I basically have a starting level of respect for everyone I interact with. I say basically because I pre judge people based on how they look, but I'll give anyone one chance to be civilized. Within the first five seconds I'll adjust my level of respect for them accordingly. Given a long enough timeline, I tend to hate a lot of people.
Only respect people who have earned your respect. Be polite certainly, but don’t confuse politeness and common decency with respect, whether you’re the one giving or receiving the politeness.
Gavin misses the point, just like everyone who says this kind of thing.
They point out the obvious fact that a statistic is a group-level feature. Yet we interact with individuals. Fair enough, but that is all you need to explain. Either statistics have utility or they don't have utility. So you say to this person, or rather, you ask: "Are statistics useful?" The answer is inevitably 'yes', and then you point out that a statistic is always about a group, yet nobody who could ever derive utility from a statistic ever interacts with a group (a class). If stats have any utility, it's because they cause us to make useful inferences about individuals (in actuality, they change how we assign implicit probabilities, e.g. to the likelihood someone will attack me).
I might read a statistic: "Blacks are responsible for 53% of all violent crime." But I never interact with the class "black people". It's an abstraction. The exact utility of the statistic is that it adjusts my behavior toward individuals, given that - all else being equal - I now infer there is a higher probability any individual black person is likelier to attack me than any individual member of the class "non-black people". If this is not the utility of statistics, then there is no utility.
We never use Gavin's "clean slate" approach because of statistics. Rather, we use that "clean slate" approach in spite of statistics. It comes from optimism. For most of us, we'd prefer to live in a world where every individual is capable of surprising us, and where individuals are free to "break the mold". Ask yourself: what does it say about you if we live in a world where a statistic accounts for every individual? This is not a happy thought. Especially where it concerns the social wellbeing of the white races, we tend to be optimists because we understand it is a better world to live in where individuals can surprise us.
We choose the "clean slate" approach.
But immediately following this, I'd have asked Gavin, "Does your clean slate approach get applied broadly? I mean, if you were approached on the street by a black man with his pants around his knees, who is generally carrying himself like a thug, does he also get a clean slate, or, is he more like the statistic?"
If you didn't have the statistic, you might not make that inference, but we ought to be glad that we do. The way a person presents themselves matters.
On the subject of Jews, the very same thing occurs. Whether or not we CHOOSE the clean slate approach has to do with many factors. But Jews also harm themselves when it comes to this. Since they are so ethnocentric and in-group preferring, they tend not to have as many interactions with 'regular folk'. So, if we are reading the statistics, and we've got very few (if any) reference points where any actual Jews have surprised us, then we have no justification for not broadly applying the stereotype.
All these references people make to the Clean Slate are arguments assuming infinite resources. I think its an extention of adults still living out fairy tales.
We have to make assumptions and have prejudices not because of raw melatonin hatred, but because we aren't going to live long enough to parse every single person as an absolutely unique individual. There are consequences for being wrong irl. Yes this is an appeal to expediency, but its nothing to be proud of, its a resignation
Exactly. We're resigned to certain brute facts about the world.
Gavin doesn't want to acknowledge that we're all implicitly using the statistic, unless the other person gives us some sign that suggests we shouldn't. Probably, the black person Gavin gives a "clean slate" is some 20-something Thomas Sowell fan attending Columbia University. But does he apply the clean slate to all of the south side of Chicago? Certainly not.
It also depends on quantity. Gavin probably gives a clean slate to that 20-something student when she is one of a handful of blacks at some alt-right convention.
He'd probably change his tune if he was smack in the middle of a BLM protest in southside Chicago. He wouldn't have the resources to attend to every single individual there. When you're the one white guy in a crowd of blacks, the clean slate is nowhere to be found.
BuckFuckner understands something I think a lot of Whites fall to grasp.
Everyone needs to read this comment, and then read it again then read about the difference between dialectic and rhetoric, and then come read this comment again. This is a very clear explanation of debating with anyone who cares more about winning than determining objective truth.
I've noticed similarities with this and dealing with a woman when she's being irrational. The content of what's said starts to matter less, and it begins to matter more who is dominant and leading the interaction, and how. With the added factor that debates usually have an audience who also matter.
Honestly you have to identify the few people who are able to have proper debate before engaging. Majority of people are useless and will just end up being emotional. They’ll drag you down with straw men and the propaganda they’ve learned to identify with themselves
Example conversation would be get the vaccine. Why? It will save you. I’m not scared. It will save old people. The vaccinated ones? Yes. If they’re vaccinated and not safe how will me being vaccinated save them? Just get the damn vaccine!
I mean that’s literally the format of debate for I’d guess 80% or more of the population. That’s all you get.
Save yourself. Make sure you can debate. Make sure you’re rational. But most of the time it’s more about beatdowns and witty remarks. That makes the average person think you’re right. Not logic.
I don't care what color skin is. I don't care that it didn't like his rap music. I don't care about anything. Right now he is the most important person in the struggle against oppression by jews.
No one can touch his reach no one can touch the amount of money that he has no one can touch his influence and no one can touch his bravery frankly. But they made him Brave cuz they took everything away from him.
I believe that we live in a culture that gives us a false dichotomy on how to judge people that leaves us being forced to choose between two equally ridiculous and impractical methods of knowing about others.
What about using your knowledge of statistical probabilities (that certain traits are more likely to be correlated with other traits) to make an initial assumption about the unobserved traits that an individual most likely has given their traits that are observable, and then modify your initial assumptions to fit the individual as you get to know them.
Since you also have the statistical knowledge that individuals who have only all the most likely traits of their demographics would be outliers.
I mean, the individual who has nothing but the most common traits in every area is a statistical outlier, same goes for an individual within a group who only has the most common traits of that group's members, it's abnormal to not diverge from the norm in some way, so you can expect there to be some traits in which they do not fit perfectly within the majority of their demographic.
Having all the most common traits of humanity excludes you from the most common clusters of humanity, statistically it's a rarity not to diverge from the common in some way.
As you get down to specific groups, it also puts you outside the common cluster of that group to have only all the most likely characteristics.
It's a statistical anomaly to not be statistically anomalous in some way, everyone is an outlier in some capacity. Not having anything that puts you outside the most common characteristics is itself something that does that for you.
This granular thinking is forbidden in society. That’s because it requires people to live up to be the people they want to be treated like
The elite would rather all the plebs “just get along” for their profit margins. If your competent white working class simply didn’t hold up the groups who won’t contribute in this country, the elite would be far less powerful and the working class would be far more powerful.
They want you to live in a powerless shack eating bugs and to be thankful to them for “providing you with so much”
Pasternak is unhappy but they let Ye out of the mentalward. Pasternak must have asked whoever controls the game to allow this, and allowed this series of events after-the-fact for some reason.
The fact he called it an intervention lets you know nick and gavin are there working for the same handlers Ye thinks he's fighting.
They think because they still have their game, that by allowing Ye's actions instead of fighting him further, they are therefore 'still in control'.
Thats more like damage mitigation. Which means they aren't in fact in control of Ye. They've just limited him. Maybe they get some other benefit like confirming the loyalty of their other stooges, or maybe Pasternak basically said "give Ye time I can get him back on script" to save pasternak's skin, who knows.
But considering what I've seen we can reasonably say
1. Pasternak is a handler for Ye 2. Ari Emmanuel is a handler for Elon 3. Jared Kushner is a handler for Trump 4. Gavin has some sort of handler though we don't know the name yet 5. Fuentes has some sort of handler though we don't know the name yet 6. Alex Jones giving him air time, allowing his lawyers to throw his case, defending jews even after they tried to ruin thim, and being married to one, lets me know hes part of the script, which means he likewise has a handler. 7. Biden obviously has a handler
Milo may be the handler for gavin and fuentes or may be another piece, dunno yet, but its a start.
Next step would be to identify any unknown handlers, and then trace their money flows back to whichever group owns them. Epstein was protected by both the FBI and CIA, and we know Epstein worked for mossad. So we can surmise the chain of control goes that far.
We know britain and british spies with financing from london banks established israel, with the full cooperation of russia and the u.s., so we know both russia and the u.s. were controlled by proxies at the time. So whether israel is a proxy of britain, or britain is a proxy of israel is something to be determined--but we can say for sure the u.s. is a client or proxy state for israel.
The chinese use of opiods in the war against the u.s, combine with u.s. actions to drive russia into chinas arms says a lot. Opiods are the british playbook. Britain worked for, and educated many of the people that started global communism. Several Jews, including kissinger, who was supposedly a high level spy master for the coldwar ODRA spy ring, would therefore be proxies for britain. And kissinger was directly responsible for putting Mao in power. Which would make Mao a middle man for britain.
And the actions by russia and china have undermined every competitor to britain, both the u.s. and many in europe. Divide and conquer.
The enemy isn't just the industrial-level use of an entire religion of middlemen as a massive spy factory.
The critical flaw in this analogy is that overrepresentation in crime doesn't serve the advantage that overrepresented in every profitable market or position of power.
To compare Jews being over-represented to blacks committing more crime doesn't make any fucking sense
[ - ] Not_C 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 13:29:11 ago (+1/-0)
Do you agree that every Jew in the world is evil? No? Well, every Jew isn't good, are they? There are good Jews and bad Jews, right? So name 3 bad Jews. What? You won't? Why not? Here, I will. Harvey Weinstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffery Epstein. Now you name three. You still won't. How about Lenin, Bernie Madoff. Maybe you think Jared Kushner is not a good person.
If you want to claim that there are good Jews, then there are some bad ones, right? So name some of the bad Jews.
Do you want me to name some bad White people? Ok. Trump OR Biden. Hitler OR Trudeau. Bill Gates OR Christopher Columbus. You probably think that three of those are evil.
So go on. Name some bad Jews. Tell everyone that you think that Jews can be evil.
In the interview, he mentions someone I'm not familiar with (probably another artist or musician) who was always hunched over wearing a hat with a wide brim and long hair that concealed his face. Something about not having to worry about how your facial expressions look while trying to speak truth allows him to focus more on properly saying what he wants to say without distraction. Ye's always been a bit of an oddball but that's the reason he gave. It's so he's focused only on his words and not how he looks to the cameras.
He says something in the interview about feeling more able to channel what he wants to say when he's not thinking about how his face and expressions look while speaking.
[ + ] PeckerwoodPerry
[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 19 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 09:47:28 ago (+19/-0)
[ + ] Irelandlost
[ - ] Irelandlost 10 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 11:00:44 ago (+10/-0)
[ + ] PeckerwoodPerry
[ - ] PeckerwoodPerry 10 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 12:12:32 ago (+10/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 8 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 15:31:12 ago (+8/-0)
They point out the obvious fact that a statistic is a group-level feature. Yet we interact with individuals. Fair enough, but that is all you need to explain. Either statistics have utility or they don't have utility. So you say to this person, or rather, you ask: "Are statistics useful?" The answer is inevitably 'yes', and then you point out that a statistic is always about a group, yet nobody who could ever derive utility from a statistic ever interacts with a group (a class). If stats have any utility, it's because they cause us to make useful inferences about individuals (in actuality, they change how we assign implicit probabilities, e.g. to the likelihood someone will attack me).
I might read a statistic: "Blacks are responsible for 53% of all violent crime." But I never interact with the class "black people". It's an abstraction. The exact utility of the statistic is that it adjusts my behavior toward individuals, given that - all else being equal - I now infer there is a higher probability any individual black person is likelier to attack me than any individual member of the class "non-black people". If this is not the utility of statistics, then there is no utility.
We never use Gavin's "clean slate" approach because of statistics. Rather, we use that "clean slate" approach in spite of statistics. It comes from optimism. For most of us, we'd prefer to live in a world where every individual is capable of surprising us, and where individuals are free to "break the mold". Ask yourself: what does it say about you if we live in a world where a statistic accounts for every individual? This is not a happy thought. Especially where it concerns the social wellbeing of the white races, we tend to be optimists because we understand it is a better world to live in where individuals can surprise us.
We choose the "clean slate" approach.
But immediately following this, I'd have asked Gavin, "Does your clean slate approach get applied broadly? I mean, if you were approached on the street by a black man with his pants around his knees, who is generally carrying himself like a thug, does he also get a clean slate, or, is he more like the statistic?"
If you didn't have the statistic, you might not make that inference, but we ought to be glad that we do. The way a person presents themselves matters.
On the subject of Jews, the very same thing occurs. Whether or not we CHOOSE the clean slate approach has to do with many factors. But Jews also harm themselves when it comes to this. Since they are so ethnocentric and in-group preferring, they tend not to have as many interactions with 'regular folk'. So, if we are reading the statistics, and we've got very few (if any) reference points where any actual Jews have surprised us, then we have no justification for not broadly applying the stereotype.
TL;DR: Gavin is a retard.
[ + ] ModernGuilt
[ - ] ModernGuilt 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 7, 2022 06:27:32 ago (+0/-0)
We have to make assumptions and have prejudices not because of raw melatonin hatred, but because we aren't going to live long enough to parse every single person as an absolutely unique individual. There are consequences for being wrong irl. Yes this is an appeal to expediency, but its nothing to be proud of, its a resignation
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 7, 2022 09:09:21 ago (+0/-0)
Gavin doesn't want to acknowledge that we're all implicitly using the statistic, unless the other person gives us some sign that suggests we shouldn't. Probably, the black person Gavin gives a "clean slate" is some 20-something Thomas Sowell fan attending Columbia University. But does he apply the clean slate to all of the south side of Chicago? Certainly not.
It also depends on quantity. Gavin probably gives a clean slate to that 20-something student when she is one of a handful of blacks at some alt-right convention.
He'd probably change his tune if he was smack in the middle of a BLM protest in southside Chicago. He wouldn't have the resources to attend to every single individual there. When you're the one white guy in a crowd of blacks, the clean slate is nowhere to be found.
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 19:29:44 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] AmalekTheZOG
[ - ] AmalekTheZOG 13 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 10:54:50 ago (+13/-0)
Nope.
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 8 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 11:36:55 ago (+8/-0)*
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 13 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 11:46:48 ago (+13/-0)
[ + ] SecretHitler
[ - ] SecretHitler 6 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 12:43:14 ago (+6/-0)
Everyone needs to read this comment, and then read it again then read about the difference between dialectic and rhetoric, and then come read this comment again. This is a very clear explanation of debating with anyone who cares more about winning than determining objective truth.
I've noticed similarities with this and dealing with a woman when she's being irrational. The content of what's said starts to matter less, and it begins to matter more who is dominant and leading the interaction, and how. With the added factor that debates usually have an audience who also matter.
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 3 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 13:40:18 ago (+3/-0)
Example conversation would be get the vaccine. Why? It will save you. I’m not scared. It will save old people. The vaccinated ones? Yes. If they’re vaccinated and not safe how will me being vaccinated save them? Just get the damn vaccine!
I mean that’s literally the format of debate for I’d guess 80% or more of the population. That’s all you get.
Save yourself. Make sure you can debate. Make sure you’re rational. But most of the time it’s more about beatdowns and witty remarks. That makes the average person think you’re right. Not logic.
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 6 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 12:46:52 ago (+6/-0)
I don't care what color skin is. I don't care that it didn't like his rap music. I don't care about anything. Right now he is the most important person in the struggle against oppression by jews.
No one can touch his reach no one can touch the amount of money that he has no one can touch his influence and no one can touch his bravery frankly. But they made him Brave cuz they took everything away from him.
[ + ] AntiPostmodernist
[ - ] AntiPostmodernist 6 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 10:26:57 ago (+6/-0)*
What about using your knowledge of statistical probabilities (that certain traits are more likely to be correlated with other traits) to make an initial assumption about the unobserved traits that an individual most likely has given their traits that are observable, and then modify your initial assumptions to fit the individual as you get to know them.
Since you also have the statistical knowledge that individuals who have only all the most likely traits of their demographics would be outliers.
I mean, the individual who has nothing but the most common traits in every area is a statistical outlier, same goes for an individual within a group who only has the most common traits of that group's members, it's abnormal to not diverge from the norm in some way, so you can expect there to be some traits in which they do not fit perfectly within the majority of their demographic.
Having all the most common traits of humanity excludes you from the most common clusters of humanity, statistically it's a rarity not to diverge from the common in some way.
As you get down to specific groups, it also puts you outside the common cluster of that group to have only all the most likely characteristics.
It's a statistical anomaly to not be statistically anomalous in some way, everyone is an outlier in some capacity. Not having anything that puts you outside the most common characteristics is itself something that does that for you.
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 2 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 14:03:31 ago (+2/-0)
The elite would rather all the plebs “just get along” for their profit margins. If your competent white working class simply didn’t hold up the groups who won’t contribute in this country, the elite would be far less powerful and the working class would be far more powerful.
They want you to live in a powerless shack eating bugs and to be thankful to them for “providing you with so much”
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype 3 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 15:01:57 ago (+3/-0)*
Ye went off-script.
Pasternak is unhappy but they let Ye out of the mentalward.
Pasternak must have asked whoever controls the game to allow this, and allowed this series of events after-the-fact for some reason.
The fact he called it an intervention lets you know nick and gavin are there working for the same handlers Ye thinks he's fighting.
They think because they still have their game, that by allowing Ye's actions instead of fighting him further, they are therefore 'still in control'.
Thats more like damage mitigation. Which means they aren't in fact in control of Ye. They've just limited him. Maybe they get some other benefit like confirming the loyalty of their other stooges, or maybe Pasternak basically said "give Ye time I can get him back on script" to save pasternak's skin, who knows.
But considering what I've seen we can reasonably say
1. Pasternak is a handler for Ye
2. Ari Emmanuel is a handler for Elon
3. Jared Kushner is a handler for Trump
4. Gavin has some sort of handler though we don't know the name yet
5. Fuentes has some sort of handler though we don't know the name yet
6. Alex Jones giving him air time, allowing his lawyers to throw his case, defending jews even after they tried to ruin thim, and being married to one, lets me know hes part of the script, which means he likewise has a handler.
7. Biden obviously has a handler
Milo may be the handler for gavin and fuentes or may be another piece, dunno yet, but its a start.
Next step would be to identify any unknown handlers, and then trace their money flows back to whichever group owns them. Epstein was protected by both the FBI and CIA, and we know Epstein worked for mossad. So we can surmise the chain of control goes that far.
We know britain and british spies with financing from london banks established israel, with the full cooperation of russia and the u.s., so we know both russia and the u.s. were controlled by proxies at the time. So whether israel is a proxy of britain, or britain is a proxy of israel is something to be determined--but we can say for sure the u.s. is a client or proxy state for israel.
The chinese use of opiods in the war against the u.s, combine with u.s. actions to drive russia into chinas arms says a lot. Opiods are the british playbook. Britain worked for, and educated many of the people that started global communism. Several Jews, including kissinger, who was supposedly a high level spy master for the coldwar ODRA spy ring, would therefore be proxies for britain. And kissinger was directly responsible for putting Mao in power. Which would make Mao a middle man for britain.
And the actions by russia and china have undermined every competitor to britain, both the u.s. and many in europe. Divide and conquer.
The enemy isn't just the industrial-level use of an entire religion of middlemen as a massive spy factory.
The heart of the enemy is london.
[ + ] KyleIsThisTall
[ - ] KyleIsThisTall 2 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 19:17:11 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] heroinwinsagain
[ - ] heroinwinsagain 2 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 13:25:08 ago (+2/-0)
To compare Jews being over-represented to blacks committing more crime doesn't make any fucking sense
[ + ] rhy
[ - ] rhy 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 21:24:41 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Not_C
[ - ] Not_C 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 13:29:11 ago (+1/-0)
Well, every Jew isn't good, are they? There are good Jews and bad Jews, right?
So name 3 bad Jews.
What? You won't? Why not?
Here, I will. Harvey Weinstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffery Epstein.
Now you name three.
You still won't.
How about Lenin, Bernie Madoff. Maybe you think Jared Kushner is not a good person.
If you want to claim that there are good Jews, then there are some bad ones, right?
So name some of the bad Jews.
Do you want me to name some bad White people? Ok. Trump OR Biden. Hitler OR Trudeau. Bill Gates OR Christopher Columbus. You probably think that three of those are evil.
So go on. Name some bad Jews. Tell everyone that you think that Jews can be evil.
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 12:45:15 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] NuckFiggers
[ - ] NuckFiggers 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 12:27:24 ago (+1/-0)
They steal your money, ruin your schools and your cities. They are all responsible.
[ + ] kammmmak
[ - ] kammmmak 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 11:01:56 ago (+1/-0)
And here, it is only appropriating coz it's trendy.
[ + ] SirNiggsalot
[ - ] SirNiggsalot 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 7, 2022 08:00:46 ago (+0/-0)
I mean I'm ok with it , who wants to see a nigger, but why is he doing it ?
[ + ] WEHRMACHT_BITCHES_AT
[ - ] WEHRMACHT_BITCHES_AT [op] 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 7, 2022 08:31:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 18:19:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Rob3122
[ - ] Rob3122 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 15:24:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] WEHRMACHT_BITCHES_AT
[ - ] WEHRMACHT_BITCHES_AT [op] 1 point 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 21:06:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Rob3122
[ - ] Rob3122 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 21:25:42 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.4 yearsDec 6, 2022 12:00:43 ago (+1/-1)