He wasn't permabanned. He finally got himself a 6 month suspension for, you guessed it, posting the sort of stuff he agreed not to post when he signed up for the forum. And as usual, Mike will conveniently gloss over the fact that it wasn't 6 months out of the blue, like folks with a long history of bad behavior like to pretend. He'll also conveniently ignore that it isn't a decision made on some sort of forum vote count, but you've got to do those sort of things when you want to play victim if you've got no actual reason.

SafeAsMilk wrote:He wasn't permabanned. He finally got himself a 6 month suspension for, you guessed it, posting the sort of stuff he agreed not to post when he signed up for the forum. And as usual, Mike will conveniently gloss over the fact that it wasn't 6 months out of the blue, like folks with a long history of bad behavior like to pretend. He'll also conveniently ignore that it isn't a decision made on some sort of forum vote count, but you've got to do those sort of things when you want to play victim if you've got no actual reason.

Right, so Mike_L's rendition was complete bullshit then - I thought that was probably the case.

So another evasion attempt that turns out to be outright nonsensical.

Surely some part of his subconscious must be scrabbling around desperately trying to get the message out that shit's not working out right and some form of internal inspection's desperately needed.

I mean it's not like we're expecting reasoned arguments from him now, are we? This is the guy who's got a deep and persistent problem with hair dye. The best I can assume is that the actual goal is to make his views look as dumb as possible. Yeah Mike, post another link to Putin's mouthpiece RT to support your claims about how things really are in the world

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

...but people are asking you if you're a race-realist, and you apparently cannot bear to disavow this.

I have disavowed it... in post #25 on page 2...

That's not quite accurate Mike_L.

You said no with respect to whether you believe in race-realism, then you said you believe there's a 'white race'.

That's not coherent - it's internally contradictory.

At its most basic, race realist (a term used by race realists, not a pejorative label) just means someone who believes that the human species is divided into races.
...

If that's all a 'race realist' is, then yes... I am a race realist.
Except that your definition of 'race realist' does not seem to fit with what I'm seeing. As I've stated twice already, both Wikipedia and Google redirect 'race realist' and 'race realism' to 'scientific racism'. I do not subscribe to the beliefs of scientific racism.

If I was planning to trap you, then why would I leave the 'snare' in plain sight on the path?

The carelessness of the leftist cancel culture adherent. You're more obvious than you realise.

Mike_L wrote:

Yep, it was just your "suggestion".

Again, you've not responded to anything I wrote - just rolled your way around it.

What am I supposed to be evading? You made a daft comment, I noted it.
"My suggestion is that these episodes indicate something not right in your thought processes, something you don't seem to want inspect."

...your own pallid belief system.

Coded language to malign the palefaces again.

Tucker Carlson: From Twitter to CNN, the left is coming for your speech

The crackdown on civil liberties is here, it is unprecedented, and it will have consequences


Days after Donald Trump called for breaking up the Big Tech monopolies in order to preserve democracy, they have silenced him. Friday evening, Twitter announced that the sitting president had been banned from the platform that is his primary means of public communication. Of course, they waited until the Democratic Party took power to shut it down. Silicon Valley oligarchs are more powerful than the president of the United States, and they want you to know it.

Like most actions taken to suppress extremism, this will cause more of it.

The assault on speech accelerates, and we at "Tucker Carlson Tonight" are not immune. Friday morning, CNN announced that it is working to force the Fox News Channel off the air and run this company out of business. A number of prominent Democrats, including officeholders, support that effort. CNN staffers have already contacted the six major cable carriers in this country, the companies that carry our signal into your home, and pressured them to drop Fox News.
...

Full text (and video) at:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-on-twitter-and-cnn

Lol Trump called for these platforms to be held accountable for what they allow to be posted, then makes makes shocked Pikachu face when they do exactly that. You and Tucker can stuff your fake-ass hand wringing.

I know, Trump isn't silenced because he can't type messages on a website. He's the president. He has a whole team of spokespeople, who reporters are eager to hang on every word from. The house he lives in has a room where dozens of reporters gather with notepads, cameras, and recording devices (when there isn't a deadly virus running rampant in the country including the white house) to listen to the press secretary, other admin officials, and Trump himself say whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want. All of the top media companies will report it and even show the video recordings of thhose messages in entirety. Who the hell needs Twitter when they have all of that?
Talk about snowflakes.

Tucker Carlson 5 minutes ago: "Forcing a bakery to make a gay cake is the end of freedom!"
Tucker Carlson now: "Freedom is in danger because you can't force a bakery to make a gay cake!"

I mean come on Mike, are you really that easy to manipulate or do you just repost the content that's given to you to disseminate without reading it?

Mike_L wrote:If that's all a 'race realist' is, then yes... I am a race realist.

I mean, it kind of says it in the name: you believe that race is real, that there are subdivisions of humans.

Mike_L wrote:Except that your definition of 'race realist' does not seem to fit with what I'm seeing. As I've stated twice already, both Wikipedia and Google redirect 'race realist' and 'race realism' to 'scientific racism'. I do not subscribe to the beliefs of scientific racism.

What do you mean 'my definition'? It's not my definition, it's the definition.

The problem of course is actually with you and your understanding, and that's actually been shown in this thread. The problem is that you haven't given a moment's thought to what it is you're supposed to believe.

For race to be real, then it must have an objective quantity in the real world - and that must, due to its nature and our knowledge of biology and inheritance, be genetic. That's why the term 'race realist' redirects to scientific racism because what other options are there than for race to be a topic which is governed by science? The problem is that you refuse to engage in any level of substance here - I think you're afraid to learn, to have your belief challenged. Show me wrong.

In this thread I've cited a summary of the position of the field of modern genetics with respect to the question of races in humans, and that summary showed very explicitly why race is not valid from a scientific - i.e. real - perspective.

If you want to challenge whether or not race realism necessarily relies on genetics, then do so. I can't for the life of me imagine what form that challenge would take. You'd presumably have to offer some means other than DNA by which the alleged biological trait of race could be heritable. As I don't think that's at all likely, and as I don't think you're really approaching this from a science denial perspective, then you need to inspect your idea to check whether the idea in your head stands up to any level of scrutiny.

You keep latching onto political partisanship... I'm a fucking biological anthropologist Mike_L that's where I am coming from - I am talking hard empirical evidence, not some wish-thinking.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:If I was planning to trap you, then why would I leave the 'snare' in plain sight on the path?

The carelessness of the leftist cancel culture adherent. You're more obvious than you realise.

Again, you've leapt to defend your position by manufacturing an out-group. This is how cognitive bias operates.

In reality, I am not a leftist - I'm a centrist, and there's ample record of me stating that over many years of this forum to show conclusively that I am not just saying it to gull you for the sake of this argument. Actually, if we were to discuss this in depth, you'd quickly realize that I find the traditional binary political spectrum to be rubbish and something I don't subscribe to. Now it's possible that you've been maneuvered so far to the right that I look like a leftist to you, but that's a problem with your perspective, it has no bearing on my political persuasions. I find it a very typical form of argument these days where ad hominem is apparently meant to do all the legwork. It's only yesterday that I was called a 'Trump cultist' because... well, it was as nonsensical as your silly attempt at labeling me... all I'd said was that the secret service (which 3 of my family are part of) are apolitical for a very good reason and that they'd risk their life to save any president or person they're detailed to. How does that make me a Trump cultist? I dunno? How does me challenging your belief on race make me a leftist? I dunno. I don't think that either amount to a serious argument - they're non-arguments, deflections, exemplifications of the confusion and political dogmaticism of the person making such stupid statements.

I am also not an adherent of cancel culture - you've simply tossed out a label you dislike as a means of continuing to evade engaging in any substance. Once again, I invite you to find any example of me holding a position in any topic across this forums history that suggests I hold any belief that could be considered 'cancel culture'. You're not talking to me, Mike_L - you're talking to boogeymen in your head. However, once again, concerns about 'cancel culture' appear to predominantly be the focus of the alt-right, just as they are concerned about whites being replaced, and modern feminism. Your ideas are a package deal, and aren't really your ideas.

Don't you see this about yourself, Mike_L? Can't you see the absurd things you're engaging in just to avoid addressing any substance? You are seriously trying to convince me YET AGAIN that I have nefarious undisclosed political partisan reasons motivating me to attempt to trick you. How is it that I'm not aware of any of this but you are? How can I not know I am trying to trick you?

In reality, just as with all motivations for my posting on these fora - I see a bad idea I'm skeptical of and when its proponent fails abysmally to defend it, I then set about demolishing it because bad ideas exist solely to be destroyed. This just happens to be a bad idea that you cherish.

Mike_L wrote:
What am I supposed to be evading? You made a daft comment, I noted it.

You've not even attempted to show how it's meant to be daft. You just rolled your eyes at it a couple of times.

Do you think that Creationists have poor thought processes? How they attempt to validate their beliefs rather than to critically scrutinize them? How they attempt to explain the rejection of their ideas in terms of competing world views rather than dealing with the substantive criticism brought to bear? How they cherrypick the bits they like and ignore anything that doesn't conform? This is a thought process that is flawed, tremendously so. I am saying that you also are exhibiting tremendously flawed thought processes - this thread is testimony to that, nearly every single one of your comments in this thread is testament to that.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:My suggestion is that these episodes indicate something not right in your thought processes, something you don't seem to want inspect.

Why are you quoting what I said to me when I know what I said - you're supposedly meant to be responding to it, but rather than do that, you've rolled your eyes at it twice, called it daft, then just quoted it again in a nice pretty colour. It's like you've become incapable of any degree of substantive discussion.

Mike_L wrote:

...your own pallid belief system.

Coded language to malign the palefaces again.

Jesus Christ man, you seem intent on exhibiting yourself as a complete fucking crackpot. What has my sentence got to do with 'race'?

Mike_L wrote:

*vacuous propaganda snip*

This amounts to a whine that the fuckers can't use Twitter to incite insurrection. Awww... what a shame you little whiney snowflakes. And of course, you lost all credibility with your fear-mongering about tyranny when you were cheering on an actual tyrant.

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

*vacuous propaganda snip*

This amounts to a whine that the fuckers can't use Twitter to incite insurrection. Awww... what a shame you little whiney snowflakes. And of course, you lost all credibility with your fear-mongering about tyranny when you were cheering on an actual tyrant.

I know, eh? It's as good as winning every fucking argument for the last four god damned years about the orange prick.

The_Metatron wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

*vacuous propaganda snip*

This amounts to a whine that the fuckers can't use Twitter to incite insurrection. Awww... what a shame you little whiney snowflakes. And of course, you lost all credibility with your fear-mongering about tyranny when you were cheering on an actual tyrant.

I know, eh? It's as good as winning every fucking argument for the last four god damned years about the orange prick.

It's a lose-lose situation with conspiracy theorists. No matter which way they look at it, they will never get what they want. Even if they win, they'll just start eating one another. Show them a flame, and they shrink back, but unless it hurts them, they just come on again. The only stimulus they understand is grievance, and that is why they end up eating each other.

I don't know whether scenes of Capitol police shmoozing with the rioters was sympathizing or Stockholm Syndrome. I don't want to bet the wrong way with them.

Seeing the Trumpists turn on Lindsey Graham (some of them did!) reminds me of that story the Zens tell. A farmer and his son are working their field and the son breaks his leg, The farmer tells his neighbor about it and the neighbor says, "Oh, my, that's terrible!" and the farmer says, "We'll see." Later, the king decides to conscript every able bodied young man for a war, but they don't take the farmer's son, because he's now lame. Farmer tells his neighbor, and the neighbor says, "That's wonderful!" The farmer knows the story isn't finished, and again says, "We'll see."

The_Piper wrote:I know, Trump isn't silenced because he can't type messages on a website. He's the president. He has a whole team of spokespeople, who reporters are eager to hang on every word from. The house he lives in has a room where dozens of reporters gather with notepads, cameras, and recording devices (when there isn't a deadly virus running rampant in the country including the white house) to listen to the press secretary, other admin officials, and Trump himself say whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want. All of the top media companies will report it and even show the video recordings of thhose messages in entirety. Who the hell needs Twitter when they have all of that?
Talk about snowflakes.

Mike, Tucker and Trump, all running their hardest in the Oppression Olympics. Only requirement for entry is an up to date white victimhood card!

Spearthrower wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Indeed, I'm not a particular fan of Ash Sarkar, but it's an interesting video.

Just personally, neither am I. She's too pro-Corbyn and I have a lot of issues with that part of the left.

Should I have known who she is? I saw a person's face on the linked video, but it's standard policy for me to not engage in arguments via YT videos because it seems to generally amount to 'bloke down the pub says' which isn't a coherent basis for any discussion as some 3rd party's opinion isn't relevant to whatever is being discussed.

Just a journalist and activist. She's the one that once told Piers Morgan "I'm literally a communist!" while he was screaming over the top of her that she loves Obama.

Mike_L wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I don't know what came first with you, the racism or the anti-feminism.

Third- and fourth-wave feminism is part of Cultural Marxism.

Ahh, Cultural Marxism. The antisemitic conspiracy theory that's won hearts as diverse as Jordan Peterson and Anders Behring Breivik. You just know a contemporary variant of Cultural Bolshevism (used by the Nazis) is gonna be a terrific framework for understanding the world.

Aye, we're being presented with the entire alt-right package; one evidence-free conspiracy theory after the next. The network of lies has succeeded with Mike_L - it's sad to see, but more importantly it should be taken as a warning because it's happened to 'one of us' - someone who's been a member of a forum dedicated to rational skepticism, to challenging bad ideas, to demanding evidence for extraordinary assertions and so on.

And Mike_L - just so you realize, many of us are aware of how the alt-right brainwashing cult invades online spaces where it has no genuine topical connection, tossing out its infectious particles, spreading its manufactured memes and trying to tug others into its whirlpool of guff heading straight down to the sewers. Misery loves company and all. Most of us would rather have you back - the real you, not this brainwashed moron caricature - but if that's not possible to achieve, then the only other way to treat a vector of pseudoscientific bullshit and crackpot conspiracy theories is to destroy it publicly and overwhelmingly; to make it squeak. You always pretend I've got hidden agendas (I expect there's probably some Trumpian projection going on there) but the reality is that I keep very clearly telling you exactly what my motivations are in no uncertain terms. You might be worth saving, but your uncritically regurgitated ideas are fucking dreck and not worth a wank, worse than any creationist or expanding Earther because your ideas cause real people real harm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right ... ationalism

The alt-right is a white nationalist movement and is fundamentally concerned with white identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_ ... acy_theory

Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.[1][2][3] The conspiracists claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_gen ... acy_theory

The white genocide, white extinction,[1] or white replacement conspiracy theory[2][3][4] is a white supremacist[5][6][7][8] belief that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews,[5][8] to promote reproduction by people considered to be of different races,[9] miscegenation, interracial marriage, mass non-white immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence,[10] and eliminationism in white-founded countries[5] in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation[10] and violent genocide.[11][12][13][14] Less frequently, black people,[15] Hispanics,[16] and Muslims[17] are blamed, but merely as more fertile immigrants,[18] invaders,[19] or violent aggressors,[20] rather than the masterminds of a secret plot.[21]

White genocide is a myth,[22][23][15] based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred,[24] driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety.[25][16] There is no evidence that white people are dying out or facing extermination.[26][27][28][21] The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people,[26] and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda[29] in support of increasingly successful calls to violence.[22][20][19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right ... ted_issues
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... ht/595642/

Anti-feminist rhetoric is a powerful gateway to violent white nationalism,...

These are the 4 core elements of online alt-right radicalization. And they're all in this thread.

Spearthrower wrote:For race to be real, then it must have an objective quantity in the real world - and that must, due to its nature and our knowledge of biology and inheritance, be genetic. That's why the term 'race realist' redirects to scientific racism because what other options are there than for race to be a topic which is governed by science?

'Scientific racism' has a very definite meaning. It's not merely race as a topic governed by science.
Wikipedia:

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

It's interesting that both leftist-dominated Wikipedia and leftist-dominated Google redirect 'race realism' to 'scientific racism'.
It's almost like they're trying to suggest that "you're racist for merely recognising that different races exist!"

If you want to challenge whether or not race realism necessarily relies on genetics, then do so.

I don't. As I've already said...

Mike_L wrote:I get the meaning of the text (observable differences in phenotype arise from very small differences in genotype).

But recognising a genetic basis for race does not translate into (or automatically proceed to) 'scientific racism'.

In reality, I am not a leftist - I'm a centrist, and there's ample record of me stating that over many years of this forum...

Centrist, left-of-center, far-left... depends on one's point-of-view, I suppose. But your basic position comes through in your own statements...

Spearthrower wrote:...I think it's pretty safe to say I consider all forms of nationalism to be absurd.

Spearthrower wrote:...then ultimately admixture is desirable - as much admixture as possible because then we'd all be as homogeneous as attainable.

Mike_L wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
My suggestion is that these episodes indicate something not right in your thought processes, something you don't seem to want inspect.

Why are you quoting what I said to me when I know what I said - you're supposedly meant to be responding to it...

Go ahead, Spearthrower. Cite page and paragraph from your Little Red Book to let me know what the correct "thought processes" are.

Spearthrower wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right#White_nationalism

The alt-right is a white nationalist movement and is fundamentally concerned with white identity.

...with the subtext being that "white identity" is baaaaaaad!
And it is, of course, the only identity that qualifies as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_ ... acy_theory

Cultural Marxism is a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory which claims Western Marxism as the basis of continuing academic and intellectual efforts to subvert Western culture.[1][2][3] The conspiracists claim that an elite of Marxist theorists and Frankfurt School intellectuals are subverting Western society with a culture war that undermines the Christian values of traditionalist conservatism and promotes the cultural liberal values of the 1960s counterculture and multiculturalism, progressive politics and political correctness, misrepresented as identity politics created by critical theory.

Yes, ridiculous! It's not like white Europeans are being written out of their own history, or anything like that.
Oh, wait...!

(18 minutes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_gen ... acy_theory

The white genocide, white extinction,[1] or white replacement conspiracy theory[2][3][4] is a white supremacist[5][6][7][8] belief that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews,[5][8] to promote reproduction by people considered to be of different races,[9] miscegenation, interracial marriage, mass non-white immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence,[10] and eliminationism in white-founded countries[5] in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation[10] and violent genocide.[11][12][13][14] Less frequently, black people,[15] Hispanics,[16] and Muslims[17] are blamed, but merely as more fertile immigrants,[18] invaders,[19] or violent aggressors,[20] rather than the masterminds of a secret plot.[21]

White genocide is a myth,[22][23][15] based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred,[24] driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety.[25][16] There is no evidence that white people are dying out or facing extermination.[26][27][28][21] The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people,[26] and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda[29] in support of increasingly successful calls to violence.[22][20][19]

There won't be a white genocide as such. Rather, whites will be 'disappeared' at local levels (precisely what the racist commie Ash Sarkar is cheering), and reduced to a minority with much diminished political and cultural influence in their own ancestral nations.

Not to a minority. Horror.

There's a quote by Sagan that sums up how I try to look at most things. "There are two ways to view the stars; as they really are (or) as you wish them to be."
It's not automatically racist to talk about a white race or a black race, etc. as if it's a cohesive thing. It's automatically wrong though.