Do you believe in censorship?

Yet people in this very thread cite The Bell Curve as if it wasn't a heavily disputed pile of garbage

Heavily disputed does not mean throw the baby out with the bathwater. THe Jensen and Rushton study exists, and Murray's work is controversial because it is hard to deny all of his points. The problems I have with the Bell Curve is that people tend to use it as a weapon, instead of a way to understand populations, and are willing to use it as a brand for individuals, as though outliers do not exist.

Not to meme (I am not a massive sam harris fan) but his first interview with Siddartha Mukerjee after the Murray interview was against the Bell Curve without being totally dismissive, and Sam keeps his mouth shut most of the time.

Face it blacks are inferior to us

Unless you are playing a game of basketball or building a religious congregation, or establishing social connections within a community of thousands.

>whites
>established the largest religion
>social network of fraternities that has worked its way into the workplace, government, etc.

well try important things like creating masterpieces, art, technology, and human decency and solidarity. blacks can't to that because they're inferior of mind to me

Yes humans are not good at being smart on their own, it is better that a few humans in a an republic decide what is not to be read.

So many whites are incel now, whereas if you go with a black person into a large community they know everyone by face.

Anyways, thats the real value of Murray's work. Diverting funds from wastes of time (like certain education funding) and making new strategies to fix the problem with underperforming black communities.

Streisand effect

>>Yes. If the argument and conclusions are so fundamentally flawed,
After centuries of rationalism, rationalists are still unable to say what an argument is outside some formal system. Do not count on them to speak about anything relevant to your life.

Did you read that on Wikipedia? Most people who criticize The Bell Curve have never read it. Some of the conclusions Murray reached in the book have influenced tons of research

The only correct answer

No.
Spreading a falsehood into the minds of thousands is a far worse crime than murdering one person in quiet. The chaos introduced is far more unpredictable.

Society however will never agree with my morality of abolishing the lie because they are not only too stupid to determine what a lie is, they are actually dumb enough to embrace it every time it shows up.

It should be illegal to use literature to dehumanize an entire class of people in a blatant attempt to ramp up genocidal sentiments.

LBJ said that if you can convince the lowest white man that he is better than the best black man, he'll empty his pockets for you. This remains true. Look at how many people empty their pockets for the racist goblins emerging on the political scene, who offer no real solutions, just satisfying rhetoric about the inferiority of minorities.

If tripe is published which asserts hundreds of false hoods, then not only is it NOT trivial to refute it, but refuting it inevitably gets it more attention than it warrants. Also the people who have already read it and embrace its contents will not be up for reading your refutation because people read information selectively. A lie latches onto people's minds by appealing to their preconceived biases. Than it stays there. Very few people are interested in constantly revolutionizing their preferences and world view, especially past youth.

For a falsehood, any press is good press. This is why debates don't work in practice. One person tries to remain honest, while the other tries to stack up so many falsehoods that the honest man spends more time refuting falsehoods than asserting his own point of view. Audiences are dumb enough to view people as being wrong because they are emotional or frustrated. People go off of tone, not research. The same is true in written text. People get more upset about word choice than evidence.

Get an honest man frustrated by laying before him hundreds of falsehoods and look smooth while doing it. This is how debates are won.

This sounds reasonable to me.

>it's a post of spooks and pure ideology and it's rounded off by recommending a meme book

Jesus wasn't white my man

Jesus didn't start Christianity

...

Holy fuck the rhetoric is strong with this one. All that text to say "i want people who write things i dont like killed". You right now are complaining about authors who try to stir up "genocidal sentiment" yet youre calling for the murder of everyone who makes poor arguments in their writing, without even realizing that you yourself would be shot according to these rules using these appeals to emotion instead of logic and reasoning, you hypocrite.

Heres a tip for you retard: people will interpret and be influenced by anything they want, even if the work doesnt have "genocidal sentiments" explicitly intended. See: Charles Manson and Helter Skelter

>yet youre calling for the murder of everyone who makes poor arguments in their writing

not the guy you’re replying to, but yeah, he didn’t say anything like that.
I also see no appeal to emotion rather than to logic. If you allow lies to be spread, you risk exposing the whole society to believe in something that is not true. Not everyone has the time to check every fact, and human being, if you know anything about psychology, is inclined to believe what he hears or reads. That’s why censorship is a must, unless you want to end up with a continuous stratification of society, and perhaps end up with something that would in the long run resemble Idiocracy.

also,
>name-calling

...

Yeah, research that refutes it.

Read Aeropagitica and then never post again.

>Spreading a falsehood into the minds of >thousands is a far worse crime than murdering >one person in quiet
jfc

>doesn’t realise that among those thousands of people is a group that will believe in and be affected by a falsehood. In that group is a subgroup who also happen to be high up in the decision-making processes that involve the rest of the society

>not that guy

You are that guy.

>Reading the Bell Curve and interpreting it as suggesting we should hate blacks

You are a fucking moron who obviously hasn't read the book you're recommending. Murray makes the case around race and IQ as to say "this is a big problem, we need to address the underlying issues in black communities so they don't fall apart/get worse." He sees the IQ gap as tragic given the nature of the modern economy, not something to take pride in.

And certainly not "hurr durr I've never read any of the classics but like to associate myself with a culture I've contributed nothing to to feel better about being a fucking loser"

Fuck off and die, slave

>Spreading a falsehood into the minds of thousands is a far worse crime than murdering one person in quiet.

this is an actual quote from that guy, also if humans are so fickle and foolish, why would you rely on humans to implement and maintain this system of censorship?

i believe in mandatory public readings of "Erectus Walks Amongst Us"

his quote doesn’t imply killing those writers. he’s describing severity of action, not severity of punishment for crime.

humans may be fickle and foolish in one area, but geniuses in another. A body of people is more trustworthy than a single person.

Nobody is advocating a complete censorship. There is a gray area between the two extremes. The extent of that area is debatable.

>A body of people is more trustworthy than a single person.

Not always the case.

Yes, right. Because you're the one that made all of those things you mentioned, right?

>Attaching yourself to the success of others because they look like you.

Pathetic.

You're right, it was the Jews. Don't you guys hate them though?

Jesus was a Jew

What determines falsehood? People believed that the Earth was the center of the universe at one time, should we tear up any information that contradicts it? If we live in a non-secular community, should everything that contradicts the community's religion be banned, since it is a falsehood?

>he believes in democracy
Read Plato pls

is one obliged to have a strong opinion on this?
One way to test what is better is to observe multiple isolated equal societies: one highly censored, one mildly, one not censored at all over a span of thousand years. But we can’t do that, so it’s all pointless.

there is no democracy mentioned in my post. Nor is there an implication of it.

add "in regards to censorship" and it will make sense

Anything that says blacks or jews or women are bad should be banned. Seriously the information is just so outdated and only idiots think this.

>a body of people is more trustworthy than a single person

As were the people who started Christianity.

a good quote for this:

“If I could put it into a very few words, dear sir, I should say that our prevalent belief is in moderation. We inculcate the virtue of avoiding excesses of all kinds—even including, if you will pardon the paradox, excess of virtue itself.”
― James Hilton, Lost Horizon

I disagree with censorship, but I don't like how the right wingers/faux-libertarians use fear of censorship to support their less-popular beliefs then get butthurt when left wings say/write things they don't like.

I am truly a proponent of free speech and freedom in general, of course mediated through the social contract. This means I support the right of SJWs and pro-lifers and everyone else to freely spout their beliefs.

I think it is scary how the left (e.g.: ) either disregard free speech or say, "free speech, but...". It is also scary how the right are so hypocritical about freedom of speech.

Censorship is good and contributes to the stability of society and the state

censor all porn

All material should be allowed to be published. When a person believes in falsehoods, the problem is in the person and not the falsehood. We need to focus on making people critical thinkers.

Exactly. Coddling people and dictating what they can and cannot be exposed to only compounds the problem.

It should. If something bad exist, you can't get rid of it just by outlawing it.
Same with Index Librorum Prohibitorum. If the Church forbids some books because they are full of sin, then the believers have no chance to defeat the sin themselves. Where is the freedom in that? It's easy not to sin when there is no temptation, but that is not the point of faith.
Also, I'm against censorship, but I wouldn't allow librarians to give pre-teens certain adult books. That I would make into a law.

>try reading some more pseudoscience to reinforce your pathetic century-old beliefs
wow a white supremacist is actually a fucking moron who would have guessed

>it's another guy using the term spook without knowing what the fuck it means.

>Do you believe in censorship?
yes

It isn't a matter of feelings, it's a matter of progress. There's no point in "publishing" if every last shitpost can make it through. The right will complain to no end about how liberals hand out "participation trophies," yet when it comes to censorship suddenly the right says that EVERYONE deserves to get their garbage published. If it's impossible to perish then there's no selection being made, no progress.

Someone making minimum wage is going to have to spend two hours of labor on a paperback book, and who knows how many more reading it. But, if he wants to be informed, he's got to buy the book that rebukes it, and then the book that rebukes that, and so on inevitably until one or the other author decides they don't need the last word and/or dies of age. Eventually the world needs to come together and declare it shitposting lest they be consumed by /pol/-tier last-wordism.

The difference between a shitposter and anyone else is that the shitposter lacks standards. I'm all for giving everyone a shot, but there comes a point where the world has to declare loser and move on with it. If you're bitter about being ejected from academia, you can go post on a consequence-free user board about it.

>muh white heritage
as great as that image is, the user you're replying to was definitely using the word as stirner intended

Does the right give a shit about everything being published? Censorship isn't that, censorship is the government saying you can't read that. With the rise of the internet, it isn't really a matter of publishing, just clicking captcha and shitposting.

the publisher obviously saw the potential for the book to make money, or it would not have been published.
Your idea of everyone's shitty ideas being published is not reality.
And people can still self-publish.
None of what you say makes any sense.
And publishers choosing what they publish is not censorship to begin with. Censorship is the removal of "disapproved" works by some authority like the government

>Does the right give a shit about everything being published?
"Erectus Walks Amongst Us" is going to exist one way or the other. I'm not going to worry about the subject of censorship as "absolute deletion" just because, justified or not, it's not going to happen and therefore isn't worth worrying about. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not it gets to be considered scientific literature or make it in to university libraries, which it shouldn't.

>Your idea of everyone's shitty ideas being published is not reality.
Exactly, and it ought to stay that way. The book in OP should remain as rejected as it is.

t. homo erectus

Luckily enough we have brave men such as you who would kill to avoid it.
Worm.

who said anything about killing?

Projection.