I’ve recently been having arguments with people on Twitter regarding this whole Race = Culture issue and someone decided to claim that I’m being dishonest by blatantly misrepresenting both himself and myself in this shit fit of a blog post. Let’s go through the actual claims one by one. Since I can’t copy and paste this person’s words without the format screwing up the post in question is below.
Claim #1: My claim that this graph was posted as evidence was a lie. This is, in fact, not a lie since this graph was contained within a blog post that this person linked to me. This person then claims that since I presented the graph, and they totally checked the twitter timeline, and the truth is that I presented the graph, therefore I lied. This claim is actually proven to be untrue by another quote in this person’s post which reads, “The graph in question was supporting evidence for a blog post which I did link.” So, this person just lied to you, and then told you that he lied a few sentences later. Here’s a hint for this person since they clearly don’t know. Attacking supporting evidence is one of the ways things are debunked. This person goes on to give an answer as to why Russia and the US are different is due to genetics. Yet still fails to answer for the differences between political opinions of the same general ethnicity such as Malaysia and Taiwan.
Claim #2: This person claims that I was making the argument that black crime is “caused by poverty” which I did not make once in the exchange. I simply was making a “correlation doesn’t imply causation” case against their seeing a disparity and immediately declaring it the cause. My tweet made a comparison between a poor white man and a rich black man to show that socioeconomic status could be an effect on crime, not the only effect. But, of course, since I’m arguing against race necessarily being the only cause that means I get to be tossed into any position this person would like me to have. This person also attempts to accost me for asking for a source for a claim (not something I’d expect to come from someone so ‘obviously’ skilled in the realm of argument). This person responded to me with a different account on suspicion of “muting” and then proceeded to tell me on his original account that his other account totally proved me wrong. This person cited to me two cities one of which they purported to be the richest “black city” and one was the poorest “white” city. And believe it or not, the total numbers were there, but many of the specifics read “n/a” which either means “not available” or “not applicable.” And the totals in the “black city’s” case were specified as “estimates.” How in the world am I supposed to trust the total numbers when I can’t see the specifics? One of these things is an estimate one isn’t. Sorry, but to trust numbers, they actually have to be there.
Claim #3: This person claims that I said that these were “all made up” and he put that phrase in quotations. I never once claimed that they were all made up. I simply said that I can’t trust them because of all of holes in the data. For all I know, it could be a piss-poor estimate. Then this person goes on to claim that they “suppose I think racist statisticians made the numbers up.” I don’t, you dipshit. Then this person goes on to say that I even speculated that people were coming and committing crime in the black area. Funny, this person can cite tweets where he said he said things, but can’t seem to cite any tweets where he’s claiming I said things. (even though he cites tweets of mine that don’t say these things later in the article.) The kicker is that I never speculated that people were coming into the black area and committing crime. This person is an outright liar, while at the same time falsely accusing me of such action.
This person then posts tweets of people telling them how right they are. As if they aren’t already making everyone cringe.
Claim #4: That I’m confused as to what political ideologies are.
I’m not. But thanks. You can’t just redefine political ideology to suit your needs. Political ideology encompasses a whole host of separate things. And you have to account for every single one using genetics. Which you have not done. In. The. Slightest.
Claim #4: That I think they are genetic determinists in regards to political opinion.
I’m not, and since this person claims to have seen my video he should have noticed the caveat I give considering I mention that it is “highly heritable” and not “100% all the time totally determined by genes.” My argument was laid out in the video against the actual position. But considering you’ve seen it and ignored it. Your entire post was a failed attempt to prove that I’m a liar, and all you’ve done is demonstrate yourself as one.
Have a wonderful day.