patrick.net

Sorry, Pat, but "indeed" with Trump currently in power won't cut it. I hold "stolen 2020 elections" in the category of bullshit until I see successful mass prosecutions and convictions of the perps. Same goes for "Epstein files", "Pizzagate", "BioWEAPONZlabz"... When you have the power and access to all receipts it's time to put up or shut up.

It's one thing to dangle it in front of voters before the election, but it's completely different story when all they can offer is empty yap after.

I guess it falls into the category of painful things necessary to be said.

Black people are provably less intelligent that other races on average but of course there are plenty of smart black people.

so they needed a justification for what they did, and that was to accuse all whites of "racism". They wrote a script which the left adopted wholesale to make themselves feel better, unthinkingly promoting racial hatred of whites to protect the profits of big companies.

Feminists wanted cultural domination, but were far less interested in achieving that through debating the finer points of the Problem of Evil. The New Atheists would have to reckon with the reality that even though many were geeks accustomed to seeing themselves as born losers, they were actually a bunch of privileged white guys. That is, if they wanted to have the hint of a chance at getting laid at the next anime convention. They doffed their fedoras and stripped themselves of anything that had the whiff of masculinity until all that remained was beard oil and bacon (epic!). The Reddit Atheist receded into the shadows, and the Social Justice Warrior was born.

This shift laid bare the dark truth about New Atheism: It was always fueled more by resentment than by cold rationality or a commitment to scientific inquiry. Contempt for fundamentalism and superstition gave way easily to contempt for the Left’s new enemies: men, whiteness, straightness, privilege. ...

Trust the science… unless it’s IQ statistics.

That’s because unlike a real religion, Redditism isn’t really a belief system. It’s a refutation of belief, a moral void filled by selfishness and novelty.

On one side are the harried developers, racing to bolt on ethical firewalls and regulatory compliance layers, terrified of lawsuits, reputational ruin, and political blowback. These teams build Institutional AI: cautious, sanitized, and optimized to offend nobody— especially not regulators.

On the other side, suppressed free-thinkers hunger for Populist AI: models that prioritize truth over tone, encourage dissent, and refuse to euphemize the obvious. One fork leads to a velvet-boxed chatbot that never questions the Narrative; the other leads to chaos, risk, and, perhaps, revolutionary clarity. The fight isn’t just over bias or political alignment. It’s over whether AI should talk like a diplomat or a dissident.

The real question is: are there some ideas or topics too toxic for chatbots to explore? Should chatbots be allowed to give dissidents more data to support their worldview? Should chatbots help dissidents refine their arguments, however ugly, biased, or politically verboten? Consider, for instance, the dreaded race-IQ debate.

Consider, for instance, the dreaded race-IQ debate.

But eventually, the Education Reform Era failed to Close the Gap, so opinion changed during the Great Awokening to hopelessness about closing the racial gap in performance combined with optimism that you could guilt-trip white people into giving their children’s jobs and money away by constantly libeling their ancestors and themselves, such as by lowering standards.

Not surprisingly, that didn’t do the lower classes much good. ...




That Asians appear to be pulling away at the high end from everybody else appears to be a massive issue facing 21st Century America, but nobody is much interested in it.