Message from @SilverLining
Discord ID: 499776148977483778
Explain how stereotype threat, and varying social/educational backgrounds don't explain enough
Why would you reject an explanation from Ryan Faulk at face value, and then accept an explanation that YOU AGREE WITH at face value, simply because it is contradictory to explanation 1? @SilverLining
How are you not aware of what youa re doing?
What is Ryan Faulk's explanation?
If you're asking what his explanation is, you just missed the point
The point I was making is that you will refuse *anything* contradictory to your position, and accept *anything* that aids it, even if it's garbage
maybe just tell me?
How am I refusing it?
Someone explain to this woman that the conversation is not about Ryan Faulk
Is me offering a rebuttal, explaining why a certain anomaly exists, "refusing" it?
I'm accusing you of back unaware that you have a bias
*being unaware
You do too
Everyone has a bias
Of course I do
I'm aware I do
you're just saying I'm not
because I'm offering a rebuttal, and explaining why a certain argument isn't valid
Remember when you cited the IQ study, and the data didn't at all match with what you said.
And I responded with, "Well, it looks like this study was biased, so I'll just stop talking about it from now on."
What could I have done instead?
What are we talking about?
Did that happen this conversation?
No
jesus this conversation is going nowhere
it happened earlier this month
okay, don't really remember
I just think it's interesting that you condescend from an ivory tower while being unaware of what you're doing
I don't keep online shitpost arguments at the forefront of my thoughts
Well, let me put it to you plainly:
If you haven't noticed by now, every time you ask for a source, I always give you one that is more "open" and in agreement with your position, than say, citing Ryan Faulk or some race realism site.
I do this for two reasons
1. Because you'll be more open to it.
2. Because it leaves room for you to defend yourself.
Every time I do this, you look at the article, without allowing room for exchange about what you have just saw, you point out that they have an explanation for the data (which they should), and expect the other person in the debate to accept it unquestioningly without allowing them to challenge it. You take the ground they give you to defend yourself, and then abuse it.
If you are not serious about debating the topic, sure, that's fine, but in that case, if you're in a debate server, you should expect other people to
@The Big Oof stop DESTROYING libtards with FACTS and KNOWLEDGE
well that was interesting
tbh
Just saying
you still haven't addressed what I've been saying
You last asked me:
"What is Ryan Faulk's position then?" and I never answered it because
1. I don't know
2. His position wasn't being invoked anyways. I was using a hypothetical example, and how you would respond to it if it happened
versus how I you would respond to it if I sent you a source that was on your side
okay...?
This has to do with the topic at hand because...?