How is it “better” to not enjoy winning debates?
On second thought, maybe you’re not in a place to be better just now. I wish you the very best of luck in your journey.
.
I’m sure a pigeon enjoys “winning” chess matches by knocking over the pieces and shitting on the board.
Congratulations on achieving a similar level of personal satisfaction, which requires no real accomplishment and leaves a toxic mess behind.
Antibob (and this goes for EE and some others), Goebbels would approve of your use of the “big lie” that in no way remotely approaches reality. But FWIW, if you are going to try to gaslight someone like me, a subtler approach would have a better chance of getting me to question the efficacy of my arguments.
I’m still curious as to what you meant. But if you prefer to be coy, that’s your prerogative.
Now you’re comparing people to Nazis just because they think you’re an idiot?
P.s., the reason I think you’re an idiot is because of the stupidity you’ve actually demonstrated. For example, have you figured out yet how one group can receive more funding than another yet each subgroup within that group still be underfunded? How many days, how many people, and how many examples have been thrown at you to get you to understand it? It’s not a high IQ puzzler.
Godwinning from a white supremacist! Will wonders never cease?
Hardly a matter of “coy.” Closer to “I’m pretty sure you’re not interested in thinking about this.”
But sure:
“Winning debates.” Not learning, not *connecting *with someone else, not understanding. “Winning.” By your own narrow, blinkered, self-serving definition that lets you know you’re better than someone. Your focus on “winning” is indicative of shallow and monochromatic thinking, and gets in the way of true growth. You place so much value on “winning,” but it’s a fundamentally hollow and unstable foundation for true self-actualization.
Seriously, look at it: “I won an internet debate!! (…for some value of ‘won’ that makes me feel briefly better about myself for a fleeting moment).”
You can be better than that.
What does “winning” a debate even mean to you? Why do you place so much value in it?
Is it possible that your emotional energy might be better spent in ways that enrich you rather than showing your dominance over others? Is it *possible *that your being so intent on “winning” stands in the way of learning, of growth, of being a better-rounded, more complete human being?
You can be better.
When you’re ready to be.
.
Okay, that’s a good explanation. Thanks and point taken.
Heh, I actually noted that very early in the thread with his post #859 and I noted that Godwin in favor of Antibob, EE and others in my post #867.
That “What if we’re the baddies?” (With “we” as his opponents) is actually a direct reference to a comedy sketch were the baddies are actual Nazis.
Speaking of context, it should be noted that accusing opponents of being Nazis is not a rare thing coming from other pseudo scientists.
The point here is that groups like the American Enterprise Institute show that they continue to support not only climate change deniers that accuse others of being Nazis, but also deniers of how their racist based solutions are wrong. And racists like Murray and climate change deniers like Spencer are still part of the AEI or contributors.
They are not only using the same sorry debating “tactics” but they are also coming from the same “birds of a feather” institutions that think that pseudoscience is cool when their wrong conclusions are great for the real “baddies”: Powerful people who are misled or willful evil powerful wealthy people who continue to finance those pseudo scientist clowns.
Sam was a guest on a recent Joe Rogan podcast (#1107), and talked extensively about his experience with Murray and Klein. You guys probably think I see Sam as being unable to be faulted in any way, but I thought he was off base to dismiss all the criticisms of Murray as “lies”. He could actually make his case more effectively if he acknowledged that Murray seems to have some suspect motives and some ugly policy prescriptions. He was also, I think, too quick to dismiss Klein as having made no valid points on the podcast, which I don’t think is true.
What I found most interesting about this conversation (which also included Majid Nawaz), though, was when they got off on the tangent of the somewhat analogous situation (as concerns political correctness) of transwomen in female sports. Joe said he has never gotten so much flak for anything he’s said as when he criticized someone in one of those extreme fighting sports (not an interest of mine, so I don’t remember the name of it) for “cutting his penis off and beating the shit out of women”. Now, he might have expressed that more artfully, but if his claim is true, it really does show how deep and wide this wave of PC madness has become.
Just as with the fury over Murray that leads people to attack and seriously injure the liberal professor who brought him to Middlebury to debate her, people are so rabid to defend trans rights at any cost that they don’t care if doing so makes a mockery of women’s sports and risks ultimately destroying those sports. You’ll still have men’s sports, of course, which can be seen as “open” to anyone of any gender but will in practice be virtually all male. Women’s sports that get dominated by transwomen will not last, except as some kind of very niche pastime that women-born-women mostly avoid. Sad. All because political correctness gets in the way of basic honesty and common sense.
I guess everything bad that ever happens is the fault of political correctness. That might get boring after a while.
The thing is, there’s a conversation to be had about precisely how we define women for the purpose of women’s sports, regardless of whether you allow transwomen in or not. I know it’s a common factoid that nature only produces humans that are unambiguously male or female, with no traits of the other gender, but it’s false.
I’m not saying it’s right that some psycho can cut his dick off and compete as a woman (if that’s what happened). I’m agreeing a line should be drawn. I’m just pointing out that this is not an issue that PC culture has thrust upon the world; the issue was already there.
I’m glad you’re back in this debate, because I’ve been meaning to ask: earlier you were insistent about the factoid (which you were actually unable to support, if I remember correctly) that black students receive the same funding as white students on an intradistrict basis. You brushed off evidence that on a national basis black students receive substantially less funding than white students.
I’ve thought of a good IQ test question: state a fact pattern that your debate opponents think explains the above outcome.
EE, you have chutzpah in spades if nothing else. Most people, when so thoroughly schooled as I did you, would slink away or avoid that particular subject. If it was raised again and they felt the need to address it, there would be mealy-mouthed weasel words. But not you. Like Trump, you just plow forward and insist that not only were you not publicly shown to be wrong, just the opposite happened! It was the largest inauguration crowd in history, I’m the least racist person on Earth…etc. I’m not going to take the bait (beyond this much of a response) and re-litigate it. The curious reader can scroll up and look over the exchange for themselves.
Obviously the issue is there, because there is a lot of money and attention paid to these things. And it only takes a small number (perhaps just one) of interlopers to destroy the sport in question.
The point here is that this is a very outspoken guy with one of the most prominent podcasts, listened to by millions, and he says he has never taken so much heat as he did for criticizing this athlete. That is what to me illustrates the intensity of a certain type of PC blitzkrieg* that we see a lot of in recent years on an unprecedented scale.
*Yes, Godwin, ding!
What should they look at? Your cites that didn’t actually support your claim?
Anyway, you seem to have trouble addressing a (fairly simple) IQ question. Is this like that Group A/Group B thing, where you basically failed to understand a concept that a child could quickly pick up?
And now you’re nervous that it’ll happen again? Not very confident in your supposed high IQ, are you?
I’m not sure if you followed my point. I wasn’t talking about people deliberately gaming the system.
Approximately 2%* of humans are born intersex. I’d wager the proportion among athletes competing in women’s sport is much higher.
- Though we can only estimate. Ambiguous genitalia gets noticed at birth, but other things like androgen insensitivity might not be spotted until they try to conceive children of their own.
If events are exactly as you and he say they are, then I agree with you, and that athlete should not have been allowed to compete against women and the backlash is misplaced.
But as a rule, when I hear “Listen to this PC outrage” my first instinct is to sniff for bullshit. The vast majority of such stories are either outright false or a whopping mischaracterization of events. Which is bizarre to me – there are genuine things in the world to get upset about.
To be clear, the only “event” I’ll vouch for is what Rogan said to Sam and Majid in his podcast, discussing the podcasts which are collectively the subject of this thread. I have no independent knowledge of it, which is why right there in what you quoted from me I said “if his claim is true”, referring to Rogan’s claim. If anyone has more information on this, please enlighten us both (all) with it.
I would add that another troubling claim from Rogan is that YouTube gave demerits of some kind (which can lead to suspensions, as I understand it) to users for sharing a Sam Harris podcast: an interview with another Murray, Douglas in this case. Douglas Murray struck me as an asshat, but to take disciplinary action against users for sharing that episode is absurd and really chilling. YouTube really is something like the public square, even if it is technically a business.
Even taking Rogan at face value, deliberately misgendering a trans person is shitty and worth criticizing, even if the trans person being misgendered might have done something wrong.
Just like how it’s still shitty to call a black person a nigger even if they did something bad.
Still not sure what an MMA fight, whatever the details, has to do with political correctness.
He caught and corrected himself when using the pronoun other than the one this fighter prefers to be called. And he said he supports their rights to dress how they want, be treated as a woman in most aspects of society. Just not in the fighting ring, or cage, or whatever it is.
I figured out who Rogan is talking about. Here’s a clip of one of her opponents being interviewed on cable news:
So cringey. She didn’t know she was fighting a transwoman, got knocked out in less than thirty seconds, understandably feels she was treated unfairly, but is incredibly nervous about articulating this because of the fear of the PC mob who went after Rogan.
I find that appalling, but I do have to tip my hat to trans activists for punching way above their weight (no pun intended). If other groups from larger niches of society exerted proportionally similar leverage…wow.