Confused about what an Intellectual Turing Test is? Click here! Please read, then vote at the end of the post. Feel free to speculate in the comment section about this person’s identity!
What discourse norms do you tend to follow? Why? Do you think everyone else should follow them, and why?
I would describe my discourse norms as “positivistic”. Empirical evidence, predictions w/ probabilities, etc. I think everyone should follow them because it is the best way to reach the truth. At the same time I recognize that my opponents place other values above the truth (which is how you end up with this, this, this, this, everything in Fashionable Nonsense, etc). In those cases no real discourse is possible. Actually it’s even worse. It’s a prisoner’s dilemma: empiricism is cooperation, ideology/angry mobs are defection. If you cooperate every time and the other side defects every time, you’re simply a bad player. I’m not entirely sure what to do about this.
In practice my discourse norms also include pseudonymity/anonymity when it comes to this sort of thing. I have no interest in becoming a social outcast.
What is the true reason, deep down, that you believe what you believe? What piece of evidence, test, or line of reasoning would convince you that you’re wrong about your ideology?
Chesterton wrote that “The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” And he was completely right. SJ is secular Christianity (as Nietzsche wrote, “They have got rid of the Christian God, and now feel obliged to cling all the more firmly to Christian morality”) and one can dismiss it on these grounds alone.
The SJ argument is that between-group differences in outcomes are due to historical oppression/current discrimination. This is very easy to refute, if one simply looks beyond black-white differentials, toward differentials between whites and groups that do better, such as Jews and Asians. If downward differences are fully explained by this model, then so must upward differences.
Jews have a millennium of harsh oppression behind them, including the holocaust, and yet they are over-represented at elite universities by more than 1000% (yes, 10x). The difference in household income between Jews and Whites is larger than that between Blacks and Whites.
The conclusion is inescapable: either HBD is true and Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than Whites, or there is an enormous Jewish conspiracy to discriminate against and oppress white people. In both cases the SJ narrative flies out of the window.
Egalitarian values can only pull down the successful, never push up those at the bottom. No matter what, without genetic engineering, Blacks will never be as successful as Jews. Either you accept the differences, or you try to pull down the smartest, the fastest, the strongest. And for what? To satisfy your ressentiment? No good can come of it.
The simple matter is this: I’m on the side of reality. And reality has an anti-SJ bias.
As for tests that would refute my view:
- God comes down from heaven and tells us we all have souls that are metaphysically equal.
- Direct genetic evidence showing a uniformity of IQ-related SNP frequencies across the globe. (But I think we all know what the direct genetic evidence will show, which is why such studies do not get funded.)
Gaming journalists, like virtually all journalists, are leftists. They mostly see games as yet another medium for agitprop, gamers don’t like this for obvious reasons. Shitstorm ensues. Also, the part of it that really is about “ethics in game journalism” is 100% justified, as e.g. Jeff Gerstmann’s firing, or this article from 20 years before gamergate. Of course even though it’s justified, you’d have to be stupid to actually care about it.