Higher bone density, more fast twitch muscle fiber. Thats where the better average athletics come from for blacks.

Ok.

I dont think it is. Its mostly on the loud mouthed fringes, most of it is either harmless or results in positive change. Its certainly a problem in specific areas, but the population at large doesnt seem effected enough to call it systemic.

I dont think he should be fired for not disavowing. Do you think thats why he was fired? How did you determine that was the case?

Lol, ya but you openly admit you dont trust the source so your suspicion is automatic isnt it?

(So maybe something unfair happened but "tyrannical" is hyperbole. Let's save "tyrannical" for a President who wants to literally kill people's families to punish them.) — Baden

Maybe? Seems pretty clearly unfair. Tyrannical Ill grant is a stretch but there are uses of the word that dont mean murderous presidents so it doesnt seem that over the top to me.

Yes, but at least one of his examples isn't remotely accurate.

What actually happened was:

"Tea Katai made the posts on her Instagram story earlier this week, and the Galaxy angrily condemned them as "racist and violent" on Wednesday. The posts included a photo with a caption written in Serbian urging police to "kill" protesters, another referring to protesters as "disgusting cattle," and a third sharing a racist meme."
— Baden

If your wife is an out-of-control racist calling for people to be killed, you better disavow that shit quickly or you can expect some blowback. — Baden

It doesnt matter to you that the person punished didnt do what they were punished for? I understand you are saying its bad for him to not disavow the behaviour but are you saying thats why he was fired? Cuz He didnt disavow it (or didnt disavow it fast enough rather)?
It seems like he was fired by his association, how did you determine it wasnt?

Ya, It seems to be something about how they are received. That Terrapin guy always turned when people either didnt accept his framing or they didnt understand his framing and he did suicide by mod when too many of his discussion went that way. That Nuke guy seemed to be upset that his taunts/rants didnt get enough support or reaction once the discussion degenerated into mud slinging so he suicided by mod in his attempt to escalate it.
Fragile ego’s and/or narrow interest of engagement would be my guess.
I dont wanna say trolling..but there is something trollish to it. Its a very focused, self serving sort of engagement like trolling is...I mean there aren’t that many good philosophy sites so there is some cost to it if they are interested in that kinda thing.
I dont know why it fascinates me but it does.

Thats a good point, but surely we can find a more reasonable cut off than the examples NOS used but that do include the example you used. What gets compared (and shut down) to your swastika example is pretty egregious.

What do you think the reason is for that kamikaze “hurrah” we see too often on this forum? There have been a few now who clearly decide they are going to act out and get banned.

Well said, and history shows us pretty clearly that its true. ideologies that later turn out to be very weak almost always have censorship as a primary trait.

I think he is talking about the lense of identity politics, where race is always a huge factor in any interaction with different races involved. (Especially with white and black people in the states). It adds to the problem because its creates a race issue where there isnt one (potentially, obviously race can still be a large factor it just shouldnt be assumed just because different races are involved).
Also, I think that Judaka means is talking about your personal impact on the world in the first quoted portion and talking about the identity politics Idealogy in the second quote.
Im not sure if you subscribe to identity politics in the way Judaka indicates but Im pretty sure thats what hes accusing you of.

Fair enough.

I didnt ask you. I actually think your a fucking liar, if you’ll remember. Ive got nothing to say to you.

Alright, so why do you two bother? I'm curious what you hope to get out of engaging with the levels of dishonesty and delusions you’ve been confronted with. That Benkei guy couldnt have been more clear about how useless it is respond to his dishonest nonsense yet you persist.
Why are you bothering? Nothing productive will come from this thread or the other on race, they arent discussions they are echo chambers. I mean, Judaka even said it was a waste of time to resoond but kept doing it. What are either of you getting out of it?

Well Ill leave it for readers to figure out which of us is blowing smoke. Hopefully they put more effort than you did.

Not really sure what response youre looking for here...you found a criticism. It was controversial, as expected. No one thought the Grievance studies people would go “youre right, you got us, we are full of shit and service ideology over true academic truth.”.
Look harder, you will see that the criticisms are very weak and if you don’t, look up “confirmation bias”.
Also, I referenced Sowell as an example of an academic who doesnt buy systemic racism to show that its not foolish to deny it exists. There are other examples, plenty of reasonable people question the claim of systemic racism. I wasnt positing Sowells body of work for argumentation.
Anyway, not sure what your point is.

The Grievance Studies Affair showed us just how much stock we should put into academic studies in the social sciences.
These are the same academics that changed the definition of racism to “prejudice plus power” bullshit.
Im not saying no stock at all should be put into these sorts of academic papers, but its certainly not indisputable that systemic racism exists, nor is it akin to believing the moon landings were faked. The definition of systemic racism may be so loose as to be only implausibly denied, but then it fails to pack any punch as a real problem...certainly not as real a problem as actual racists and racism found in a disturbingly high levels throughout the US.
Have you ever heard of Thomas Sowell? He doesnt believe in it, he is an academic. Do you have any peer reviewed papers refuting his writing on it? You said No peer reviewed papers that refute systemic racism? Did you even check? Ill bet you checked with the same authority you are referencing the academic papers of, the same authority that taught you this stuff in the first place. Strikes me as a bit circular.
Its not as one sided and obvious as you are portraying it to be, and trying to dismiss people arguing against the existence of systemic racism comes off as a cheap, strawman tactic.

Yes, I understand that. Ive been saying that since he got in, you dont have to sell me on any of that. I think I misunderstood what you meant when you said to just ignore Trump. You mean ignore Trump in so far as listening to him will only make it harder to try and relate to his base/followers? Is that right?

I also agree anti-trumpers need to self reflect. The way id put it is they would get more mileage if they admitted their own part in creating the hyper-polarised state of affairs.

When Trump says something ridiculous so as to stay in the headlines, we don't have to feed the beast by playing his game and getting all excited. Example: If I was making a bunch of wild angry claims on the forum you guys would yell at me for a bit, and then you'd get bored and ignore me. Like that.

We all know who Trump is now. There is no educational value in describing him any further. — Nuke

I agree, as I said I think you are making a good point here. I think I can be more clear...
What Im wondering about Is if Trump is being ignored by his opposition, than how do you prevent his empowerment among the people who are not ignoring him? Wouldnt the cult of personality only get stronger?

Lol, well I was referring to you and someone else so individual pronouns aren’t relevant.
Anyway, I didnt mean to speak for you or condescend to you by defending you, its about this clueless, blind dishonesty from way to many people on this forum. Its really starting to annoy me, So much bandwidth is taken up by this back and forth, posturing gotchya shit that it derails what would otherwise be interesting discourse.

Ok, last word. You shouldnt be dishonest, it ruins discourse and even subtle dishonesty like yours habituates deception until it isnt even noticed as dishonesty anymore.

First of all If you have followed anything that NOS has posted on this forum you know that NOS can defend himself if he feels it's necessary. But of all the highly personal flaming that has occurred and been discussed on this forum you get triggered by:

So you lived in the US and then moved to Canada? I was just always surprised at your level of interest in US politics.
— Monitor

And you leap from your foxhole to defend poor NOS from such a vicious unprovoked attack.
I urge you to contact the Mods about me. — Monitor

You aren’t listening. You even quoted me on it. This isnt about flaming, personal attack or defending anyone. You were being dishonest, and Im holding you accountable. Its important not to be dishonest, dont you think?

As for the Gotcha, I didn't ask him if he still beats his wife. In fact I was trying to let him correct an inconsistency that was apparent in my post and deflected in his response. This is not the first time there has been inconsistency in his posts. And we still don't know how he voted for Trump in 2016 while living in Canada? Dual citizenship? I don't know. But he has incensed people around here to the point that some think he is a Russian troll so I don't think I out of line by quoting him dire — Monitor

“Trying to let him correct..”? You were trying to play gotchya, trying to expose him as a liar. Your rephrasing is an attempt to
frame your response as something other than what it is, which is you playing gotchya. Thats very dishonest.
I understand it a subtle dishonesty, but we shouldnt do it. Its bad for discussion, to say nothing of the ethics.

Perhaps you are like NOS and the late Chester and just love to argue for the sake of arguing. — Monitor

Please. Like they are the only people who love to argue in this forum.
Im not interested in arguing, Im interested in people being honest so discourse is productive and interesting.

I think you are making a good point here, but how do you ignore Trump? His effect on discourse and divisiveness is very real, and has very real effect on trying to fo what your suggesting and make peace with his base.
How can you repair the rift with Trump stirring the pot? It seems to me that rather than ignore Trump, he must be accounted for in whatever solution employed.

How did he vote for Trump in 2016? No ad hom here. — Monitor

Right. You were playing “gotchya!”, I get that. What I was commenting on is your post afterwards where you said:

So you lived in the US and then moved to Canada? I was just always surprised at your level of interest in US politics. — Monitor

To NOS asking you:

Is there a point there? — NOS4A2

So you indicated pretty clearly your point was something about moving to Canada or surprise at his interest US politics. Now youre back to playing “gotchya!”. So your answer to his question about your point was dishonest. I'm not accusing you of making an ad hom, im accusing you of being a liar.

Really? It seemed pretty clear you were trying to point out a contradiction. So quoting those two separate posts was your way of...asking him if he moved to Canada from the US? Or just as a roundabout and non-sensical way of expressing surprise about his interest in US politics?
You expect anyone to believe that?

I think you are full of shit, and are making up or at least heavily exaggerating your experiences.
Your compassion is misplaced here folks, allow me to butcher a classic saying:
Dont be so open hearted your brain falls out. This guys story is obviously constructed.

Im not defending anyone you clown. Im calling you out. The fact you can’t see the difference should give you pause.
The guy was obviously a jack-ass, and deserving of his ban but for you to take the time to “respond” to him even though you know he is banned is unhinged. Its very telling about your character, and explains alot about the way you interact with others in here.
Even your childish framing of my “fallen hero” and “defending his honour” is dishonest and pathetic.

Talking to a ghost... — praxis

With no self awareness of how egocentric that is. What is the fucking point of “responding” to a guy you know is banned?!
You show your colours here, you are not interested in discussion. You are interested in pushing your narrative, thats it. Pathetic and disgusting. And cowardly, he isnt here to defend himself.
I know, I know...its ok cuz he was a piece of shit right? He got banned after all, so how could there be anything wrong with your acts of cowardice and showing of low, self serving, agenda driven character? Right?
Fucking pathetic.

Yeah perhaps you're right. It (faith) is often viewed as the antithesis of reason and whatnot and so would easily "fit the bill". It was kind of random I agree. I enjoy a few beers while I peruse the internet. Suppose I just wanted to assert that was not what I was alluding to. It could've easily seemed like it imo. Times are tough. Faith without evidence takes strength. Not one to knowingly or unknowingly weaken that. — Outlander

Well we can talk about faith if you want, but you said you’ve heard it all so...

Why would a mental prison be eternal? Why isnt there mental escape routes like with a physical prison? (Therapy, self reflection, enlightenment etc)
Also, a mental prison isnt going to deny you EVERY opportunity. Thats pretty dramatic. You will likely miss some.
You just asserted those things, without any support for the claim.
Also, what does religion have to do with it and why did you feel the need to preemptively get weirdly defensive about it? Is this a spin off from another discussion?

I doubt my existence more often than I believe in it. I must be in a different state of mind — Gregory

Well to be precise I should say that it makes no sense to doubt your own existence. Obviously one can try and doubt their existence or they might erroneously question theyre existence not knowing cogito ergo sum, so you are correct in some sense but not in the context of certainty. You can be certain that you exist, that you have some kind of existence.

Also, cannot be in a different state of mind if you do not exist.

Ya, most of that is lost on me but the self cannot be doubted, at least not by the self (I could doubt others peoples sense of self but not my own). Its just incoherent to think otherwise.

Maybe nothingness is doubting — Gregory

Sure, maybe but I see no reason to think thats the case. I stated the reasoning why we can be certain of our own existence, are you conceding that point or did you have a counter-argument?

Physics is founded on a static view of the universe that can not be proven over a dynamic view/perspective. Seeing this is through a reasoning that I believe is important in philosophical studies. The science perspective in the Chronicles of Narnia had a big influence on my thinking when I was young. Pushing the limit until the point of saying "is anything possible" is the only way to finally get certain knowledge, as far as I can see — Gregory

What certain knowledge do you think you have?

The cogito can be doubted. Doubt of it and science is part of the philosophical endevour — Gregory

No it cant. The act of doubting requires a doubter, the doubter must exist. The nature of that existence might be any number of things (brain in a vat, a gods dream, anythings possible) but that it exists is beyond the ability to doubt, it is the one true certainty. To expand the classic “I think therefore I am”:
“I think, therefore I am *something*. Meaning if you can doubt, then you are something doubting, something that exists.

False. The relativism of material laws is fundamental to doing philosophy. I've seen writers on this forum defend Hume and yet also defend physic's validity. They can't see that they are being inconsistent — Gregory

I think you are confusing human lack of 100% certainty with some brand of material relativism. The fact we cant be 100% certain or that science can be wrong doesnt mean it isnt describing the material world, nor that the material world is beyond its measure. As I asked you, do you offer something more reliable than science?
Also, could you explain how relativity of material laws is fundamental to philosophy? Im not sure what you mean.

Ok, but can you respond to what Im saying rather than just pivoting to something else? You make a point, i make a counter-point, and you just “but” into something else. It makes cogent communication more difficult.

Certain knowledge is very elusive, as far as I know its just Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum. No other knowledge is 100% certain. Even if that weren’t the case, the pursuit of certain knowledge is not at odds with science.
Im sorry to say, the only thing you’ve gotten right so far is philosophy is prior to science. I agree with that.

Whats more reliable than science? Whats your superior alternative?

Why is it so reliable if its a hoax?

What makes you think science is founded on taking random samples? The “ samples” are not random, and they arent the foundation of science. The samples, by which I take you to mean experimentation, are carefully constructed and monitored and usually very specifically targeted. The foundation of science is the scientific method, and nothing else even comes close to science as far as discovering knowledge/truth.
The changing of scientific conclusions is evidence the method works, not that it doesnt work. You have it backwards. The fact that science changes its mind is because they get new information which allows them to draw a better conclusion or identify bad ones.