Over 9000

Yes. "Blacks are an enormous existential problem." Isn't name calling. I can expand that to "Blacks are an enormous existential problem because of the African population expansion". Both are debatable statements. Explain how calling me a "racist" refutes my thesis, and is something other than a label he applied to his opponent by his own undeclared defintion. You seriously think nobody on Earth thinks replacing Europeans with Africans might not be a dramatic improvement? That anybody who could entertain such a bizarre idea must be "trolling"?

No, because I used a term to make a point. Using words isn't name calling. Using nothing other than a word is name calling. Calling me a "racist", because my opinion makes me a "racist" according to whatever definition is in his mind. Should I then change my opinion because somebody decided to label it? Some expansion is needed. But I get how calling somebody "racist" works. It's a social signal based on the political zeitgeist. Much like calling somebody a "heretic" was in different times. It's not really a point of logic.

Agreed. But otherwise we should tolerate everything? We should only not tolerate "intolerance"? If there are any other things we are not tolerant of, then we are by definition intolerant of things other than intolerance.

No, name calling is exactly what it is called. The names can be true. The point is that calling somebody a name, or putting a label on somebody, does not refute what they are saying. Perhaps I'm a "racist" by some definition. I mean I've heard anyone mention race get called a racist. So what? Am I incorrect? I'm certainly not a bigot (somebody who fails to update their views in the light or contradictory information) and this is the most laughably hypocritical accusation from the sloganeering reality detached left. I'm really not trolling. I genuinely see African popuation expansion and migration as a very serious problem. Sorry if that seems like an absolutely crazy thought to you.

So if we can't generalise about genetic statuses (we can of course) but we can generalise about cultures, why can't we generalise about Islam, but can generalise about Nazism? Hatred is not necessarily "ignorant". It's an emotion people feel. I guess your trying to imply that people who disagree with you feel the emotion of "hatred" for no reason and that's why they have a different opinion. Bigotry means failing to update views in the face of contradicting information. Unfortunately to the left these are just meaningless names they call their opponents. So society should tolerate everything, except people who don't tolerate eveything? How do you square this with practices of law enforcement? Must we really tolerate everything? Are there any things, besides intolerance, we can reasonably not tolerate? I'm not trying to claim any group association. I'm just showing that your argument can be applied to tolerate Nazism. I guessed that you don't like Nazism, but that you like Islam, so it kind of exposes the thin veneer of superficial logic you place over your subjective opinions. I am making this simple point. It seems irrefutable to me. You can fly off the handle and call me "ignorant" for no reason if it makes you feel better.

Yes, I can well believe that your political and intellectual analyses extend as far as name-calling.

You're begging the question by using the word "contacting". If by "touch" we mean "maximum proximity before particle fields repel", we mean the same for "contact". So however close we get when "touching" or "contacting" is enough for a virus to stick/enter or whatever it does.

The academic left deploy their killer argument.

Well that's an opinion. Some would say "Black lives" or Blacks are an enormous existential problem. But I guess we're all entitled to our opinions. Edit. Oops, posted without seeing notice above. Feel free to delete.

Try "Nazi". Does it feel generalizing or bigoted?

No idea. Thanks for the penetrating response. It relates to the OP. How does Kant resolving (or attempting to) a debate between Newtonians and Leibnizians relate to physics. No idea dude. Would be happy if you could think about it and let me know if you work it out. Now I think about it it has absolutely nothing to do with physics. I might as well have just copy pasted from a basketweaving handbook. I'm feeling pretty silly about my stupid post. "Is time a real thing" "Kant's thesis that space and time are pure forms of intuition leads him to the paradoxical conclusion that although space and time are empiri­cally real, they are transcendentally ideal, and so are the objects given in !hem." Damn, why I can't I make relevant and useful posts? Why do I waste everybody's time?

"Transcendental Aesthetic": space, time, and transcendental idealism. Despite its brevity - a mere thirty pages in the first edition and forty in the second - the "Transcendental Aesthetic" argues for a series of striking, paradoxical and even revolutionary theses that deter­mine the course of the whole remainder of the Critique and that have been the subject of a very large proportion of the scholarly work de­voted to the Critique in the last two centuries. '3 In this section, Kant at­tempts to distinguish the contribution to cognition made by our receptive faculty of sensibility from that made solely by the objects that affect us (A 2 1-2 /B 36), and argues that space and time are pure forms of all intuition contributed by our own faculty of sensibility, and therefore forms of which we can have a priori knowledge. This is the basis for Kant' s resolution of the debate about space and time that had raged be­tween the Newtonians, who held space and time to be self -subsisting entities existing independently of the objects that occupy them, and the Leibnizians, who held space and time to be systems of relations, con­ceptual constructs based on non-relational properties inhering in the things we think of as spatiotemporally related. '4 Kant's alternat ive to both of these positions is that space and time are neither subsistent be­ ings nor inherent in things as they are in themselves, but are rather only fo rms of our sensibility, hence conditions under which objects of expe­rience can be given at all and the fundamental principle of their repre­sentation and individuation. Only in this way, Kant argues, can we adequately account for the necessary manifestation of space and time throughout all experience as single but infinite magnitudes - the fea­ture of experience that Newton attempted to account for with his meta­ physically incoherent notion of absolute space and time as the sensorium dei - and also explain the a priori yet synthetic character of the mathe­matical propositions expressing our cognition of the physical properties of quantities and shapes given in space and time - the epistemological certainty undercut by Leibniz' s account of space and time as mere rela­ tions abstracted fr om anteced ently existing objects (A 22-5 I B 37-4 1, A 30--2 IB46-9). Kant's thesis that space and time are pure forms of intuition leads him to the paradoxical conclusion that although space and time are empiri­cally real, they are transcendentally ideal, and so are the objects given in !hem. Although the precise meaning of this claim remains subject to debate ,'5 in general terms it is the claim that it is only from the human standpoint that we can speak of space, time, and the spatiotemporality of the objects of experience, thus that we cognize these things not as they are in themselves but only as they appear under the conditions of our sensibility (A 26-30/B 42-5, A 32-48 /B49-73). This is Kant's famous doctrine of transcendental idealism, which is employed throughout the Critique of Pure Reason (and the two subsequent critiques) in a variety of ways, both positively, as in the "Transcendental Aesthetic" and "Dis­cipline of Pure Reason," to account for the possibility of synthetic a pri­ori cognition in mathematics, and negatively, as in the "Transcendental Dialectic," to limit the scope of our cognition to the appearances given to our sensibility, while denying that we can have any cognition of things as they are in themselves, that is, as transcendent realities con­stituted as they are independently of the constitution of our cognitive capacities. http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-first-critique-cambridge.pdf

I guess the Media/Finance nexus can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Professor who tweeted against PC culture is out at NYU By Melkorka Licea October 30, 2016 An NYU professor crusading against political correctness and student coddling was booted from the classroom last week after his colleagues complained about his “incivility,” The Post has learned. Liberal studies prof Michael Rectenwald, 57, said he was forced Wednesday to go on paid leave for the rest of the semester. “They are actually pushing me out the door for having a different perspective,” the academic told The Post. Rectenwald launched an undercover Twitter account called Deplorable NYU Prof on Sept. 12 to argue against campus trends like “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings” policing Halloween costumes and other aspects of academia’s growing PC culture. He chose to be anonymous, he explained in one of his first tweets, because he was afraid “the PC Gestapo would ruin me” if he put his name behind his conservative ideas on the famously liberal campus. “I remember once on my Facebook I posted a story about a kid who changed his pronoun to ‘His Majesty’ because I thought it was funny,” he told The Post. “Then I got viciously attacked by 400 people. This whole milieu is nauseating. I grew tired of it, so I made the account.” On Oct. 11, Rectenwald used his internet alter ego to criticize “safe spaces” — the recent campus trend of “protecting” students from uncomfortable speech — as “at once a hall of mirrors and a rubber room.” Two weeks ago he posted on his “anti-PC” feed a photo of a flyer put out by NYU resident advisers telling students how to avoid wearing potentially offensive Halloween costumes. His caption read: “The scariest thing about Halloween today is . . . the liberal totalitarian costume surveillance. NYU RAs gone mad,” he wrote. “It’s an alarming curtailment of free expression to the point where you can’t even pretend to be something without authorities coming down on you in the universities,” Rectenwald told The Post. But the Twitter feed soon sparked a “witch hunt” by the growing army of “social justice warriors,” he said. In an interview published Monday in the Washington Square News, NYU’s Independent Student Newspaper, the eight-year instructor admitted he was the Deplorable NYU Prof. “My contention is that trigger warning, safe spaces and bias hot-line reporting is not politically correct. It is insane,” he told the student paper. “The crazier and crazier that this left gets . . . the more the alt-right is going to be laughing their asses off [and] getting more pissed.”, he was quoted as saying. The divorced father of three came forward because “I thought there was nothing objectionable about what I had said.” But Rectenwald says he began getting “dirty looks” in his department and on Wednesday figured out why: A 12-person committee calling itself the Liberal Studies Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Working Group, including two deans, published a letter to the editor in the same paper. “As long as he airs his views with so little appeal to evidence and civility, we must find him guilty of illogic and incivility in a community that predicates its work in great part on rational thought and the civil exchange of ideas,” they wrote of the untenured assistant professor. “We seek to create a dynamic community that values full participation. Such efforts are not the ‘destruction of academic integrity’ Professor Rectenwald suggests, but rather what make possible our program’s approach to global studies,” they argued [sic]. Rectenwald likened the attack to “a Salem witch trial. They took my views personally. I never even mentioned them and I never even said NYU liberal studies program. I was talking about academia at large,” said the professor, a popular instructor who was graded 4.4 out of 5 on ratemyprofessors.com. The same day the letter was published, Rectenwald was summoned to a meeting with his department dean and an HR representative, he says. “They claimed they were worried about me and a couple people had expressed concern about my mental health. They suggested my voicing these opinions was a cry for help,” Rectenwald told The Post. “Then they said I should leave and get help.” He said, “They had no reason to believe that my mental health was in question, unless to have a different opinion makes one insane.” Students told him that professors openly discussed with students how he may be fired. The leave has “absolutely zero to do with his Twitter account or his opinions on issues of the day,” said NYU spokesman Matt Nagel. But Rectenwald is disheartened. “I’m afraid my academic career is over,” he said Rectenwald. “Academic freedom: It’s great, as long as you don’t use it.”

You wrote ""The paper does not deal with the Flynn effect per se, but it points to the development of (multiple types of) intelligence in order to cope with our changing environment." I wrote "posters are bringing up the theory of multiple intelligences" So now you think the paper is not about multiple intelligences? I would like to take a look at it and offer an opinion. The relevant point really is that the discussion has moved to the measurement of intelligence. Which contradicts the closer's claim that we are rehashing the same point (ie. "race does not exist"). Going through the thread after I was banned it appears to be an extended discussion of whether or not to call the hereditarian hypothesis "racist". Very important question. *facepalm*