So apparently JonTron is a racist

[SimpleFool]

Have you fully thought through the logical endgame to your implicit principle of "white blood guilt," whereby American whites are held to be guilty of the alleged crimes of their alleged forebearers?

Does this principle of blood guilt apply to other ethnic groups in America, or the world? If not, why not? If so, then are any guiltless? Who would survive, who would be on top, once the punishment for all historical crimes is fully visited upon the children of the guilty?

Have you fully thought through the logical endgame to your explicit principle that "white people should shut up?"

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Am I morally reprehensible, deserving of censure or punishment on any publicly explicable social more, if I prefer the company of those of my own tribe?

Am I morally reprehensible, deserving of censure or punishment on any publicly explicable social more, if I prefer to avoid the company of those not of my own tribe?

Am I morally reprehensible, deserving of censure or punishment on any publicly explicable social more, if I prefer my descendants to have the privelege of associating with their own tribe?

Am I morally reprehensible, deserving of censure or punishment on any publicly explicable social more, if I prefer that my tribe continue to exist upon the face of the earth?

Am I morally reprehensible, deserving of censure or punishment on any publicly explicable social more, if I prefer that my tribe have sufficient land and resources to continue to exist upon the face of the earth?

If by tribe you mean race then yes at least one of those apply

Several those are also vague. For example sufficient land and resources. It's not as if those are allocated by 'tribe'. The implication appears to be not just the people continue to live but that they are able to exist seperately since you call them a tribe. Especially a problem if by tribe you mean race.

 

[Dizchu]

Most of it; as is fair to judge all people on the basis that they will work hard to create a good life for themselves

Yes but the ability for people to "work hard and create a good life for themselves" can vary dramatically. For some people it means having a fulfilling career, for others it means making sure your kids don't get knifed in a gang fight, for some it means getting a degree, for others it means getting rehabilitated from hard drugs.

Statements like that imply that all schools in Georgia are terrible (or that people from Georgia are stupid, take you pick) and that everyone from Seattle is privileged and can attend top-quality schools. I have no doubt that someone from Georgia could work hard and apply themselves and do better than someone from Seattle. Two-dimensional thinking such as this leads to stereotypes.

That's not what I meant though, what I meant is that living costs in Seattle are high. I live in the poorest area of the UK, what do you think my chances are of moving to London? Like, compared to someone who was born and raised in London staying in London? Same thing with Seattle. The point I'm trying to make is that it's very difficult to dramatically change your economic situation because your economic situation is mostly determined by what opportunities you have. You could argue that laziness has something to do with it, but there exist lazy people on welfare and lazy people who are wealthy through inheritance, nepotism or just good luck.

My intention was not to stereotype rural Georgians, the fact is that living in rural Georgia doesn't have the same financial requirements.

 

[RedDeadFred]

This accusation has been going around for a while.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6uTKPwVnNI

This is honestly the first thing I thought of. Frankly, I'm surprised it wasn't brought up until the second page.

 

[SimpleFool]

If by tribe you mean race then yes at least one of those apply

If the social more my hypothetical preference violates is, indeed, publicly explicable, then, please, explicate it publicly and show how my hypothetical preference would be, or should be, punishable.

Several those are also vague. For example sufficient land and resources. It's not as if those are allocated by 'tribe'. The implication appears to be not just the people continue to live but that they are able to exist seperately since you call them a tribe. Especially a problem if by tribe you mean race.

Which tribe would you say should not exist, should not have sufficient land and resources, whose children should be denied freedom of association? The Constitution of the United States of America was explicitly ordained in contemplation of doing these things for the American descendants of white Europeans, according to its Preamble.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

If by tribe you mean race then yes at least one of those apply

If the social more my hypothetical preference violates is, indeed, publicly explicable, then, please, explicate it publicly and show how my hypothetical preference would be, or should be, punishable.

How very dishonest. Punishable was only one of the listed possibilities. Saying yes implies at least one and not necessarily that one.

And racism is quite morally reprehensible yes.

Several those are also vague. For example sufficient land and resources. It's not as if those are allocated by 'tribe'. The implication appears to be not just the people continue to live but that they are able to exist seperately since you call them a tribe. Especially a problem if by tribe you mean race.

Which tribe would you say should not exist, should not have sufficient land and resources, whose children should be denied freedom of association? The Constitution of the United States of America was explicitly ordained in contemplation of doing these things for the American descendants of white Europeans, according to its Preamble.

Now, now, I never said that. Surely you can either read, or have someone read to you, the bit in the middle about 'seperately'?

No it does not explicitly mention white europeans. And quite frankly wouldn't matter if it did.

 

[SimpleFool]

Also, is it morally reprehensible to notice that ancestors pass features on to their descendants?

Is it morally reprehensible to notice that some ancestral groups have passed on features which, in competition with other reproductive groups, are less valued?

If it could be shown, rationally, that "structural discrimination" was nothing more than the cashing out of ancestral features passed by heredity to descendants through differences in valuation of those features, would that change the conversation?

Or is evolution false, and are all humans infinitely malleable, and inherently equal in every capacity?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Oh I see what this is lol

 

[SimpleFool]

What do you think this is?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

What do you think this is?

Social Darwinism.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

What do you think this is?

Social Darwinism.

Bit worse than that. The 'just asking these questions' thing is a bit obvious. The way of framing it is too. Why does someone ask the questions the way he does? Why does he tip toe around what he means? Dude knows what it is and how it would be taken

And I mean the dude talking to me not JonTron, however much of a racist dick he seems to be.

 

[SimpleFool]

One of the implications to evolutionary theory is that humans are subject to evolution.

Differences in capacities get cashed out in human society in, well, cash and prizes.

It so happens capacities may be heritable. If they aren't, evolution is false, or somehow, humans have become immune to the forces of natural selection and heritable variation.

So, is it morally reprehensible to note the outcomes of evolution upon the human stock?

 

[SimpleFool]

I'm asking questions because there seems to be a lot passing as "common sense" and "knowledge" among this group that goes unexamined.

Unexamined dogma remains dogma in the end. How many of you have thought these things through from first principles?

 

[Dizchu]

I'm asking questions because there seems to be a lot passing as "common sense" and "knowledge" among this group that goes unexamined.

Unexamined dogma remains dogma in the end. How many of you have thought these things through from first principles?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that aggression and criminality are genetic traits predominantly seen in those of African descent?

 

[SimpleFool]

I'm asking questions because there seems to be a lot passing as "common sense" and "knowledge" among this group that goes unexamined.

Unexamined dogma remains dogma in the end. How many of you have thought these things through from first principles?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that aggression and criminality are genetic traits predominantly seen in those of African descent?

There's no need to call for evidence, no need to cite studies. When I make any such claim, then I think it is appropriate to ask me to substantiate that claim. Until then, I invite you to answer my questions.

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

There's no need to call for evidence, no need to cite studies. When I make any such claim, then I think it is appropriate to ask me to substantiate that claim. Until then, I invite you to answer my questions.

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

Of course you're not making any claims. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions]

Hey, mods? Is there a point to letting people from the colourful areas of YouTube to settle in here?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

There's no need to call for evidence, no need to cite studies. When I make any such claim, then I think it is appropriate to ask me to substantiate that claim. Until then, I invite you to answer my questions.

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

Of course you're not making any claims. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions]

Hey, mods? Is there a point to letting people from the colourful areas of YouTube to settle in here?

He's from YouTube? I thought a bit more rain and thunder.

 

[Dizchu]

And, for you: do you deny that it is logically possible, if evolution is true, that aggression may indeed be a genetic trait? Dog breeders seem to think it is, but perhaps you know better.

Dogs have been selectively bred by humans though... big difference there.

In fact using your logic, all it does is make white people look bad because what do African-Americans generally have in common? They're the descendants of slaves. Of course I don't think African-Americans were selectively bred to be aggressive but if your argument is that aggression is hereditary and you use domesticated dogs as an example then we're talking about roughly the same timescale.

 

[SimpleFool]

That is correct; I have made no claims.

You guys assert JonTron has made some kind of reprehensible, censurable, or punishable claims or stated such views. But I'm not seeing a clear explanation of why JonTron is reprehensible, censurable, or punishable, even if he holds whatever views he is asserted hereabouts to hold, or even if he were to hold and state viewpoints at the logical end of whatever he is claimed to actually have expressed. I haven't even seen anyone prove him wrong.

And it seems you guys aren't able, or willing, to publicly explain how it is your views give you the moral high-ground.

So I am asking questions to find out if you have the moral high-ground. Your reluctance to answer my questions is giving the appearance that you may not hold the moral high-ground after all.