of the posts. Another reason I respond is because I am sometimes procrastinating with work, while also annoyed with one of the posts, and want to offer a counter-argument.

I wasn't offended when I was banned from latestagecapitalism on reddit.

I am certainly not offended that I am banned from DAR. Of all places to be banned from, it's certainly OK with me to be banned from DAR.

I didn't feel entitled to be in that sub even though there were several topics I wanted to talk to them about.

This is how I feel about DAR. I wanted an opportunity to ask DAR about their views on who to elect in the next election, and how those people can help deliver alt right political solutions. I am genuinely curious about what DAR think of actionable political opportunities.

If you can acknowledge that you went down the pyramid with the indian user we can work with you on shorting or lifting your ban.

I think my first response to him was lower on the pyramid than it should have been, and for reasons noted above, I wanted to make an explicit point about racist approaches. Additional responses were, I had thought, genuine approaches to debates, and not as low on the pyramid as the first response.

Thank you very much for responding.

At some point, DAR will likely be happy to be rid of me, but for what it's worth, I would think it important for Debate Alt Right to welcome debates with the alt right, warts and all. For this reason DAR should be the most free speech sub at Saidit, with fewer rules, not the most rules (and certainly not vague rules about 'authority' and saying someone is wrong). And as we know about Saidit, I am but one of many contrarians here who like to argue and debate. In my view, this is the best part of Saidit, as would be DAR if they could stomach debates.

[–]send_nasty_stuff 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

At some point, DAR will likely be happy to be rid of me

We're not actively trying to get rid of you if that's what you're implying. We enjoy spirited debate in good faith. We are naturalists that accept the laws of antifragility. If our arguments can't hold up to debate they need modified or thrown out. Which is why I'm engaging with you now. To be honest if this was reddit we wouldn't have even considered keeping you because we'd have plenty of moderates and leftists to debate. Saidit though is a small community and we are trying to be mindful of the admins mandate to allow counter points. From our point of view though there's a pretty clear line between counterpoints and trolling or shilling.

but for what it's worth, I would think it important for Debate Alt Right to welcome debates with the alt right, warts and all. For this reason DAR should be the most free speech sub at Saidit,

I agree but again I hope that you and everyone reading are aware (as I've stated before) that DAR and all alt right spaces on the internet have a target on their back. Many people want to take us down any way possible so we are constantly on guard. Personally I'm all for free speech 'platforms' but sub sections of those platforms need moderated if productive exchange of ideas is to occur.

I think my first response to him was lower on the pyramid than it should have been

We appreciate your acknowledgment. Since the other user was not banned your ban is lifted. Just going down the pyramid is not grounds for a permanent ban. This was agreed upon by the DAR mod team with nobody in disagreement.

I wanted to make an explicit point about racist approaches.

That's how your comment came off to me but I can see how others might have viewed it differently. Even though the members of DAR are race realists we really don't see a need for racial insults. It's not conducive to productive conversations. We actually had an automod that removed racial slurs on reddit. In fact our sub probably policed 'racism' more than other subs on reddit and we were still banned. What does that tell you?

If you don't mind me making a suggestion. I think you need to make some exploratory posts on DAR simplying asking us for positions and background. Structure your questions out as neutrally as you can. Many of our users don't mind laying things out in detail. There are some very sharp well read users on DAR that you could learn from. Some of our posters have been here for all 4 years and have amassed a lot of experience unwinding disinformation and propaganda. You don't have to agree with any of them but having a framework of our real beliefs, passions, and historiography might mitigate these tense exchanges in the future. If possible don't let blunt or provocative replies get the best of you.

[–]mahavishnunj 8 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 6 fun -  (8 children)

We enjoy spirited debate in good faith.

nope. some of the most brittle pussies on the entire internet.

If our arguments can't hold up to debate they need modified or thrown out. Which is why I'm engaging with you now.

werent brave enough to engage with me...

Personally I'm all for free speech 'platforms' but sub sections of those platforms need moderated if productive exchange of ideas is to occur.

LOL!

cant go on after that. that did give me my first legit lawl of the day though, thanks for that!

[–]Mastermustard03 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Your post history makes you look like a troll. I can see why they banned you.

[–]mahavishnunj 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Your post history makes you look like a troll. I can see why they banned you.

for sure, especially in a sub called 'debatealtright'. cant have actual debate there!

[–]Mastermustard03 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah because you aren't debating within the pyramid of debate that is used as a guideline for moderation on this website. Did you come from Voat? The culture is different here -- I had trouble getting used to it as well.

[–]mahavishnunj 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

no, i had just had fun with the dumbfucks on that sub. simple as that. after i saw how beyond retarded they were it was debate-less.

[–]Horrux 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

But that's the problem isn't it: when has u/socks EVER demonstrated even an inkling of good faith? He can quote the most contrived Wikipedia page and call you paranoid if you disagree.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

^

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You can read my post history, or not. Perhaps too many multisyllabic words for you. If you can't support your claims, might as well avoid arguing with adults.

[–]Horrux 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Ah yes. More ill faith: "I never did this. Prove me wrong, here are 10 trillion pages of evidence. Call me when you find it." knowing full well I'm not dumb enough to sift through your endless supply of trolling and inanities in order to find one particular turd.

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And now - victim shaming. You attacked me. So you do favor tellling lies, and when told that they are lies, and were to find evidence, you note that you'd prefer not to. You're seill wrong, however, and seem to have no moral compass.

[–]Horrux 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Oy vey

[–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you

[–]Fiyanggu 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Socks, fuck on back to the Reddit libtard echo chamber. You've obviously pissed off enough people here to be banned.

[–]socks[S] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Excellent example of the kinds of bottom of the pyramid statements that are never questioned by mods (unless of course I were to respond at the same level to fragile weaklings like you, which would annoy the mods).

[–]Horrux 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

You've done everything wrong since you joined saidit.net. I'm sure the guys on DAR have zero patience for your absolute BS.

[–]socks[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Think about your comment, smarty-pants.

(If anyone at Saidit agreed with me I'd have to question my sanity.)

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 5 fun6 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Yet you are here day in an day out will to power in bad faith. Consistently taking L’s.

What questions would you ask your “ sanity “.

[–]Jesus 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Although, I don't think you're a shill. You could have debated on good faith on debateright. I see a lot of ad hominems in your arguments over there.

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Jesus - you're only seeing my responses (most of which aren't as bad as calling people smarty-pants), and not understanding how many attacks I respond to. Horrux and others essentially scroll through my comment history and post attacks. How do you think I should respond to someone who tells me that, "you've done everything wrong since you joined saidit.net." Should I tell Horrux what a wonderful person he is?

[–]Horrux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh no. I blocked you a long time ago, then unblocked when I saw certain posts, and now well... Your utterances do end up decorating my monitor fairly often, so I comment on these. I do wish it would stop. My health isn't so great that I think wasting my time wading through shit is a worthwhile occupation. Sadly, your posts are in the way often enough that this becomes unavoidable in my journey to the goodness that is saidit.net. Mostly.

[–]mahavishnunj 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

not about to read that wall. i got banned for embarrassing the idiots who frequent that sub. its a badge of honor. just leave it at that.

[–]FoxySDT 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Moreover, these authorities can be important, if they're earned the right to be authorities on a given subject. "Appealing to authority" is not necessarily a problem. Don't fear authorities. You're not 12.

Dude do you even know what appeal to authority means? And why that is fallacious?

[–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes - one of many forms of fallacy - which is inappropriately sumamarised in the rules at DAR, and as such, this fallacy can be used to describe so many of the responses of the users at Saidit, not to mention the many other fallacies they engage in. If DAR has a problem with fallacies, it should imploded from the self-realization of how often they're used by misinformation and disinformation memes and websites (eg. listed at /s/ShitpostNews). This particular fallacy is in several forms and would be impossible to ethically and equitably police as part of a set of rules at DAR, thanks especially to how often it's used in the sub.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Sorry about that. Why they're so sensitive I have no idea, given how much they hate other people and are happy to discuss that hatred at length.

    There have been some fun, creative subs on Saidit, some of which were banned. /s/tits was brilliant. It didn't really break any rules. Meanwhile there's /s/watchpeopledie which is pathetic, but whatever turns people on....

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Something labeled 'alt' anything should be taken with a grain of salt.
    Once you get into that labeling process weird shit will go flyin. It has already been compromised once you get to that stage. The next stage is booting people out whom don't fit the site's 'model' for comments once a site has established their 'identity' so to speak.

    [–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yes - seems to be part of the problem.

    [–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I see your error - you presumed they might have balls. It's well known that all Reddit mods are sterilized eunuch trannies.

    [–]tantamle 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I post there and I'd have to see the specifics but it seems like you're genuine.

    [–]yoke 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (25 children)

    should post on gab as well.

    [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    Gab.ai = gabai = doing deeds for the synagogue. Tobra is not a Christian, he is a radical Zionist Donmeh Jew working for David Horowitz.

    [–]yoke 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee, They would lay poor Jesus in His grave. (woody guthrie)

    [–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

    Thanks, but no way.

    Saiditors might be mean, but they're not nearly as gullible and dumb as gab users, IMHO.

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

    Ad homonym. Ad homonym & clarifying honesty through subjectivity.

    Consistently, insincere an untruthful. Antithesis of honest.

    [–]ExplodingToasterOven 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

    Those aren't necessarily bad things if done to add a little spice to the conversation. But the whole thread looks like jr high kids who got into the beer and went wild.

    Nothing new was added to the conversation, even though there IS a lot of new data since the old 60s-80s studies on race which were mainly assessing the grades of cannon fodder for war, and trying to figure out why certain areas had poor economic viability.

    No surprise, race was NOT the entire picture. The tech booms in various countries attracted lots of eggheads of various races, who then went on to do all sorts of interesting things, and produce a lot of mixed breed kids, who then went back into tech, and produced even more.

    For the eggheads, a little genetic diversity is a good thing, even though you've got a TON of self selection toward similar intellectual, emotional, and other traits. At the basic animal level, you at least offset some of the inbreeding issues common in the intellectual castes, be they hard defines or loosely defined in a society.

    The unmixed eggheads had higher levels of autism and recessive genetic diseases, the mixed eggheads had better results. But of course, their recessives got together and produced maybe 1/4 to 1/3rd more "boring ass mofos" who end up working in management, marketing, or doing goofy shit like having sports careers in the minor leagues, then going into some kind of franchise..

    But that's... Eggheads. What about other more middle of the road mofos? Your management, accounting, office jockeys, business owners, etc. And certainly they have mixed in a bit as well. On the surface at least, until you look into the families, and their relative stations in life, talents, deficits. So you got some east indians mixing with some white europeans, and both families are painfully boring and middle class. Couples pushing self selection biases again. What are the odds? :D

    A generation or two in, kids are pretty much similar to their parents. The bulk of them are of similar successes, lines of work. You might have 1/4 to 1/3rd dropping down into the working class, but usually not long term. A certain amount will cook off, and end up in tech, and then boomerang back down into the mainstream.

    As for race mixing more than one generation, the trend seems to be one and done. The kids end up hooking up with people who are their closest match for race and class.

    Same story for the more mundane working classes.

    But what about other "interesting" social experiments where there was forced mixing. Either war rape, forced assimilation of say German workers forced to live in the USSR, Pol Pot in Cambodia making whites mix with the browns through forced marriages, Mao in China pushing the intelligentsia to go work in the fields with the farmers for a decade, refugees forced to go live in a country where there were very few of similar culture around them, etc, etc. Also the sperm/egg bank thing for infertile parents, or just plain adoptions.

    Those "studies" you don't even need to try and look up, nobody is touching them. You go around, talk to people, and get the picture. You get into the rule of thirds for genetic traits, a third is better, a third the same, a third worse for raw genetics. Health, intelligence, tendencies toward mental illness, drive. The kids identify with the dominant cultures around them, and stick with the social group/caste they were born into. If your parents are office weenies, you're probably not gonna start up a franchise of plumbing businesses. Unless you've got a bunch of neighbors who made their middling fortunes in the trades and the kids really really do not want to park their butts in an office for 40 years. :D

    All the various more fantastic bits about "genetic supermen" and "intellectual degenerates", they're the rat tails of any bell curve. Start with genetics, overlay that with culture, overlay that with upbringing, education, class/caste/niche, and you get no real surprises.

    You get some "mixed breed" degenerate sex fiend, serial arsonist and donkey sodomizer with flat feet, you can find another "pure bred" degenerate sex fiend serial arsonist and donkey sondomizer with flat feet just as easily. Of course they're gonna be out there in the the 1 in 100,000+ range, have similar family history of mental illness, some rural upbringing, and similar rates of flat feet.

    Or even just the usual amount of mundane low IQ, service industry job, poor to limited success in school, better luck with trades education because that's what they were brought up around. Work as farm labor, work as a truck driver, work laying carpet. Family history and culture they grew up around predicts more in this than genetic makeup.

    Then you've got the radical ends of "elite super geniuses". 150+ IQs, top of their fields, child prodigy, great success until the age of mid 30s, and eventual breakdown from mental illness, hereditary illness, got caught with a closet full of zeta creations, bad dragon, etc etc pieces of silicone deviant objects of artistic expression, information comes out about a string of sex partners and a sex dungeon.. Then they run off to Costa Rica.. ;) Uh, yeah.. Or sometimes they just fade into normal obscurity, essential tremor, nobody has seen em out in public outside of their neighborhood since they hit 50. Parents are weird, surroundings are weird, ethnic background ties to some strange niche of whatever.. But 90% of the family in general is just criminally boring people. And they put out just an many clinically depressed substance abusing, barely can keep a job sorts, as high flying, achieve more before their 30s than some people do in lifetimes sorts.

    Of course you only see the biographies of the successful people. Or the incredibly infamous ones who got caught. So, implicit bias there. And certain cultures don't give a damn about their genius successes. Black and Mexican/Latino leaders in tech, mathematics, medicine.. There's an epic fuck-ton of em. Pull a few out for "diversity week", and go back to forgetting they exist.

    Mexican labor/political leaders, even ones of minor success, oh yeah, publish that shit EVERYWHERE. Black sports heroes, same thing. White politicians and business leaders, meh, pick a few of the interesting female ones. As for the guys, whoever the marketing shills paid us to bump up the reputation of that week. Some fading star of the early 90s tech boom who just got on the board of a new startup. ;) Oh, and 4 of their 5 kids have autism. Save that for the local news puppy parades. :D

    [–]send_nasty_stuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Some fading star of the early 90s tech boom who just got on the board of a new startup. ;) Oh, and 4 of their 5 kids have autism.

    What are your thoughts on the cause of autism? It's gotta be environmental. It's was basically unheard of a 100 years ago. I've heard two main theories. Aluminum or other additives to vaccines (A new thing in history). Older parents (also a relatively new thing in history).

    Even though I think the onslaught of vaccines on for infants is a problem I lean toward the old egg and old sperm issue. If you go to schools with younger families there's almost no autism. Schools in white areas with older parents have LOTS of autism. This also explains why whites seem to be more effective. It might also have something to do with too much estrogen in utero causing the male brain not to form correctly? I'm just spit balling here. Autism does tend to affect males more and it seems to have something to do with gender in the brain.

    [–]ExplodingToasterOven 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Mostly seems to be an issue of older parents, but not entirely. Those who work in tech seem to share similar personality types, which in genetics works to reinforce certain traits, as well as to bring out other defects. Those defects in nature usually result in someone getting eaten by a mountain lion, or just not finding a mate because they're a bad risk. So bad news for the 4 out of 5 that drop off the map, but good news as that 1 out of 5 will tend not to carry the worst forms of those genes.

    [–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Thanks for this

    [–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    You're definitely projecting.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Not quite. Enjoy your day.

    [–]Jesus 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Good find!

    [–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Thank you, Jesus.

    (And - OMG - what a website.)

    [–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    OMG in a bad or good way?

    [–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    A little of both. I agree with much of what I've read thus far (good), but the journalism isn't corroborated well and not balanced well with other facts (bad) that would help those of us who want to use the site as a factual resource. For example, were I to send one of the articles to someone as evidence, they would correct when noting that the article is not appropriately supported by evidence. I've seen some of the evidence that the articles do not mention, so I find the website useful for articles that can supplement other forms of better journalism (eg. balanced and with better evidence). As I look at the front page, I agree with notes on 911, Israeli lobby, ISIS, Syria, Libya, Chavez &c. But the articles tend toward opinions that are written as rants - and though they might be the start of good research - they are not developed. The biases of the site are so heavily pitched that hardly anyone will take it seriously. Thus the articles are best paired with better examples of reports and evidence.

    When trying to develop an argument for - say the Israeli lobby abuse of Corbyn - the audience for that argument will only take you seriously if they respect your approaches, your use of evidence, and your way of balancing the argument. One can put together a long list of unwarranted attacks against Corbyn by the Israeli lobby, and develop a good argument for that. He and others merely supported Palestinians. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, by any standard, even among many Jews (supposedly). But Corbyn was also holding his party back when he did not respond appropriately to those accusations. You have to fight fire with fire. He was appropriately criticized as a useless politician. I like him, but when he failed to take on the Tories in his 1st year, he should have stepped down and let another person have a go. He's a good person but a terrible poitician and leader. To be fair, the person who followed him wasn't much better. The UK news media chewed them both up and spit them out. Boris and other politicians have had a way of dealing with this news media, which is essential for politicians. They do so by making deals, developing support, and by working 24/7 on PR. And - try not to piss off too many who are aligned with the powerful opposition and Israeli lobby. It's like navigating through a political gauntlet.

    Empirestrikesblack.com adds to the discussion, but offers only one side of the argument, without doing the necessary legwork to for some of the imporant the evidence. Why is this? Because they don't have to do this for their particular audience. Politics is now so polarized that websites like this can manage with their respective audiences, without trying to improve their articles for a wider audience. The are useful, however, for starting, or adding to, the broader conversation.

    [–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    I wanted to know; do you believe the offical story of 9/11? Do you believe Zionism and specific Jews tied to the Likud and Mossad had a hand in 9/11?

    [–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I don't believe the official 9/11 story

    I think Mossad has been engaged with several aspects of US foreign policy and military engagements, because their official connections with the CIA &c, but it's very difficult to explain. I think one can locate legitimate circumstantial evidence, dating back to Kissinger.

    [–]yoke 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

    i think you've got some good poitns. but unless you get it across the isle it's basically, well, essentially no more than an echo chamber.

    based on the parler ban, i suppose gab users are going to listen more to your points, that is, assuming you're left leaning.

    are gab users stubborn in your opinion? cause if ppl are just dumb, there are ways to persuade them. unless someone as smart as you have already done it and they keep a vigilent watch on anyone else to do the same thing. but if dumb ppl are stubborn as well, then i'd stay away from them. (unless i can use their highly predictable way of acting to my advantage, that is.)

    [–]socks[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I see your points, but I think I am getting plenty information from the right and alt right on Saidit, and would not want to overdo it (for my own sanity). For example, there was a study years ago of groups watghing Fox News, and groups not watching that Fox, so that the IQ scores were tested before and after watching the two different kinds of news. Those who watched Fox had lower IQ scored after a period of a few weeks. I wish I could find the link to this. If I can find it, I'll return and post it here.

    I also think that many Saiditors are not as extreme as those on gab. But the real benefit of Saidit - over Reddit, Gab, and other websites - is that it's small enough for discussions and debates, in a manner that one cannot engage at the other sites.

    [–]yoke 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    sure, love saidit dude

    [–]socks[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    This is a copy of the note for the ban, to which I had responded with my note (above):

    You have been banned from participating in /s/debatealtright. You can still view and subscribe to /s/debatealtright, but you won't be able to post or comment.

    Note from the moderators:

    No saying 'you're wrong because I deem you wrong' and appealing to authority isn't an argument.

    If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for /s/debatealtright by replying to this message.

    Reminder from the saidit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this sub ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspendedfrom the site as a whole.

    This is the response I received for my 2 questions:

    You have been temporarily muted from s/debatealtright. You will not be able to message the moderators of s/debatealtright for 72 hours.