planetf1.com

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:08 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 9:53 am

but is that an answer anyone is prepared for?

An answer that confirms the prejudices of racists, you mean. Doesn't stop the race realists and human biodiversity crowd from already claiming certain ethnicities have low IQs and are "lazy" from warping the already available data.

You do realise that a lot of pre-1840s science tried to justify slavery and the pre-1940s science tried to justify the unequal outcomes between the races. Most of it has been debunked.

Let's just say it's unlikely that rigorous scienctific investigation is going to discover something where literally racist scientists failed in the last 200 years.

I didn't *mean* anything - it was a question. You've gone down an inferior/superior route, I'm thinking more just "different". Men and women are "equal" in that sense, but they are are different. I've got 2 boys. One likes rap the other likes punk, one likes fishing, the other thinks its' cruel. One is shy and aloof, the other super-confident. One isn't "better" than the other and I don't spend time looking into why one doesn't like certain things when the other does.

I was hesitant about posting in this thread as it's not why I come on this forum even though the topic interests me a great deal. So with respect to all I'm going to duck out and stick to posting about less emotional topics where differences of opinion can be more willingly accepted. Like whether Hamilton is better than Schumacher

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

You've gone down an inferior/superior route, I'm thinking more just "different".

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

Men and women are "equal" in that sense, but they are are different.

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

So with respect to all I'm going to duck out and stick to posting about less emotional topics where differences of opinion can be more willingly accepted. Like whether Hamilton is better than Schumacher

A.J. wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:44 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:08 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 9:53 am

but is that an answer anyone is prepared for?

An answer that confirms the prejudices of racists, you mean. Doesn't stop the race realists and human biodiversity crowd from already claiming certain ethnicities have low IQs and are "lazy" from warping the already available data.

You do realise that a lot of pre-1840s science tried to justify slavery and the pre-1940s science tried to justify the unequal outcomes between the races. Most of it has been debunked.

Let's just say it's unlikely that rigorous scienctific investigation is going to discover something where literally racist scientists failed in the last 200 years.

I didn't *mean* anything - it was a question. You've gone down an inferior/superior route, I'm thinking more just "different". Men and women are "equal" in that sense, but they are are different. I've got 2 boys. One likes rap the other likes punk, one likes fishing, the other thinks its' cruel. One is shy and aloof, the other super-confident. One isn't "better" than the other and I don't spend time looking into why one doesn't like certain things when the other does.

I was hesitant about posting in this thread as it's not why I come on this forum even though the topic interests me a great deal. So with respect to all I'm going to duck out and stick to posting about less emotional topics where differences of opinion can be more willingly accepted. Like whether Hamilton is better than Schumacher

But genetic "differences" is quite literally the route chosen by actual racist scientists who believed these differences were the cause of differing social/economic outcomes - and I feel that's what F1Tyrant is alluding to. While you might not be claiming one is better than the other due to the differences, there are people who use these differences (real or imagined) to claim that exact thing.

And no - he's not even close, let alone being better

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 9:19 am

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Chicism is not just an economic philosophy.

The death of religion really has let some people do away with the pretense that being a decent person is something to strive for. Secular morality is beautifully libertarian, live and let live. The only people who don't like it are bullies (of all stripes, left and right).

'The only people who don't [agree with my political position] are bullies'

That sounds like pretty divisive talk. Thanks for the poison, FIA & Liberty.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

If you disagree with my assessment, surely it's better just keep politics out of sport so we fans don't have to be divided? It worked well for decades.

As you've proved, people are taking purely cultural issues and saying they are political because their own views are slowly dying out. I'm sure F1's push for enviromentalism and sustainability can be spun as political, also their stance on participants wearing masks during the pandemic.

Correct, environmentalism and sustainability are political issues. Is electric really environmentally better? Is it too soon for it? What of the jobs lost? Is sustainability a cover for multinational business interests seeking to establish their startup corporations? Of course it is political but at least this is connected to motor racing, but BLM tripe is particularly divisive and less relevant to motor racing, and doesn't belong at the forefront of an sports event.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

The fact that people do disagree, see it is neocommunist propaganda, and divides drivers and fans, is what makes it a problem. You may not think it should be divisive, but people are divided nonetheless (and no, people who disagree with you are not racists and bigots).

Look man, you've lost. BLM and WRA1 has won the discourse culturally. We both know the only way to reverse it using political power but it's a world neither of us want to live in.

Has BLM and WRA1 won? Firstly, being correct is not who wins a propaganda contest. Secondly, it remains to be seen if rational views are dying out or if current discourse uptrends turn out to be a passing fad like emos were. The boomers peaking in the swinging 60s are pretty conservative people nowadays. Politics ebbs and flows. Right now the neocommunist Grouchos are controlling governments like the US, the EU and media like Liberty, BBC, YouTube, Twitter etc. But a peaking of a fad is not a permanent cultural revolution. Liberals tend not to have children & families while conservatives do, so we'll have to wait if this latest fad sticks or is consigned to history like the Soviet Union.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Lewis could be a UN politician, not just UK.

Lol, of course you want him shipped off to a role he can make no meaningful difference while right wing governments dominate politically pretty much everywhere.

Lewis can campaign his BLM poison wherever he wants after F1, as long as it is out of sports. The mention of the UN was simply in response to Exidiron who says Lewis would only politic in the UK and he wouldn't see it in the US.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Ethnic minorities are not oppressed in the UK or US. See, we have a difference of opinion already, so why divide people at a sporting event with such propaganda?

The statement you made is factually incorrect, a demonstrable falsehood. Not an opinion a fact.

You mean you have a different political opinion on the equality ethnic minorities enjoy? That sounds like political discourse to me. So let's discuss at at Parliament Square and not at Silverstone.

People confusing opinion with fact is how we get polarisation. Sadly, reality has a left-wing bias so people who lean right need to rewrite reality.

'My political opinion is where the reality lies'. This is presumptuous, and is guilty of exactly what you just said about polarisation. I've yet to see a debate won by the left on these issues, like on this thread. The left's argument usually just descends to "muh naahziis". Explain why the racist meme you posted metaphorically represents the situation in the UK? Expect a breakdown and analysis of your explanation. Or better yet, let's dump WRA1 and go back to explaining why Michael Schumacher is better than Lewis Hamilton.

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:08 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 9:53 am

but is that an answer anyone is prepared for?

An answer that confirms the prejudices of racists, you mean. Doesn't stop the race realists and human biodiversity crowd from already claiming certain ethnicities have low IQs and are "lazy" from warping the already available data.

You do realise that a lot of pre-1840s science tried to justify slavery and the pre-1940s science tried to justify the unequal outcomes between the races. Most of it has been debunked.

Let's just say it's unlikely that rigorous scienctific investigation is going to discover something where literally racist scientists failed in the last 200 years.

I didn't *mean* anything - it was a question. You've gone down an inferior/superior route, I'm thinking more just "different". Men and women are "equal" in that sense, but they are are different. I've got 2 boys. One likes rap the other likes punk, one likes fishing, the other thinks its' cruel. One is shy and aloof, the other super-confident. One isn't "better" than the other and I don't spend time looking into why one doesn't like certain things when the other does.

I was hesitant about posting in this thread as it's not why I come on this forum even though the topic interests me a great deal. So with respect to all I'm going to duck out and stick to posting about less emotional topics where differences of opinion can be more willingly accepted. Like whether Hamilton is better than Schumacher

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 12:22 pm

A.J. wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:44 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:08 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 9:53 am

but is that an answer anyone is prepared for?

An answer that confirms the prejudices of racists, you mean. Doesn't stop the race realists and human biodiversity crowd from already claiming certain ethnicities have low IQs and are "lazy" from warping the already available data.

You do realise that a lot of pre-1840s science tried to justify slavery and the pre-1940s science tried to justify the unequal outcomes between the races. Most of it has been debunked.

Let's just say it's unlikely that rigorous scienctific investigation is going to discover something where literally racist scientists failed in the last 200 years.

I didn't *mean* anything - it was a question. You've gone down an inferior/superior route, I'm thinking more just "different". Men and women are "equal" in that sense, but they are are different. I've got 2 boys. One likes rap the other likes punk, one likes fishing, the other thinks its' cruel. One is shy and aloof, the other super-confident. One isn't "better" than the other and I don't spend time looking into why one doesn't like certain things when the other does.

I was hesitant about posting in this thread as it's not why I come on this forum even though the topic interests me a great deal. So with respect to all I'm going to duck out and stick to posting about less emotional topics where differences of opinion can be more willingly accepted. Like whether Hamilton is better than Schumacher

But genetic "differences" is quite literally the route chosen by actual racist scientists who believed these differences were the cause of differing social/economic outcomes - and I feel that's what F1Tyrant is alluding to. While you might not be claiming one is better than the other due to the differences, there are people who use these differences (real or imagined) to claim that exact thing.

And no - he's not even close, let alone being better

But there clearly are some genetic differences... Look at the list of men who have run 100m in less than 10 seconds.

A.J. wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 12:41 pm

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 12:22 pm

A.J. wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:44 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:08 am

An answer that confirms the prejudices of racists, you mean. Doesn't stop the race realists and human biodiversity crowd from already claiming certain ethnicities have low IQs and are "lazy" from warping the already available data.

You do realise that a lot of pre-1840s science tried to justify slavery and the pre-1940s science tried to justify the unequal outcomes between the races. Most of it has been debunked.

Let's just say it's unlikely that rigorous scienctific investigation is going to discover something where literally racist scientists failed in the last 200 years.

I didn't *mean* anything - it was a question. You've gone down an inferior/superior route, I'm thinking more just "different". Men and women are "equal" in that sense, but they are are different. I've got 2 boys. One likes rap the other likes punk, one likes fishing, the other thinks its' cruel. One is shy and aloof, the other super-confident. One isn't "better" than the other and I don't spend time looking into why one doesn't like certain things when the other does.

I was hesitant about posting in this thread as it's not why I come on this forum even though the topic interests me a great deal. So with respect to all I'm going to duck out and stick to posting about less emotional topics where differences of opinion can be more willingly accepted. Like whether Hamilton is better than Schumacher

But genetic "differences" is quite literally the route chosen by actual racist scientists who believed these differences were the cause of differing social/economic outcomes - and I feel that's what F1Tyrant is alluding to. While you might not be claiming one is better than the other due to the differences, there are people who use these differences (real or imagined) to claim that exact thing.

And no - he's not even close, let alone being better

But there clearly are some genetic differences... Look at the list of men who have run 100m in less than 10 seconds.

That's slightly tangential to the point I was making. Yes, there are genetic differences - but they have been used in the past (and continue to be used) to make a superiority/inferiority argument, which is incorrect.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 12:29 pm

'The only people who don't [agree with my political position] are bullies'

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Correct, environmentalism and sustainability are political issues.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Has BLM and WRA1 won? Firstly, being correct is not who wins a propaganda contest. Secondly, it remains to be seen if rational views are dying out or if current discourse uptrends turn out to be a passing fad like emos were.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Right now the neocommunist Grouchos are controlling governments like the US, the EU and media like Liberty, BBC, YouTube, Twitter etc. But a peaking of a fad is not a permanent cultural revolution. Liberals tend not to have children & families while conservatives do, so we'll have to wait if this latest fad sticks or is consigned to history like the Soviet Union.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

You mean you have a different political opinion on the equality ethnic minorities enjoy? That sounds like political discourse to me. So let's discuss at at Parliament Square and not at Silverstone.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

'My political opinion is where the reality lies'. This is presumptuous, and is guilty of exactly what you just said about polarisation.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Explain why the racist meme you posted metaphorically represents the situation in the UK? Expect a breakdown and analysis of your explanation.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 12:52 pm

A.J. wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 12:41 pm

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 12:22 pm

A.J. wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:44 am

DOLOMITE wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 10:35 am

I didn't *mean* anything - it was a question. You've gone down an inferior/superior route, I'm thinking more just "different". Men and women are "equal" in that sense, but they are are different. I've got 2 boys. One likes rap the other likes punk, one likes fishing, the other thinks its' cruel. One is shy and aloof, the other super-confident. One isn't "better" than the other and I don't spend time looking into why one doesn't like certain things when the other does.

I was hesitant about posting in this thread as it's not why I come on this forum even though the topic interests me a great deal. So with respect to all I'm going to duck out and stick to posting about less emotional topics where differences of opinion can be more willingly accepted. Like whether Hamilton is better than Schumacher

But genetic "differences" is quite literally the route chosen by actual racist scientists who believed these differences were the cause of differing social/economic outcomes - and I feel that's what F1Tyrant is alluding to. While you might not be claiming one is better than the other due to the differences, there are people who use these differences (real or imagined) to claim that exact thing.

And no - he's not even close, let alone being better

But there clearly are some genetic differences... Look at the list of men who have run 100m in less than 10 seconds.

That's slightly tangential to the point I was making. Yes, there are genetic differences - but they have been used in the past (and continue to be used) to make a superiority/inferiority argument, which is incorrect.

Absolutely, but lets not pretend that genetic differences don't exist because people have made dumb arguments about them in the past.

Differences are differences. Whether a characteristic is "superior" or not depends on what activity you are trying to apply it to.

It's fairly obvious that people of West African decent have certain genetic characteristics that make them superior at running fast.

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 1:08 pm

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 12:29 pm

'The only people who don't [agree with my political position] are bullies'

You didn't read my post. Some of the worst bullies are more left wing than me.

Your exact words were "Secular morality is beautifully libertarian, live and let live. The only people who don't like it are bullies (of all stripes, left and right)."

I read it just fine. This is what the poison of bringing politics into sports does to fans when some don't agree with that political opinion.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Correct, environmentalism and sustainability are political issues.

Racism is a human rights issue. I can't imagine we'll see eye to eye on this.

Human rights and racism are political issues. This is more 'my opinion is so correct it's not even politics' that I keep seeing on this thread. Like it or not, people think BLM's idea of human rights is toxic and racist. Hence all the political debates. So why are FIA pushing the BLM side of the spectrum?

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Has BLM and WRA1 won? Firstly, being correct is not who wins a propaganda contest. Secondly, it remains to be seen if rational views are dying out or if current discourse uptrends turn out to be a passing fad like emos were.

When multinational corporations start virtue signalling in advertising because they think it'll make more profit than the opposite, you've lost. Capitalists have no incentive to do this other than profit and it means that the "neocommunist" beliefs are becoming more and more widespread. The fact they are willing to gherkin off socially conservative people means they've calculated their aren't enough of them to hurt the bottom line.

Again, it remains to be seen if this fad will pass in the next years but it still bears no resemblance to who is morally correct. Why would you even want to "win" your political opinions anyway? Surely an "equal" society would be one that represents all viewpoints equally? Oh, equality isn't as uniform as MSM makes it out to be? Correct. That's flaw number 1 in WRA1.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Right now the neocommunist Grouchos are controlling governments like the US, the EU and media like Liberty, BBC, YouTube, Twitter etc. But a peaking of a fad is not a permanent cultural revolution. Liberals tend not to have children & families while conservatives do, so we'll have to wait if this latest fad sticks or is consigned to history like the Soviet Union.

This is absolutely hilarious. Perhaps we should stick to talking about F1 because your political analysis is seriously deficient. The US and EU are neoliberal institutions, not neocommunist or Harpist by any definition. The BBC are socially libertarian but give the government favourable reporting. YouTube and Twitter are private platforms and can ban anyone who violates their terms of service. The former actively suppresses educational history content especially regarding the Holocaust.

You mean you have a different political opinion on how Harpist the BBC, Twitter and YouTube are, not that what I wrote hilarious - those are two different things. Do you know why are you discussing this on an F1 forum? Because the FIA has broken the no politics in sport rule. The more you debate with me, the more you prove this breaking of the barrier is a divisive decision.

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

You mean you have a different political opinion on the equality ethnic minorities enjoy? That sounds like political discourse to me. So let's discuss at at Parliament Square and not at Silverstone.

I can show you the studies but I think you're too firmly entrenched for that to be anything other than a complete waste of time.

I'm sure you can show me studies and Appeal to Authority until the cows come home, as can I show you studies in return. Like this: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1972-24694-001. Or this appraisal of the paper if you prefer easy viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izYNuBAUPkk. This makes for a political division within sports fans and you are still proving me right.

PANDEMIC RELATED STUFF REMOVED AS VERY OFF TOPIC

myattitude wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 7:17 am

Explain why the racist meme you posted metaphorically represents the situation in the UK? Expect a breakdown and analysis of your explanation.

It accurately represents the multitude of hurdles faced by people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Stop and search. Police brutality. Racial abuse. Discrimination in employment. All these things disproportionately affect the ethnic minorities compared to white people. Then you have economic issues which disporportionately affect ethnic minorities. Poverty. Drug addiction. Single motherhood. Gang violence.

That's a series of statements and claims, not an explanation, much less proven ones. As an ethnic minority myself, my advice is stop being a victim, stop looking for excuses, stop seeking discrimination where there isn't any, stop having a persecution complex about your race and just be the equal you claim to want to be, because the truth is we have it really good here and you and I should respect and be grateful to the indigenous population instead of pointing fingers at them in their own ancestral homeland and calling them privileged with racist memes like the one you posted earlier. I mean seriously, replace that white man with a Jew then look at that meme again...

It is Liberty Media's toxic WRA1 campaign that caused that racist meme to be posted here. The more heated you get, the more you debate me, the more you prove how divisive their campaign has been to sports fans.

F1Tyrant wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 3:40 pm

I see no further sensible course of action but to disengage. I won't stoop to debating factual statements as if they are political ideology.

You get what you want.

mikeyg123 wrote: ↑

Mon May 10, 2021 3:43 pm

Disputable notions elevated to unquestionable dogma.