Colin Wright on Cancel Culture

@no1marauder said
Are you denying that you have supported ethnic and race based limitations on immigration to the US on the grounds that the country should preserve its "ethnic heritage"?

Oh, I am sure I supported it.

It makes sense.

Countries which are dealing with people from a similar SES and cultural background can take more because their people are more interchangeable than they are with other groups.

All countries should design their immigration policy explicitly benefit their own people.

It makes sense.

@no1marauder said
Are you denying that you have endorsed the "great replacement" theories of white nationalism (I specifically remember you starting a thread complaining about the ethnic makeup of Paris not being "French" enough anymore)? As you surely known, this is a subset of "white extinction" theory which your immigration views are meant to combat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement

I am not sure what you mean by this so I do not know.

I am sure that I complained about Paris not being French enough and perhaps told two or three stories about very negative experiences there and in Belgium.

One of my good friends is a Belgian citizen of MENA descent who was telling me extensively about the problems that Belgium also faces in regards to multiculturalism, and he does so as a Muslim immigrant to the country.

I think that multikulti and mass migration have been incredibly negative to Europe and the long-term prospects won't be good.

I am not sure about any conspiracy theories about this, though. I think it seems likely that the desire to do this came about because Capitalism did what Capitalism does everywhere: enrich the local people, urbanize them, atomize them, drop their birth rate & make life more expensive.

The corporations then did what corporations do best: find cheaper sources of labor.

I think there are other tertiary benefits to Leftist and perhaps even some centre right Politicians like Merkel to explicitly endorse these policies and benefit in the long-term through courting a new power base. But now we are talking about a pretty big meta, so IDK.

@no1marauder said
I'm not all that interested in discussing such racist theories though I have done so with you several times in the past. But it is simply dishonest of you to now claim that you have not endorsed such ideas on this Forum. If you feel that support for such ideas "demeans" your "personal character", then I suggest you abandon them.

Finally, do you feel that private busine ...[text shortened]... ir services to espouse such beliefs which are denigrating to the majority of the world's population?

(1) LOL, OK, Marauder.

(2) I do not know what this question means.

I am a strong Christian but I wouldn't stop using YouTube because there is explicitly anti-Christian content.

I do not know what it would be like to think in terms of by allowing X, you are endorsing X.

It's not a newspaper. It's a website based on people cultivating their own followings.

@philokalia said
I am not sure what you mean by this so I do not know.

I am sure that I complained about Paris not being French enough and perhaps told two or three stories about very negative experiences there and in Belgium.

One of my good friends is a Belgian citizen of MENA descent who was telling me extensively about the problems that Belgium also faces in regards to multicult ...[text shortened]... long-term through courting a new power base. But now we are talking about a pretty big meta, so IDK.

OK, so you admit to supporting white nationalist ideals.

Don't whine about being called a white nationalist then.

@no1marauder said
"Two biologists have denounced “sex denialism” in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. Colin Wright, of Penn State University, and Emma Hilton, of the University of Manchester, argue that the existence of only two sexes, male and female, is a scientific fact and that transgender ideology is “an eccentric academic theory”.

As they point out, even science journals are pro ...[text shortened]... t to consider them IF they fall outside present consensus among biologists (as the article implies)?

(1) They are completely right.

There are only two functional biological sexes.

Want to prove me wrong?

Name another functioning biological sex in humans or large mammals.

(2) There's a scientific consensus that there is more than two biological sexes among humans and other large mammals?

Please, show me the evidence. I fully expect you to quote some sexologists talking about gender identity and the mind, and nothing that has to do with actual biological sex.

@philokalia said
Oh, I am sure I supported it.

It makes sense.

Countries which are dealing with people from a similar SES and cultural background can take more because their people are more interchangeable than they are with other groups.

All countries should design their immigration policy explicitly benefit their own people.

It makes sense.

That, my friend, is an explicitly racist policy preference.

@no1marauder said
OK, so you admit to supporting white nationalist ideals.

Don't whine about being called a white nationalist then.

Then your label of "white nationalist" is a Marxist take on it and nobody who isn't far left cares.

Feel free to use the word as much as you want -- it merely signals intellectual dishonesty & inability to see nuance.

@philokalia said
(1) They are completely right.

There are only two functional biological sexes.

Want to prove me wrong?

Name another functioning biological sex in humans or large mammals.

(2) There's a scientific consensus that there is more than two biological sexes among humans and other large mammals?

Please, show me the evidence. I fully expect you to quote some sex ...[text shortened]... nder identity[/i] and the mind, and nothing that has to do with actual biological sex.

Maybe you should just read the detailed article in Scientific American I presented.

That you are ignorant of what the present consensus is among biologists doesn't mean that Colin Wright should be.

@no1marauder said
That, my friend, is an explicitly racist policy preference.

You are creating a world in which effective policies with positive impacts on society are necessarily racist because they simply recognize that societies with significant cultural differences will have conflict.

This is highly ideological and not relevant to people who want to have actual discussions on what constitutes the best policy.

@no1marauder said
Maybe you should just read the detailed article in Scientific American I presented.

That you are ignorant of what the present consensus is among biologists doesn't mean that Colin Wright should be.

As stated earlier, I do not have a lot of time for this.

Would you be kind to post relevant quotations demonstrating this consensus?

@no1marauder said
The whole article is just one guy whining about how people on social media talked to him. He admits it had no effect at all on his job search:

"I should quickly mention that Penn State was not the problem. They never sanctioned me for my essays or tweets. "

Nor did he even allege any prospective employer did anything derogatory to his job search because of social me ...[text shortened]... of right wingers who, absurdly, think that white folks are getting screwed under our present system.

You missed this part -- which was in the OP:

Department chairs at other universities told me they liked my work, but that HR wouldn't approve hiring me due to my public views. Hiring me would be "too risky" they said.

@philokalia said
Then your label of "white nationalist" is a Marxist take on it and nobody who isn't far left cares.

Feel free to use the word as much as you want -- it merely signals intellectual dishonesty & inability to see nuance.

LMAO!

You want to limit immigration in the US based on race, but don't want to be called a "white nationalist"?

You truly are incredibly dishonest.

There are very few supporters of racial restrictions on immigration into the US; one doesn't have to be "far left" to oppose such racist policies.

@zahlanzi said
"Since religion is a category of belief and thought that one can theoretically change, why is it wrong to suggest that other categories of belief do not receive the same privilege?"
I didn't address this because it's dumb and doesn't follow. But since i have some free time now...
Freedom of religion means you're free to practice your religion without persecution UNTIL you ...[text shortened]... l, you cannot raid coastal villages to appease Odin. Your freedom ends when someone else's begins. ?

Right.

... And it was decided in the 1960s by SCOTUS that yuo cannot be fired for your religious beliefs.

WHy would it be wrong to say that someone should have equal job protection for other beliefs?

@philokalia said
You are creating a world in which effective policies with positive impacts on society are necessarily racist because they simply recognize that societies with significant cultural differences will have conflict.

This is highly ideological and not relevant to people who want to have actual discussions on what constitutes the best policy.

The "best policy" does not rely on such irrelevancies as "race" except to correct invidious discrimination towards members of a different "race".

Only a racist believes that limiting or even banning immigration from certain racial groups has positive effects on a nation.

@philokalia said
As stated earlier, I do not have a lot of time for this.

Would you be kind to post relevant quotations demonstrating this consensus?

You seem to spend a fair bit of time spouting off on this Forum; maybe you could take 5 minutes to read this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

I'm not really interested in discussing the topic here (maybe another thread) except that it shows Wright's ideas are out of touch with modern biological science. It's also beyond question that he deliberately misled readers of that piece by failing to disclose he had outspokenly opposed "transgender ideology" in a WSJ opinion piece.