Don’t blame science for your atheism

The atheistkult is trying to replace the dogma of a God with the doctrines of scientism and faith in your fellow man like Saints of Truth. Don’t do that. If you change your beliefs, that’s on you, don’t shrink in agency, externalize your locus of control and shift the ‘blame’ onto someone else. You don’t get to blame life (the fates) or society (elders) or the internet (you don’t have to trust what you see online).
Your brain is your business, you are not being influenced by external forces (demons, in ancient terms).
Own your choices, you scoundrels.
A minor point but many men have a magical conversion from faith when their sex hormones start surging, and happen to magically remember like an 80s movie amnesia patient once those settle down in the 30s/40s and beyond. No. That isn’t how it works. There is no Christian of convenience, you were never Christian. A God-fearing person cannot un-know that intuition about the spiritual world. You cannot un-see the colour blue. You cannot un-understand the structure of a peeled orange.
You are in denial, more clouded in judgement than ever. Look up the psychiatry of Freudian denial, it is just the same. A denial of motives, base instincts and a solution to what we now call cognitive dissonance. By consciously lying to yourself. Otherwise, why feel the need to convert people to atheism, if you are so certain of your position? Why does there need to be a term for not thinking something? Where does the obligation to save them come from? Francis Bacon? Shall we make him a Saint on par with George?
Wait, he was Christian, never mind. Christophobia fits far better than other religions, because the fear demonstrated of Christians, not the Church or state power but everyday happy people minding their own, is astounding. The self-styled atheists posture themselves as anti-Christian. They are some of the most pro-Christian people alive. Why do I say this? They believe Christian culture is the norm, Christian principles and rights (WASP, classic liberalism) are greatest thing ever, undeniable and should apply to the whole world, like missionaries. They want to spread the WEIRD culture, the Western attitudes. Raising awareness and education? Set up an atheist church and stop kidding yourself. Hold meetings every Sunday over a copy of God Delusion.

What will they do when Dawkins snuffs it?

Does he get a funerary rite?

There is no study of Christians and atheists in a hospice or dying at home (that I have seen), but I can bet what it would say. Atheists hate their life (observation), blame God (blame game again) and become bitter with each birthday (since this is all there is and deep down, they know they waste their potential). Wouldn’t such a study prove once and for all which mode of life is superior?

The humble pie would choke such prideful people.

We are not fooled by Churchians or CHINOs. There is no such thing as born-again (American horse-shit) and still, when someone does repent, they don’t arrogantly boast or pridefully boss around others,assuming they are forgiven. You can never presume forgiveness (pride, knowing God’s mind) but must act to prove yourself the rest of your life (yes, commitment!). The former sinner does not have moral authority over people who always did the right thing, what could they possibly have to teach that isn’t obvious?

Most men (mankind) are too weak and selfish to handle the requirements of religion (even fasting) and too caring of materialism or fleeting, false popularity to believe in anything deep (any-thing). They simply aren’t good enough for religion, they know they would fail and so oppose anyone who does embrace it (envy, wrath).

To see someone successful at it enrages them (they seek out Christians for this reason, to troll because they know they have no argument), like an SJW witnessing an attractive, feminine woman, her blood boils.
To tear someone down, they must be above you. It must work. They are dishonest about this.

Religion isn’t the false consciousness (post-Reformation Christianity at least), it’s acting like you have a religion but denying to yourself that you need it psychologically.

You do, humans do (read more studies) but you are bad at it.
If you believe in religious freedom so much, leave the Christians alone. Don’t try to make it political. Go after every other religion, too? All hundreds of them? Apply your Crusaderism to the world, equally and logically.

I keep seeing men getting all craven and become weaklings on the topic of cutting off their spiritual life like it was a tumour. What, like a God figure isn’t going to see into your heart and know it’s full of shit?
They try to make out like piety and the pious are damaged. No, it’s a virtue. You keep it quiet but it’s there. In modernity we call it a conscience and people who mock those are the damaged ones.
At the very least, the protectionism, lies and funding scams on the taxpayer should infuriate these (mostly small government) men but that would require consistency. The Reproducability Crisis barely made a drop in the ocean, such is their pursuit of truth.

You don’t get to define the truth, that is a lie.
The truth exists beyond you, it isn’t relative, it won’t be something you’ll like.

The Boomer switch into postmodernism is rooted in one philosophy that many so-called smart people miss: moral relativism. For something to be good, there must be evil. The world is an absolute down to magnetic spins. You cannot deny this duality, polarity and opposition.  You try. Squirm all you like, you know I’m right.

You can’t embrace truth without punishing liars.

OR

hate what is evil, cling to what is good

If you want to be atomic and selfish, don’t inflict it on other people. Cruelty is never a morality. The amoral are united by their cruelty.

Before some troll goes there:

Do I think churches should be taxed? Yes. Fully. If it’s part of society, it should be taxed. Do I think religious schools should be funded on the taxpayer? No, none. Real Christians don’t need a fistful of cash to teach. Schools need huge funding cuts overall and to slice away the Ivy League style donations funds that leeches feed off. These debates are nonsense. There are standards and if Christians cannot meet them, we should all throw a Kool Aid party like war-time Berlin.

We’ll have to when national debt crunches us anyway. (Seriously, a lot of Gen X/Y will kill themselves when the circuses stop, they’re completely maladapted to a real economy).

If they’re going to keep shooting at you, make a smaller target. (Galt, basically).

Listen, if you want to be a conceited prick and lord it over people who deny themselves various things, fine, but you also need to get off your smug high horse to do it. You cannot be both. You cannot think yourself a good person while doing evil (or antisocial) things. If you’re destructive, you don’t get to bask in a halo-like glow of the creative.
You don’t get to pretend you’re deep when your understanding of religion (any) is so facile it was shaken by rhetoric (which is all emotional, you children) and so fragile your lifestyle and mindset can be ‘debunked’ by Youtube videos.
I have seen this claimed and they acted like the internet posters were peerless holders of knowledge. No, that’s a cult. No human knows everything.
Someone who is completely cynical believes in nothing, betrays themselves as incapable of belief and fulfilling that vital side of life (look at the studies into life expectancy and happiness!) and cannot be trusted on a subject they are incompetent at. I do not ask to play netball with a person who has no hand-eye coordination.
These people are not intellectuals and certainly never philosophers.
All they have are buzzwords, memes and smug mockery of people happier than them – narcissists.
Parental issues to one side, they need to look at themselves before judging something they can never see.
Virtue signalling doesn’t work for people who don’t believe in virtue. They grow increasingly desperate and we see that with the mutation of SJW talking points. Dawkins was swallowed by it! Where was the solid security of his principles then? The man is weak, he has the principles of quicksand.
Christianity hasn’t been a ‘threat’ to him in decades. He still spends most of his time grinding away at the Church with a personal grudge, now an angry, bitter old man taking speech shekels. He won’t dare be brave enough to handle the Muslim problems. He won’t admit demographics anymore, such is his love of money…

Typical Boomer logic: I’ll be dead so LOL, that isn’t my problem!

Science is not an opinion, it has never had one unchanging position on anything. Many scientists are religious (there are studies) and it seems the most important the scientist, the more religiosity they have/had. As for ‘stupid’ beliefs, that isn’t how belief (subjective) works. I bet these same guys believe in UFOs instead of angels, Zion or ghosts instead of demons. Demonic AI is like a HIV among atheistkult. Stop.

Powerful thing you can’t see or resist controlling the world? Not Satan, nope!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Could we be living in an evil simulation?  is an old idea. Can only rely on a Higher Power.

Demons do not mean what you think they do. Patriarchy and other ‘evils’ could be classified as demonic in ancient societies (Bacchus?).

Silicon Valley comes up with nothing new, it’s full of drug-addicted Ivy League morons raised on Daddy’s cash.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-other-tech-bubble/ You have to be rich to move there.

If you don’t believe in any fate, how can there be any luck? Basic questions never occurred to these supposed intellectuals.
To reiterate my original point, do not blame anyone or anything but especially science. You sound retarded. Science is a tool used by humans, you can no more blame it than a hammer on a bench. There is no divine authority to science because it creates nothing, it reports on somethings that humans note that may/not exist in the way they perceive. Science is a witness, it isn’t the cause of an event.

Accept your impotence.
There is no appeal to sacred science on matters of philosophy because science is a philosophy, a narrow one called empiricism. The Scientific Method is all the science there is and ever will be. It dictates nothing and often slaughters your holy cows e.g. Global Warming predictions, fail.

How could the climate deity betray you? You divined all the omens! Must appease!

Science is permanently changing and the fundamentals of the world do not. It is a logical error to apply it, it does not follow.
The method is a tool used by humans, who can be inept or corrupt or bribed or plain wrong. You have the typical polyanna leftist view of humanity, which all the findings have shown to be mistaken. Only philosophy can compete with philosophy (it is not self-correcting any more than a book is self-reading and whole theories are rarely disproven and discarded) but science is really a practice. You might as well be rain-dancing against the ozone.

Shake your stick, atheists, it’ll make no difference.

Muh Butterfly effect, O.K.

Science isn’t a magical force to replace the magical force you feel you lack control over. There is more in common between scientific reasoning (pattern finding) and folk magic (sympathetic magic) than you will ever know.
You can’t be bothered to properly research it and no, Youtube or Google do not fucking count. Specialist websites and e-celebs do not count, they are biased. You must do the work yourself and read some very old books e.g. Kant’s Pure Reason, any Descartes, some Newton. Do not stick to 20th century ramblings by glorified degenerates like Einstein, there’s a reason the major discoveries occurred before this time, the method has become weak as the people using it. If you dare bring up the sell-out engineer Nye like he’s a scientist, I will find you and fucking cut you on the astral plane. He’s like the mascot Barney the Dinosaur for scientism. A kid’s TV show presenter, look at your claimed authorities and begin to see why everyone ignores you. Society is structured a certain way because people are and people don’t change thanks to propaganda – you’ll know on your death bed.
Popper is a philosopher, not a scientist. There is no experiment to prove or disprove God, Pascal’s Wager is the closest we have and a sound, pragmatic view, but still – do not blame science for your personal flaws/sins. Science doesn’t work that way.

What you are trying to do has been named by psychiatry – like learned helplessness (related), it’s absolution of responsibility. It doesn’t exist.

Your body, your brain, your belief, YOU.

There is no method without experimentation and findings. No, talking does not count.
We were warned – Father of Lies, going all the way back to Loki.
Are you going to deny the frequency of human deception too?

There are plenty of studies, don’t be anti-science!

(Questioning findings is not questioning the approach. like hating one claimed work of art doesn’t mean you hate all art). It reminds me of the vain people who are too stupid to understand that they are disliked for good reasons so they call everyone jealous (clubber types) when you can’t be jealous of a vapid person whose entire life is meaningless crap. Nobody is jealous of shit.

Atheists insult things like white identity because you didn’t build that but hey, you didn’t discover anything past your navel so get off Newton’s dick! You aren’t allowed to be proud of that, it’s really sad.

Atheists fear the deadly sins being a societal standard again. Sloth in particular. Show me an atheist who has Protestant work ethic…. they don’t exist.

Gluttony is a great way to spot a loser group. Which religion has the most obese people? What if we include atheism? Surely the ‘logical’ people would be able to carb-count? If you lack the mental rigour to put down the junk food, why should anyone listen to you?

It’s like the findings on the socialists and communists being weaker and more likely to cheat for money in studies. You choose your belief to fit your personality and your desires, what you wanted to justify doing anyway. This isn’t noble, it’s low. SJWs don’t want to put effort into their appearance, so they claim it’s wrong to. Boom, you get what you want and a lush new moral high ground to boot! PUAs don’t want to admit premarital sex (PC term, actually fornication) would be counted as rape in a Patriarchy, the marriage license is the only valid consent, so they claim it means something else and rewrite history (fail to) – boom, everyone is giving them attention they want for being wrong on multiple levels. None of them want to change anything, like roll back the Sexual Revolution that let them work long careers in a rape culture or be club rats without the pressure to marry and become a Patriarch, it’s a rationalization and most people are like that, they don’t actually think. That’s the norm, the average.

Fine, be an animal. Don’t pretend to be anything else.

Crazy people don’t know they are crazy. Moral insanity used to be a common term. They don’t have it, know it, perceive it, recognize it, value it and scoff at practicing it. They are not free, they are evil. There is only a perversion of what is good for the world, psychiatry abides by this idea. Look at the wages of sin, all the cancers being caused by STDs. Almost like a punishment, isn’t it? In scientific terms, cause and effect? What you reap you sow, later and bigger? Asylums were commonly populated with this type of person, we now have studies proving neurological deficits e.g. hypofrontality. They are literally broken human beings and the behaviour is an outcome, the beliefs are excuses. They don’t have beliefs, they don’t have a moral compass beyond instinct.

A surgeon must cut to correct. A farmer must weed to seed. Wood rot must be exposed to be cleaned. It is the same with immorality.

NOTE: Agnosticism is assisted by science. The not-knowing. The moment you claim to know, that is not science, it is an article of faith.

In pure terms, an absence of faith is not more reasonable. Men are suffering new depression rates more akin to the female rate as their belief systems break down. (No, you’re not special boys, female rates are still higher because you refuse to marry. Little girls don’t fantasize about heading an HR department for fifty years). Remember, God is the ultimate man to believe in. You lose faith, you naturally begin to self-hate. Neither is your father the model of all mankind’s potential, he could be a write-off, you are not trapped by his patterns. Unless you choose to be.

Denial is unhealthy, it leads to physical stress that builds up and causes many chronic, fatal conditions on the rise (cancer, heart disease, MS, drug addictions, promiscuity, things demonstrably bad for you and your body and future). The escapism of substances or habits is particular to the male psyche, society used to protect you from it but you insisted you had the right to slowly kill yourself, waving your credit card in the air and begging to be enslaved.

OKAY, said the politicians, moving around their investments to the alcohol companies.

[Clooney owns one, FFS. Ain’t that a sign of collapse? Saint Jolie, also an alkie. She could be growing food for her little brown slave babies in the colours of Benetton (all brown), snatched from their parents and country into her silicon* claws. You know she bribed some people, you know. I guess slavery is okay if they’re brown and babies.]

It’s phrased like a religious conversion (I was in the darkness of religion but then I saw the light of reason). Reason is not the enemy of belief, reason comes after belief to understand it better.

You don’t doubt your existence, your name, your reality (AI excepting), that’s psychotic, to terminally (neurotic) doubt your faith means you never actually had it. I can’t lose a command of numbers because a few equations came out wrong. Still, the fault would be with me, not reality? Some days it looks cloudy, I don’t start saying the Sun might not really exist because I don’t see it today.

Constantly changing your mind is a sign of a feeble one. If you’re too open-minded…

Enlightenment is a religious concept of this gained knowledge. The first atheistkult tried to steal it as something objective. Nah, man. Not gonna happen. You tell me what an atom is without a continuum paradox and we can talk.

Your epistemology sucks Donkey Kong’s balls.
You know NOTHING.

At least we name the unknown and try to appreciate it (humility). You deny it exists so you can strut around like the Universe belongs to you. You’ll still be worm food, dude. You’ll be sorry. Nobody is impressed by brats.

*Her pick-up line used to be “Guess what’s real”.

There is no objectivity

“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” ~ Joseph Goebbels

As linked here but not expressly pointed out, this moral relativism applied to all knowledge is a misread of Rousseau originally, on the difficulty of objectivity and in-applicability to ALL subjects. Romantic as it is accurate. He was commenting on the Scientific Method and therefore, implicitly endorsing it. By discussing limits.

The opposite of epistemology is propaganda.

From

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2016/10/13/america-not-great-but-immigrants-still-attracted-sjws-always-lie/

Maybe they don’t want us to read Mein Kampf because they’re using it like a manual, upside down?

Video: Where do good and evil come from?

They are moral absolutes founded in religion.

I find it astounding how little self-awareness atheists display when they use those words, without a superhuman or divine arbiter. They don’t like the concept of a list they cannot edit, one with Encouraged (virtue) and Forbidden (vice).

The mere words themselves are religious.

The Good and the (D)evil.

They have no meaning as relative terms. It’s cute to see them try.
It’s as irrational as equating light and dark. One is the presence of bouncing photons, the other an absence. Nobody would mistake the two.

Humans are animals that may be noble. Morality is the lantern leading the way out of that primeval darkness.

Most supposed utilitarianism is incorrectly calculated. It is sum good over infinite time. As in, a perspective of low time preference, yet many examples you see falsely persist in giving short-termist examples. These short-term examples are, in fact, hedonic. They last as long as the feedback loop in the brain to motivate selfish action e.g. stealing food. OK, but what happens after? Once you are sated? These examples do not fit, they are not utilitarian, because true utilitarianism recognizes the ripple effect of long-term consequences. That is why Communism, while being collectivist and allocentric, is NOT utilitarian. Because it cannot be sustained without bloodshed and mass murder and rape. Communism is only utilitarian from the elite arbiter’s perspective. They’re literally playing God and this allows them, as human animals, to do great evil. See the connection here?

In case you think that was a petty example, the same holds true for atheist nations. They do not exist. They have never existed and sustained themselves. They are selected out by evolution, as was the neurobiology of faith selected for.

Nowadays we hear plenty of minority opinions as if they are fact. If they brought in direct democracy, gay marriage would have never passed in America. Many liberal causes are minority causes, they should be arguing against any and all utilitarianism.

Link: Battling the aesthetics of modernity

http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/01/12/battling-the-aesthetics-of-modernity/

Trigger warning: gross abortion picture you don’t want to see if you’re eating as I definitely wasn’t…. 

*sound of hiding pasta*

Worst part? At first I thought it was an art project.

Why? Because I’ve seen an IRL art project that looked just like it at a glance.

These are facts.

By triggering aesthetic’s counterpart, disgust, you’re furthering the Overton window.

Link: The paedophile in everyone

Yeah, one of those “terrible people defenders”. See weak man fallacy post for why trying to ingroup people dangerous to the ingroup is a red flag socially.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/young-people-close/201601/the-paedophile-in-everyone

Also I don’t know whether that’s a poor choice of words or a horrifying attempt at humour.

I guess we need to accept this has happened and it's going to get pushier

The weak man fallacy is postmodern moral relativism

In short, you can’t judge our worst because you don’t appreciate our best.

Yes, it’s the Marilyn quote writ spergy.

It’s a form of manipulation that snidely suggests: unless you cede ground (cheerleading for us, hang Burden of Proof), you must have no ground to cede (intones reciprocity may be given in exchange like a con artist). It assumes the target must qualify themselves and positions the speaker as Moral Authority, without the merest mention of biographical proof for that, highest of statuses (people often engaged in debates over morality rarely have a moral compass to speak of, they are simply virtue signalling in comparing how relatively bad they are to one another like a pissing match of STDs and bad decisions).

h/t http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapons/

I want to clarify a few things from this point without insulting SSC who is a brilliant writer I respect the intelligence of. This isn’t going to be precise because I think the fallacy is baseless.

The tumblr example is terrible, there’s a third variable causing the row, claiming the social status of doctor when its value is in its earning. Beth is claiming she is the moral equivalent of a Doctor because she can use Google. Alice is correct but worded her complaint poorly (doesn’t make her wrong).

The supposed weak man fallacy is actually based on stereotype, and these are empirically valid social constructs (the dark secret of liberal social psychology) connecting demographic to characteristic behaviour so arguing against them is like pissing in the rhetorical wind, the train is fine!

No literally, you can disprove the postmodern ‘stereotypes are mean lies’ people with maths. A lot of this is clever high-level social intelligence leveraged against the dumb and dishonest. It appears dumb to spergs until the person using these tactics wins, at which point the sperg assumes a fallacy must have been committed and the winner must be dialectic-ally, factually wrong because they can’t personally understand it (a common issue with the supposed rationalist community).

The fastest way to get someone to self-identify their moral issues is to openly criticize those issues and wait for them to argue against you, because it’s personal to them and you identified them without needing to address them by name, but by flaw, and they will argue against you whatever the content of your own argument, however blank and vacant and subjective e.g. I hate women who slut around, any woman objecting is identifying herself as a slut or I hate entitled men who think they’re everything while proving nothing, any man objecting is identifying as entitled, to hold such egoistic beliefs without pragmatic grounds i.e. narcissist.

I hate (group) who do (thing).

It’s very precise and an effective rhetorical shiv. It’s also self-contained logic. You can’t reason against it, if the assertion itself is true (stereotypical). Yes, in reality, they do.

Sometimes people trying to wield this take it too far and go into motivation (cheap Freud knockoffs without formal qualification, see Dr thing above for deserved societal disdain). Such secondary assertions can be argued against (reasons, motives) and rhetorically bring the whole house down despite how the original assertion is in fact statistically significant, but score 1 for the enemy, numbnuts. You overplayed your hand.

Not All (group) is missing the point, unless *All* was similarly overplayed or implied by the original assertion, while achieving the opposition’s aim of outing that very group, so you can hold them socially accountable for their actions (more on this below). It’s like playing Spot the Vegan or the remarkably dull reply of “Well I identify as a feminist!” Yes, you blithering idiot, I was hoping you would. Game on.

This is crucial so, when losing, they can’t fall back on the “I was just playing Devil’s Advocate” card, a third person neutral objective perspective card. Personal is the opposite of those things.

As for belief systems, pointing out inconsistencies and reasoning from the most evil behaviour up is rather logical. Membership of ideological groups is a choice and all members support by the very fact of their identification support their group’s most insane ideas, what is often referred to as privilege is actually a refusal to question their own behaviour and decision-making skills, psychological immaturity from any adult, a refusal to overcome their ego, for example, MGTOW refuse to question male choices nor admit poor male decision-making exists, so now they’re gaining a reputation as hateful as feminists. Since no adult is blameless and it’s a victimhood mentality to blame authority figures for your own fuck-ups.

They are trying to excuse the bad eggs by pointing to the good eggs, while the whole point of the argument is that the good eggs are by their chosen membership in the group shielding the bad eggs from the criticism the argument is attempting to provide, perhaps to find a solution together and correct it for communal benefit. It’s also a failure to apply the same logical proposition broadly, so if you cannot make a specific type of decision in one area e.g. this is good wife material, it’s a symptom of a deeper error in decision making (quality assessment, personal preference) that will affect all other areas of life too, in deeper and more obscure ways.

Weak man isn’t even its own fallacy, it’s moving the goalposts (metaphorically fleeing) and putting words in the other person’s mouth by making premise assumptions (straw man), up to and including a conspiratorial evil plan e.g. against Jews, that must be reasoned as true from the opponent’s own argument to be accepted in debate. You don’t hang someone on the basis of the testimony of their enemy, but you can hang them on their own. If the person says evil things, it can be assumed they have evil intent e.g. Kill All Men. If they do not, or give another plausible explanation, they must be given benefit of the doubt, hence innocent until proven guilty.

Relating to the bad egg example;

Why would you shield someone personally if you thought what they were doing was wrong?

This mode of argument entices our hidden motives, evil ones, such as those anti-tradition and anti-civilization ones commonly held by SJWs.

Intellectual honesty values the dialectic correction to short-term rhetorical (political) victory. Lose the battle, win the
war.

The simplest rhetorical spurn I can give is;

(Commonly accepted Evil demo) weren’t all bad, they (did good thing).

example

The Nazis weren’t all bad, they saved countless lives with their medical research.

Technically true, yet missing the point of any ideological argument.

Or on a personal behaviour level;

Hitler was an atheist vegan who loved dogs.

The theft of moral authority

2014-03-23-the-theft-of-moral-authority3

I disagree, somewhat. From a knowledge of history. It wasn’t even called feminism until the late 19th Century.

1st Wave – opportunity to work
Some of 2nd Wave – opportunity at work
3rd Wave – supremacy everywhere, free stuff, forced outcomes

If you read the moral justifications, they can handily break down by generation.

Victorian women: we are as virtuous as men, we deserve a chance. (ok)
Edwardian women: we work as hard as men, let us. (ok)

Two World Wars.

Suddenly the economy booms. The Baby Boomers take the floor.
Every one after: goodness isn’t real, we won’t conform to your expectations, don’t compare us to men.

Tech journo Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his claim to ethics

When he does an opinion piece on a point of active science. (Minus experts to support his specious claims). I have lost my former high regard for him. He became a sophist. Oh, the things I am sent by infuriated research psychologists. You should see how blue the air turned at this one.

Title: Sorry girls! But the smartest people in the world are all men!

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?
(patronizing Buzzfeed-esque address)+(claim to scientific authority against presumed naive reader)+(geniuses+polymaths subgroup)
= claim: no women (ever, at present or in future)

Operative absolute highlighted for your scorn.

I won’t link to the troll and the article is a patronizing piece of shit. You can tell he has no critical training in the field of data interpretation even if you took a drunken night class 10 years ago for a semester. It’s that painfully bad. Either he didn’t do the research (his actual job) into the history of females in that group, or he would’ve immediately found this, to look for the negative evidence, the black swan OR he knew, he bloody knew and left it out. The disclaimer required. The distinction to be made. One line:

It is fine to critique performance, but impossible to disprove potential.

Rarity speaks nothing of ability. As we say, to omit this distinction would remove all claim to both internal and external validity. Rendering it totally invalid….?
The ethical obligation (journalists take training courses) must have …slipped his mind. To get the clicks from the fake MGTOWs putting down women (a group) as if that has anything to do with individual variance (themselves), as I’ve stated before in excruciating take-down style detail. I believe someone actually linked to me for it, I see clicks on the traffic.
He’s become the enemy, a clickwhore lying about science for political grievance (his ‘side’ doesn’t make it right). He cherry-picked a study like Anita does with male violence and his foundation of relative morality has evaporated.
It would be as specious, unethical and rampantly dishonest as if I had said that, say, drugged-up Ritalin boys were innately retarded instead of <insert alternative nurtured explanation here>.

I guess you could say, it’s about ethics in psychometrics journalism.

burn gif

After his great and professional work on Gamergate and he pulls this shit.

tyra rooting for you
I feel so betrayed, and I’d been defending him to people, too.

Wikipedia could prove this bitch wrong. WIKIPEDIA. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Here are the actual categories and stratification of IQ scores. Look at the words.

IQcategories1 IQcategories2 IQcategories3

IQcategories4 IQcategories5

I guess the whole research field is fucking wrong, and Milo Yiannopoulos is right.
#GalileoGambit I guess no adult woman is in the Superior Group over IQ130.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=girl+mensa+age&tbm=nws
Pass Go. Collect your Nobel.

I made a chart too, Milo! About my opinion, of your opinion!

fucksgivenme

The IFLScientism Crowd will be totes impressed! Because the scientific method is like Mythbusters, anyone can do it! If you do a random thing, like find a thing and write about it, you can throw on a lab coat and call it a day. You earned that degree, that PhD in Internetz. If I write in a diary about an ice cream I just consumed, it’s science! And going by your logic, nobody can claim otherwise! If I claim the ice cream opened a portal to another dimension, and made a moral value judgement that it was, in fact, evil, an evil ice cream, I am under no positive Burden of Proof for this negative opinion, in fact, the burden shifts onto everyone else! Isn’t science fun? You can just make it up, all day! It counts! And I made charts so it’s legit, fam! It has Hindu numerals and shit!
Because dissent isn’t the natural process of scientific progress or anything, it’s a conspiracy theory like Patriarchy!

You would think that a technology journalist, who rely on personal popularity, wouldn’t alienate half the STEM field? How is this a plan for career longevity, exactly? I know people who are now blacklisting him for this, since he clearly doesn’t expect people he works with, in-industry, to have read it.

Milo, if you’re reading this;tyra take responsibility

UPDATE: 48h later, I can see comments defending Milo for the article.
Comments from feminists. I leave you to your conclusions.