All milo wanted was an ethnostate a place were white babies are welcome and happas murdered

Horseshoe theory was a shit debate primarily because it views politics as existing on one axis. Amusingly, its critics often did the same as its proponents

Cory booker is a retard dont change my mind

How dare you call #Sparticus a retard

No True Muslim fallacy

Hypothetical question time. If we assume Brett sexually assaulted Ford in the manner described. Who is the bigger victim? Would the consequence of getting half the country to believe you are a predator and thus receive continuous death threats and having your daughters/family continually harassed about a terrible choice you made in your teens be justified? Or is that victim blaming? Where Bretts victimization from media, politicians and the public at large cannot be blamed on Brett?

The biggest victim is the 14th amendment

I was thinking 4th, 5th, and 6th

One of those amendments anyway

If Brett is the greater victim. And we #believethevictim... What does that mean?

Maybe he had it coming for being a beer-swilling chad

Could we believe everyone but just use Trial by Flamethrower to sort it all out?

Or we could do what lindsey suggested and try seeing if people float next.

you mean get the accused to the wall and blast them with flamethrower and if they flinch, they are guilty ?

I was thinking something more along the lines of if God's Holy Armor does not come down upon them and make them invincible then they are guilty. It could even be done on a larger scale with nuclear weapons. We just need to have a little faith...

that sounds perfect plan. lets nuke israel to see if they really are gods chosen people.

We already know that answer when God allowed the Romans to expell the Jews from Judea.

You ever gonna back up that link you posted way back when, @Jasse ?

huh. i which one?

i have been posting all over the internet lately...

The study you claimed proved heritability and immutable lower IQ of Black Americans when it actually suggested IQ malleability and the effect of upbringing when relevant to education

IQ is malleable to the extent.
but i dont see revelancy of that when starting postition is that they have way over one standard of deviaton lower IQ by genetic factors.

its not like education can magically bring their IQ level of whites.

I think you're forgetting something.

From the abstract "The socially classified Black adoptees, whose natural parents were educationally average, scored **above the IQ and the school achievement mean of the White population. **"
"The high IQ scores of the socially classified Black adoptees indicate malleability for IQ under rearing conditions that are relevant to the tests and the schools."

This is what I'm specifically asking about

Ashkenazi Jews have been tested as having some very high IQ. If IQ works like cooking then you just need to mix the right ingredients to raise the IQ.

oh that study.
you forgot "Biological children of the adoptive parents scored even higher. Genetic and environmental determinants of differences among the Black and interracial adoptees were largely confounded."

Shifted goalposts, no precise scoring used to compare the two in the abstract

Study showed that environmental factors can bring black students above the "white" mean, and the expectations from the school

Your initial argument was that the adopted black students saw no real change
"Black children raised in White households have similar IQ scores to Black children in Black households.
https://archive.fo/oNKYp"

If black children are more than one standard deviation lower than white children && black children in white households score above the white mean then != the two scores are similar

oh now i see what you miss undestood.

the one standard of deviatoin gap didint go anywhere.
those parents biological children still scored higher, even in exaxly same school and enviroment.

Right, the degree to which they scored higher is not mentioned, and I doubt we're dealing with ubermensch whiteys. I'd read through the study if it wasn't paid shit. Might hunt it down

I am having a dillema... Chuck Grassley v Lesley Graham. Who is the bigger Chad?

Been thinking about this for half a minute. Why is authoritarianism so demonised? I'm fairly liberal but isn't it just enforcing laws and that? When people talk about authoritarianism they always seem to characterise it as enslavement. Someone controlling every aspect of your life but that's just the extreme version of it. Seems kinda like people are just only considering the most extreme examples of it and making that look like the norm. Is that not similar to someone saying that libertarians are all child molesters and serial murderers?

I think it's the context of the time we live in, where power in the USA is concentrated at the federal level instead of state, or EU instead of country. And how both the extreme left and the Richard Spencer types both seem to be horseshoeing around to being anti-free speech

Authoritarianism tilts towards tryanny and that's never a good thing. It's also not so easy to identify where reasonable authoritarism begins that tilt into tryanny. Humanity has a social nature and we're pretty well aware of that. If that nature, if left unchecked, leads societies to tilt into that tyranny. We know that humanity tilts to an extreme before things get too bad and then they need to be regined in again. So it's a survival strategy to fight against the authorian tilt into tyranny but we don't know that exact tipping point. So people try and demonize authoritarianism in totality to fight against that.

That's a good point. I reckon there's a healthy amount of authoritarianism that society needs but there is a tendency, especially in recent history, for it to go too far.

Society requires authoritarianism to function, individuals require libertarianism to function. Need a good mix of the two that doesn't tip to either of the extremes

the state is only a means to an end. its end and its purpose is tp preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. above all, it must preserve the existence of the race, there by providing the insdisenceble condition for the free development of all of the forces dormant it this race.
those states which do not serve this purpose have no justification for their existence.

as long as authoritarian state serves its purpose its not tyrannical by the definition.🤔