Source?

People overestimate niceness and underestimate graphically slaughtering a bunch of evil priests to scare their ilk back into doing something less harmful with their lives.

How difficult can it be to identify some? I bet some small circles in the rat community could pull it off in a few weeks if they weren't massive moralfags.

can someone tl;dr this for me ?

>>6078
Scott creates a haven for toxic alt-right sociopaths in the name of free speech, then cries and acts like a victim when he discovers that there are consequences for enabling fascists.

Alternatively, Scott was harassed into shutting down one of the few spaces to foster constructive online discussion of controversial topics. Despite the relatively balanced ideological makeup of the Culture War Thread, the lack of the complete left-wing dominance so typical online resulted in the entire enterprise being labeled as a haven for "racists" and "neo-nazis" by leftists. Frankly, I'm disgusted by the tactics used by those opposed to the threads. The complete absence of respect, civility, and even basic decency is a depressingly common feature of the modern left.

(behold the rare and dangerous back-to-back intellectual turing test)

if free and open discussion is actually a good thing then he's an accomplice to evil and sold out an entire community just so he could keep his shitty friends

but the internet has done nothing but expose the dogma of open discourse as a fraud ever since it was invented so i don't see why he doesn't just admit he was wrong about it

>>6080
So you say free speech is bad…
and yet you are posting on 8chan…
very interesting…

>>6080
Low quality bait

What political liberals like me actually think is free and open discourse is bad for lumpenproletariat plebs, but good for highly-educated, refined, cultured, intelligent people like me. Autist Scott either didn't pick up on this "elephant in the room" (to borrow Robin Hanson's phrase) or didn't agree with it, but didn't want to debate it either. Some of my fellow liberals didn't like this and thought they'd engage in a little freelance denazification.

This was always going to happen at some point. Scott oughtta either kept it hidden, kept his liberalism hidden (we liberals really hate when someone on our side does this kind of shit), or manned up and argued for why it was OK, even though theoretically plebs could see and interact with this shit. He did none of these things, autist that he is, just trying to pass himself off as normie while literally linking to neoreactionaries in his blogroll (good luck with that, Scott). Which is a bit like that psychopath that appeared on TV once in a ridiculous mask that failed to conceal her identity.

Are you saying that opposition to HBD is a core value of liberalism? Really? Given that virtually every white person was a little bit white supremacist a century ago (and maybe that is still true), and prominent progressives were actually eugenics supporters, this seems unlikely. It's more that opposition to racial differences being politically important has been (((spread))) among liberals, but in many cases this is fairly unthinking opposition, and based on the false belief that science hasn't found any such statistical differences.

>>6086
Yeah? Values changing over the course of a century isn't very shocking. You can have larger changes in a shorter timespan.
Don't confuse the contents of an ideology with the internal beliefs of the people following it, though. The opposition to HBD embedded in liberalism isn't exactly a denial of racial differences, it's the (not completely unreasonable) assumption that anyone who wants to convince people that racial differences exist has ulterior motives, which makes the topic impossible to discuss.
>((()))
No.

Opposition to HBD is all about it showing us that people are of different worth, even that there's no people. Some fail to get that this is obvious no matter how much they repeat memes like worth being unrelated to ability… Seriously, even if it's your universal compassion giving them worth, did you know universal compassion is probably genetic?

>What political liberals like me actually think is free and open discourse is bad for lumpenproletariat plebs, but good for highly-educated, refined, cultured, intelligent people like me.
And here I thought the discourse they're ok with is the most embarrassing, meaningless pleb-tier garbage I've seen in my life, the one thing I ever see them do. Could you give me one example of these highly-educated, refined, cultured and intelligent ""liberals""?

>>6084
>a bit like that psychopath that appeared on TV once in a ridiculous mask that failed to conceal her identity
What?

>>6087
> The opposition to HBD embedded in liberalism isn't exactly a denial of racial differences

However, the opposition to HBD is completely inseparable from denial of racial differences; as such, the entire edifice of leftism has come to depend on denying a specific set of empirical facts, much like faith before the invention of a bunch of milquetoast defenses such as "separate magisteria".

It's possible to be a lefty and acknowledge these differences. It's just that most lefties are retarded and inconsistent tribal warriors who cannot separate slogans from core ideology.

https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/liberal-race-realism-clearing-up-a-few-things/

> suspended
Oh wow, guess it's true, you aren't allowed to disagree on this.

>>6091
>It's just that most lefties are retarded and inconsistent tribal warriors who cannot separate slogans from core ideology.
I don't think that's quite right, except in the vacuous sense that most people in general are.
The opposition to racial differences is strategic, not epistemic, which means that it's possible to privately believe they exist and still rationally denounce them in public.
Most leftists don't privately believe in racial differences (or don't believe they believe in racial differences), but that's not because they're stupid, that's because it's instrumentally useful.
There's nothing unique or unusual about this situation. Everyone does it for some beliefs.
The ability to earnestly hold (or believe yourself to hold) strategically useful but false beliefs is essential, because it makes it much easier to act as if you hold those beliefs.
tl;dr: the elephant in the brain

> https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/liberal-race-realism-clearing-up-a-few-things/

Wow, that post is retarded. Let's apply identity politics group-level reasoning to race realism, and conclude that we have to literally reify white guilt in the form of racist wealth taxes on white people. WTF?!

It completely ignores the fact that stupid people don't choose to be stupid regardless of race. Which is an obvious point. By his logic, stupid white people are just as entitled to redistribution as stupid black people, at any given IQ level.

>>6094
>By his logic, stupid white people are just as entitled to redistribution as stupid black people, at any given IQ level.
He probably agrees with that too. That's what the whole "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" thing is about.
Is it supposed to be some kind of reductio ad absurdum?

>>6094
>>6095

Oh my moloch-chan have we finally drilled a debate down to actual fucking root-level value differences ON THIS HELLBOARD??

Gods this redeems the existence of the entire thing. Fucks's sake I don't even remember the last time I saw this happen on any rat chat

>>6096
Except we did it by talking about someone else's position rather than one of our own.

>>6096
>Oh my moloch-chan have we finally drilled a debate down to actual fucking root-level value differences ON THIS HELLBOARD??
That's the power of anonymity for you, nigger!
>Gods this redeems the existence of the entire thing. Fucks's sake I don't even remember the last time I saw this happen on any rat chat
Although I echo the sentiment about rat chats, /ratanon/ never needed redemption. It has had worthwhile posts since its earliest days.

>>6097
No, I'm pretty much a leftist. I don't agree with everything in the blog post but I more or less endorse the principle.

>>6092
> Most leftists don't privately believe in racial differences (or don't believe they believe in racial differences), but that's not because they're stupid, that's because it's instrumentally useful.

Naturally, but I think they're stupid if they think (or they happen to act as if they do) that it's instrumentally/strategically useful. Maybe it is, but only in the electoral sense, not in ideological one.

>>6094
> By his logic, stupid white people are just as entitled to redistribution as stupid black people, at any given IQ level.

I see no problem with this logic, it's consistently egalitarian; I don't agree with these values, but I acknowledge that this is what scientifically accurate leftist ideology should look like. Redistribution along racial lines (and remember that race is a social construct, is 1/8th self-identified black entitled to it, etc. etc.), in contrast, is just bastardized meritocracy with nice tribal banners, it's unfair to individuals and still promotes competition in ability, and why the fuck should anyone on the left who's not a black supremacist and/or white/asian/jew-hater want that.

A simple challenge for you, /ratanon/: defend each of the following statements to the best of your ability.

1. The strong should be forced to help the weak.
2. The strong should be required to help the weak.
3. The strong should help the weak.
4. The weak should be left to suffer.
5. The weak should be killed.

What conclusions have you drawn?

>>6101

A variant of 5

Weakness should not exist. To achieve elimination of weakness we should use the most humane method that still achieves the goal. Since sterilization is available while IQ boosting isn't I prefer sterilization and reject mass murder.

>>6102
Does your idea of weakness differ from low evolutionary fitness?

>>6103

Yes.

My definition of strength and weakness is based on whether a given organism is intelligent, physically strong, healthy and knowledgeable.

Evolution on the other hand promotes crazy breeders.

>>6101
1-5. It minimizes suffering.

>>6101
1-5 leads to a stronger cooperate/cooperate civilisation. Okay, maybe not 1 and 5.

>>6105
How are you going to test for those, taking Goodhart's law into account?

>>6105
>crazy breeders
Breeding is sane. It's the one value actually explicitly handed to us by nature, and here you are ignoring it and gazing into the abyss. The point of being intelligent, physically strong, healthy and knowledgeable is to reproduce. And you know it.

>>6111
>the one value actually explicitly handed to us by nature
Unless you're exploited or group selected, instead of trying to get antinatalist types to breed they could be encouraged to become suicide fighters.

>>6111
Could you perhaps explain what it means for a value to be "explicitly handed to us by nature"?