Flags.........& Politics.

[Stirlingsays]

These constant claims about “whites” really needs to be called out. Where does that claim come from? I asked your favourite AI, Grok and their answer is below. Other AIs being even more forthright. So let’s compare it with yours!

“The idea that all white people share 97% of behaviors is not supported by any credible scientific evidence. Behavior is shaped by a complex mix of genetics, environment, culture, and individual experiences, making it highly variable even within any racial or ethnic group. Race itself is a social construct, not a precise biological category, and grouping people by race to quantify shared behaviors oversimplifies human diversity.


No study or data set has established a specific percentage like 97% for behavioral similarity within any racial group. Such a claim would require rigorous, large-scale behavioral analysis across diverse contexts, which doesn’t exist. People’s actions are influenced by countless factors—upbringing, education, socioeconomic status, and personal choices—far beyond race.”

This is a low IQ response.

I was talking figuratively.

As for the idea that race is a social construct.

That's moronic.

 

[Stirlingsays]

That’s disputed. As I said. Some think it refers to the white tin spilling from the black earth. It’s lost in time.

Like your honesty.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

This is a low IQ response.

I was talking figuratively.

As for the idea that race is a social construct.

That's moronic.

So you are arguing with Grok, an AI that you appear to favour and one that is generally regarded as favouring more right sources than others.

You describe Grok as making both a low IQ response and another as moronic, whilst describing your own, very specific, statement as figurative!

I witnessed you squirm before but that’s taking squirming to Everest level height.

You quoted Grok again yourself, extensively today. Is that quote now to be regarded as low IQ or moronic? Perhaps you think all AI responses are low IQ and moronic and only you knows how things really are?

 

[Stirlingsays]

So you are arguing with Grok, an AI that you appear to favour and one that is generally regarded as favouring more right sources than others.

You describe Grok as making both a low IQ response and another as moronic, whilst describing your own, very specific, statement as figurative!

I witnessed you squirm before but that’s taking squirming to Everest level height.

You quoted Grok again yourself, extensively today. Is that quote now to be regarded as low IQ or moronic? Perhaps you think all AI responses are low IQ and moronic and only you knows how things really are?

Another low IQ response.

If you put something to Grok as factual then of course it's going to respond that the 97 percent figure is wrong, because that is probably accurate. I was being figurative and anyone with brains could have figured that out.

As for race being a social construct this is again another moronic play on words.

Grok itself recognises the genetic differences between populations and what you are accessing is a whole lot of programmed in socio-political waffle only popular in the recent politicalised environment.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Another low IQ response.

If you put something to Grok as factual then of course it's going to respond that the 97 percent figure is wrong, because that is probably accurate. I was being figurative and anyone with brains could have figured that out.

As for race being a social construct this is again another moronic play on words.

Grok itself recognises the genetic differences between populations and what you are accessing is a whole lot of programmed in socio-political waffle only popular in the recent politicalised environment.

You weren’t. You made a definitive statement without any qualifications. As Grok, and my brain, can easily figure out!

Race being a social construct doesn’t play with words in any way at all. It’s a very straightforward statement of fact that is repeated in every AI that is asked the same question. That you don’t want that to be true because it doesn’t match your own prejudices and narrative is obvious but doesn’t change reality.

Wanting an AI only to access sources that think like you do is what Andrew Torba is up to. Why don’t you go and participate in his echo chamber?

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

This is a low IQ response.

I was talking figuratively.

As for the idea that race is a social construct.

That's moronic.

I think the issue is with the term. Race is not scientific terminology. Science chooses to lump all of humanity together and call it a species.

Despite this, it is clear that humans are divided into distinct subgroups based on genetic differences, likely caused primarily by geographic separation and pre historic interbreeding with other now extinct hominid species.

Needless to say, there are many other abstractions that humans invent to divide each other or to create commonality.

The left likes to play with words and statistics to fudge reality. It's all they have.

 

[Stirlingsays]

You weren’t. You made a definitive statement without any qualifications. As Grok, and my brain, can easily figure out!

Race being a social construct doesn’t play with words in any way at all. It’s a very straightforward statement of fact that is repeated in every AI that is asked the same question. That you don’t want that to be true because it doesn’t match your own prejudices and narrative is obvious but doesn’t change reality.

Wanting an AI only to access sources that think like you do is what Andrew Torba is up to. Why don’t you go and participate in his echo chamber?

Amusingly your obsession with Torba is just more evidence of your radicalisation. You seem to be the only person who regularly brings him up on here.

AI is useful, though not perfect. It's dataset is formed from human sources and thus contains all the benefits of that plus its issues.

The rest of what you write is the usual utter drivel.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

humans are divided into distinct subgroups based on genetic differences, likely caused primarily by geographic separation and pre historic interbreeding with other now extinct hominid species.

The left likes to play with words and statistics to fudge reality. It's all they have.

when you tell the Left that some sub-groups of humans are brilliant at digesting cow's milk (the irish) or at living at altitude (the Nepalese )....those Lefties lose their sh1.t

The idea of differences is totally anathema to their whole egalitarian world-view.

Flags.......some flags for Olympic Sprinters, some other flags for Olympic swimmers.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Amusingly your obsession with Torba is just more evidence of your radicalisation. You seem to be the only person who regularly brings him up on here.

AI is useful, though not perfect. It's dataset is formed from human sources and thus contains all the benefits of that plus its issues.

The rest of what you write is the usual utter drivel.

I bring up Torba because he typifies all that’s wrong with Christian Nationalists and their desire to achieve domination in the USA. He is also unapologetically anti semetic.

He is extremely right wing, allows awful ideas to be spread on his platform without any attempt at moderation, simply because he believes in free speech having no limits. He is the least Christian person I have ever encountered, yet can quote from the Bible at will.

In short he represents a great deal of the sickness in the USA.

That you consider your opinion to be superior to the wisdom collected by many AI engines is extremely instructive of your considerable capacity for self delusion and aggrandisement.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

when you tell the Left that some sub-groups of humans are brilliant at digesting cow's milk (the irish) or at living at altitude (the Nepalese )....those Lefties lose their sh1.t

The idea of differences is totally anathema to their whole egalitarian world-view.

Flags.......some flags for Olympic Sprinters, some other flags for Olympic swimmers.

You don’t need to restrict that to the “left”! It applies to everyone.

What doesn’t apply is that you can divide people up by the colour of their skin. Or any other racial characteristic.

Any group living in Ireland, or Nepal, given enough time and generations, would evolve the capacities described. Wherever they originated. Whatever they looked like. It is only impacted by their environment.

 

[eaglesdare]

DAN GAINOR: The England we love is lost. If we don’t change, America will be, too

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces criticism as England grapples with terror attacks, mass protests and cultural changes that could foreshadow America's future.

www.foxnews.com

Found it hard to disagree with this opinion article on the state of the UK at the moment.

 

[Stirlingsays]

I bring up Torba because he typifies all that’s wrong with Christian Nationalists and their desire to achieve domination in the USA. He is also unapologetically anti semetic.

He is extremely right wing, allows awful ideas to be spread on his platform without any attempt at moderation, simply because he believes in free speech having no limits. He is the least Christian person I have ever encountered, yet can quote from the Bible at will.

In short he represents a great deal of the sickness in the USA.

That you consider your opinion to be superior to the wisdom collected by many AI engines is extremely instructive of your considerable capacity for self delusion and aggrandisement.

I think your views are radical in the opposite direction to Torba's who I'm closer to but that doesn't bother me.....unlike what you want for Torba I think you should be allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I for example, have never agreed with left wing ideas (short of murdering or harming opponents) being banned or censored. The communist party were allowed official physical headquarters in this country without persecution eve since they started....back in far far more socially conservative times than what gets called 'fascist' today.

It's just another reason why any sensible person views the left and liberals of today with utter contempt. Because the social conservatives of the past were so much better than them on free speech and freedom of association.

In how this is illustrative of hypocrisy with you. You take advantage of Hol's freer attitude on free speech to push your own radical minority viewpoints (trans, censorship, grooming gang response). Yet someone with the opposite opinions to you would be banned on left wing websites like the bbs for example.

The bbs is a far closer example of your politics as a person yet you reside here because you take advantage of the fact that the right wing will tolerate challenges to its ideas.

Because the right wing are morally and ethically superior to your authoritarian and oppressive politics.

As for what I highlighted here:

So is this you saying that you agree with the output regarding socio-political questions if it comes from an AI?

I predict you'll come up with some overly worded crap that essentially means you'd only agree if the commentary agreed with your own opinion.

Making the highlighted statement your usual inconsistent drivel.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I think your views are radical in the opposite direction to Torba's who I'm closer to but that doesn't bother me.....unlike what you want for Torba I think you should be allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

I for example, have never agreed with left wing ideas (short of murdering or harming opponents) being banned or censored. The communist party were allowed official physical headquarters in this country without persecution eve since they started....back in far far more socially conservative times than what gets called 'fascist' today.

It's just another reason why any sensible person views the left and liberals of today with utter contempt. Because the social conservatives of the past were so much better than them on free speech and freedom of association.

In how this is illustrative of hypocrisy with you. You take advantage of Hol's freer attitude on free speech to push your own radical minority viewpoints (trans, censorship, grooming gang response). Yet someone with the opposite opinions to you would be banned on left wing websites like the bbs for example.

The bbs is a far closer example of your politics as a person yet you reside here because you take advantage of the fact that the right wing will tolerate challenges to its ideas.

Because the right wing are morally and ethically superior to your authoritarian and oppressive politics.

As for what I highlighted here:

So is this you saying that you agree with the output regarding socio-political questions if it comes from an AI?

I predict you'll come up with some overly worded crap that essentially means you'd only agree if the commentary agreed with your own opinion.

Making the highlighted statement your usual inconsistent drivel.

Why are “murdering and harming people” left wing ideas?

It’s obvious nonsense. Murder can be committed by anyone. Their political views being irrelevant. So too can harm. You have only to look at Trump to see that.

There are many very sensible people, both of the past and today, who are sympathetic to liberal attitudes and hold contempt for the right. That you think otherwise simply demonstrates both your hypocrisy and your prejudice. It’s contemptuous.

I don’t “push” any viewpoints here, minority, majority or not. I argue against those I find either distasteful, prejudicial, disrespectful, destructive or just plain wrong. Having grandchildren who are trans tends to ensure I understand their situation rather better than some of the appallingly ignorant comments from others here. Comments that reek of unapologetic prejudice. I don’t believe in absolute freedom of speech. Slander and libel exist for good reasons. So a degree of censorship is necessary in any democracy. Free speech under the law is my position. I have never defended grooming gangs. I have defended those trying to bring them to justice and support their victims.

I have twice been banned here, then reinstated. I have also seen coordinated campaigns to get me kicked off the site because I don’t follow the party line. I don’t use the BBS so cannot be certain but there are several regular posters here whose views would not survive on many sites. So which site is unusual?

To describe the right as morally and ethically superior, and then suggest I am authoritarian, when you have only to look at the immoral US President, and what he is now doing, to see that is hypocrisy on fire. I would think it was a joke, but coming from you know it isn’t.

I am saying I would trust the views of a collection of AI sources over yours on just about any subject imaginable. They distill opinions and produce a consensus. You just rely on your own prejudices.

You post the above “overly worded” response yet describe my response to it as crap before I have even read it! Long posts demand long responses, if you aim to be objective. They don’t need to be insulting.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Why are “murdering and harming people” left wing ideas?

It’s obvious nonsense. Murder can be committed by anyone. Their political views being irrelevant. So too can harm. You have only to look at Trump to see that.

I used the word 'ideas', which wasn't accurate. I should have said, unless someone on the left 'advocates for harming someone' then their ideas should be allowed within the marketplace, same as any other. As I've said many times my ideas on speech are historical and limit state involvement to physical threats and libel....and both need sensible context.

There are many very sensible people, both of the past and today, who are sympathetic to liberal attitudes and hold contempt for the right. That you think otherwise simply demonstrates both your hypocrisy and your prejudice. It’s contemptuous.

Total drivel.

I don’t “push” any viewpoints here, minority, majority or not. I argue against those I find either distasteful, prejudicial, disrespectful, destructive or just plain wrong. Having grandchildren who are trans tends to ensure I understand their situation rather better than some of the appallingly ignorant comments from others here. Comments that reek of unapologetic prejudice. I don’t believe in absolute freedom of speech. Slander and libel exist for good reasons. So a degree of censorship is necessary in any democracy. Free speech under the law is my position. I have never defended grooming gangs. I have defended those trying to bring them to justice and support their victims.

I could make this post very long and pretty much attack every sentence of this. Instead I'll let those who know your posts treat it with the contempt it deserves.

I have twice been banned here, then reinstated. I have also seen coordinated campaigns to get me kicked off the site because I don’t follow the party line. I don’t use the BBS so cannot be certain but there are several regular posters here whose views would not survive on many sites. So which site is unusual?

I wasn't aware that you were banned twice....However, the fact that you were twice reinstated shows that this website believes in the freedom to challenge ideas.

I have also been banned twice on Hol and reinstated twice.....quite the unusual parallel.

Yet the bbs, doesn't have that tolerance for the right to challenge it......It's represents your socially liberals opinions very well. Yet here you are.

With your socially inferior opinions and being allowed to express them.

To describe the right as morally and ethically superior, and then suggest I am authoritarian, when you have only to look at the immoral US President, and what he is now doing, to see that is hypocrisy on fire. I would think it was a joke, but coming from you know it isn’t.

Only you could crowbar Trump into it.

I am saying I would trust the views of a collection of AI sources over yours on just about any subject imaginable. They distill opinions and produce a consensus. You just rely on your own prejudices.

That's not actually how they work, that was how they use to work. If you don't believe me look into the 'MeccaHitler' incident....one of many. AIs ultimately reflect their programming in terms of their freedoms to collate consensus.

A 'collection of Ai sources' is just an attempt to vague out a response here.

You post the above “overly worded” response yet describe my response to it as crap before I have even read it! Long posts demand long responses, if you aim to be objective. They don’t need to be insulting.

Well, it was an honest response.