Egregoros

@p

"did you seriously say that black people are not smart enough to listen to people that are a different color"

No.

---

"If the color of the speaker does not matter, why does making sure that the speaker is *not* black mean anything?"

Because Black historians and researchers are already deemed by some as not credible in this discussion - they are deemed to be implicitly biased.

Hence I use non-Blacks.

---

"If you can't just talk then why would quoting someone help?"

For me at least, my argument is done and concluded. It is as real for me as the roundness of the earth is.

So I just point people to some resources I found and let them argue with the sources. In other words "Don't take my word for it."

---

"Why talk to you if you've stopped being a reasoning entity in order to act as a search engine? I ain't tryna talk to a human bot."

P, sometimes talking to you is like talking to an LLM. You can certainly generate a lot of text.

At the end of the day, I don't need to convince of something I am convinced is true. You don't need to read anything of mine that you are convinced is false.

But we can certainly engage in a spectacle for others - where time permits - if they are undecided or curious about the topic.

---

"Yeah, the issue is the trying to win an argument: instead of engaging on this topic, you just post some link to something. If you can't address the evidence to the contrary by doing anything except posting a link to someone else saying the opposite, you're broadcasting. It's not worth reading. You read a credible historian and they'll pull all the primary sources, they'll read the commentary, they'll note contradictory evidence, and this is the difference between someone that cares what the truth is and someone that wants to get you to think something because they want you to behave as if that thing were true."

For me, there is no argument, only disagreement.

If you want a debate, kindly write up your understanding of my claims, attach as a PDF or MD, and I will respond in kind - pictures, links etc.

That way, we can have your debate, without ultralong hellthread posts.

Deal?

@dcc @bajax @Economic_Hitman @f0x @VaxxSabbath @fish @TheBoonieGhoul @sampler @sicp @tsubo @DiamondMind @GhostOfMoshe @Kaz @SilverDeth @amerika @dorkvalized @dsm @fluffy @ins0mniak @yaboisugoi @milk @bonifartius @NonPlayableClown @ceooffuggy @takao @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Kagekokoro

@PraiseBlackJesus @DiamondMind @Economic_Hitman @GhostOfMoshe @Kagekokoro @Kaz @NonPlayableClown @SilverDeth @TheBoonieGhoul @VaxxSabbath @amerika @bajax @bonifartius @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @ceooffuggy @dcc @dorkvalized @dsm @f0x @fish @fluffy @ins0mniak @milk @sampler @sicp @takao @tsubo @yaboisugoi

> No.

Here's a video of a black man saying that you *did* say that.

> Because Black historians and researchers are already deemed by some as not credible in this discussion

You've missed the point entirely.

> let them argue with the sources

This is you doing exactly the thing that I said was fucked up to do. You're not worth engaging with if this is what you are going to do.

> You can certainly generate a lot of text.

It was actually shorter than the post it was responding to. (2,441 characters from me, 2,501 from you.)

The difference is that I've thought about what you said and then I thought about my response. This is one of the reasons it's parasitic behavior to just paste something someone else said: why is it worth thinking about what you have to say if you're not extending the same courtesy or even deliberately trying to exhaust? So it gets easy to write people off if they can't manage to actually engage.

> But we can certainly engage

I'm happy to talk, I like to talk, I like to think and argue points, but I hate to do a motivated-reasoning debate.

> If you want a debate

If I wanted to, I'd bring it up; you bring it up and I read posts and respond to them.

> without ultralong hellthread posts

Some things warrant more words.

@p

OK, so you want to argue for argument's sake without referring to sources?

You're right, I am missing your point entirely.

And if some things warrant more words, why not write them in a letter and attach to the thread, to give the arguments the attention they deserve?

---

Let's assume for the sake of argument, that I am dead wrong about my assertion. Shouldn't be hard for anyone here judging by the commentary.

So, if I am dead wrong about Jesus being Black, then:

1) A self-proclaimed freespeechextremist should either regard it as noise, or argue in good faith.

2) Just as there are biological males on the fedi cosplaying as females, and whites cosplaying as Nazis, I can cosplay a Black Israelite with the implication that Jesus would too be black, right?








@dcc @bajax @Economic_Hitman @f0x @VaxxSabbath @fish @TheBoonieGhoul @sampler @sicp @tsubo @DiamondMind @GhostOfMoshe @Kaz @SilverDeth @amerika @dorkvalized @dsm @fluffy @ins0mniak @yaboisugoi @milk @bonifartius @NonPlayableClown @ceooffuggy @takao @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @Kagekokoro

@bajax

"Favouring free speech for everyone doesn't mean you have any issue mocking what idiots do with it."

Agreed.

My point was reasonableness - specifically, "is it reasonable for someone to attack, or wait for others to attack, a person merely saying 'Praise Black Jesus' when they disagree with that statement in whole or in part? When they have a history of permitting far more egregious behaviour in the name of freespeechextremism?"

Say, for argument's sake, that P is pro-LGBT. Even if he was, prior to Revolver, should he as an admin allowed a then underage user to spam mature age users with adult themed memes or commentary? I say no, for the child's sake, ban them.

Say P were racist and did not like Jews (nominal Jews anyways) or Black People. Is it right (reasonable) for him allow such speech on his free speech platform? Absolutely. Even if the poster calls for violence against those groups? Certainly, if laws allow it. Yet, it's kinda strange when a certain user makes a joke about a politician *hypothetically* meeting his/her untimely demise by some means and P has that post deleted (or coerces that user to delete it) because the Feds are watching his site.

TLDR:

My picture is making the claim that P's differences with me are neither logical, nor reasonable, nor for the safe use of his site by other users or in compliance with the law (I am not on his site anymore). His differences with me are simply personal. While he is entitled and encouraged to have personal differences with me, trying to masquerade them as academic or philosophical is below him, and not worthy of anyone's time.

@DiamondMind @Economic_Hitman @GhostOfMoshe @Kagekokoro @Kaz @NonPlayableClown @SilverDeth @TheBoonieGhoul @VaxxSabbath @amerika @bonifartius @ceo_of_monoeye_dating @ceooffuggy @dcc @dorkvalized @dsm @f0x @fish @fluffy @ins0mniak @milk @p @sampler @sicp @takao @tsubo @yaboisugoi