Aspies For Freedom

When I was a kid, the man that swept the streets -- an avowed Klansman with a third grade education and a drinking problem -- told me the same thing. I guess the great supremacist minds all know the great truths.

But of course you did.

Well, my great-grandfather was black, so I probably can't understand all this genius stuff -- you know, since our resident non-supremacist has declared black people intellectually inferior...

Illusion was comparing homosexuality to other "deviances."  (not only sexual variation, unless there's something I don't know about cojoined twins.)

He could just as well have used neutral, non-inflammatory examples like left-handedness or attached ear lobes. But he didn't. He chose the most frequently used, most derogatory smear by association that bigots use against gays: "pedophile." That was either rhetorically intentional, or it reveals that the connection exists in his mind and on the tip of his tongue.

If it is not as explicit as his pronunciation of inherent racial inferiority, it is nonetheless an unmistakable implicit anti-gay smear. His later back-tracking (gee, I shouldn't have put those two things together in a sentence -- I have no idea how that happened) indicates that even Illusion knew how it came across.

"Naturally occurring variation"

Interesting book, by the way, on this sort of nonsense.

You are wrong.

He can cite all sorts of "studies." The pseudo-science of racial inferiority has been quite an industry for a long time. The 'eugenics' movement was actually a generously funded enterprise in America well before the Nazis took it to its "rational" conclusion.

Probably due to your rhetorical tone-deafness and lack of comprehension that language has broad and complex meanings that can't be reduced to exercises in formal logic.

If you don't understand it, it's dismissed as "knee-jerk."

Not astonishing at all.

Simen, I explained perfectly well, in a way that would be readily understood by anyone capable of understanding . My inability to make you understand that which you cannot understand doesn't mean I'm wrong; it just means you're incapable of understanding. I have seen you bang your head against the same sort of situation in thread after thread.

The reason, Simen, I have not joined in on the widespread discussion of your many, many, many obnoxious posts is that I recognize you have a profound deficit in understanding nuances of language. Understandably, you have developed the defensive stance that such nuances do not exist or should not exist, or perhaps that they are some obstinate fantasy concocted by inferior minds. I assume that is more comfortable for you than the acknowledgment of your own deficit, which is also understandable. So I have seen no gain in trying to make you conform to socio-linguistic conventions and structures you simply cannot grasp.

A parallel might be that I am dyslexic and I were to spend an inordinate amount of time attacking people for their idiotic adherence to arbitrary spelling rules. But in the real world, it's not about whether or not spelling rules constitute some sort of unjustifiable tyrany [sic]over creative spellers, it's about my own deficit: dyslexia.

Similarly, your inability to understand what a great number of people have tried to explain to you is not about their being wrong, it is about your deficit.

Feel free to say I am wrong, Simen. I know it will look that way to you, and that you will sincerely believe -- because you need to believe -- that only you can be right.

J. Philippe Rushton contends that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and penis size. If this is true, Illusion at last has reliable evidence that he is a genius and I am an idiot.

Richard Lynn is simply a joke.

That does it, I'm calling the Irony Police and filing charges.

And, by the way, Pikajedi5... I think you know the proper respone on this one...

This is a very predictable response and demonstrates exactly what I said. You insist that what you can't see don't exist. That is more comfortable for you than facing the fact that there is so much that you don't see.

That, of course, is a completely irrational and nonsensical little rant -- exactly the sort of thing you criticize others for.

Since that's exactly what you're incapable of doing, you're not really an expert on the process, are you? I recognize your response as an angry, emotional reaction with no connection to reality, so I don't take it personally.

That would be a generous explanation. Let's go with that.

I explained it. You didn't understand it. I knew you wouldn't because I know you couldn't. There's nothing I can do to change that, Simen, and nothing you can do. I don't take that personally and I don't hold it against you. Nor have I said silly, angry things to you as you have to me.

Your calling my posts "low quality" neither surprises me nor involves me. It's a pissy little defensive remark that has nothing to do with me.