Talk:Steve Sailer/Archive1

More refs
Accurate and heartfelt description, but needs to rest more on refs than rage - David Gerard (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * TYPED ON A PHONE


 * What in the holy name of god is *this*?


 * I was reading the bit on Moldbug and, as an early reader, found the review not only genuinely funny but full of accuracies too. It was missing the one additionally useful Accuracy that a solid 25% of what he wrote offered persecuted truths, another 25% was pleasant intellectual stimulation and yet another was downright brilliantly entertaining - even if as maddeningly obfuscatory, irrational and purposefully dangerous as rhe final, altogether unpleasant quarter of his opus.


 * But this Sailer...something doesn't even spice its horseshit with any discernable humor, save the charge of transmisogyny. But really that's just a successful plot to generate in the readers' minds the fuzzy outline of something simultaneously confusing and disgusting.


 * (Yes, I know that I've just outed myself as an irrational. Sadly, much as I try to suppress my irrationality it emerges in its gothic reactionary form nonetheless.)


 * The point is that Sailer DOES cherrypick his examples and (as all news-obsessives do) focuses almost exclusively on the negative, or anything that can be shown to have a kernel of negativity or untruth and that both Blacks and Jews tend to be the victim of such through the less grounded minds of about a third of his commentariot.


 * It is also true that he points to OBVIOUS truths that have been considered verboten for the past 30 years (though old ones like psychometric bans fray away while new ones like the courageous beauty of trannies start taking form).


 * And that he is often intentionally entertaining. And that he discovers and shares fascinating things in plain sight that no almost no one else talks about (Uncle Ruslan, Alicia Matteo's lifelong sordidity...). And that he has a fairly rational grasp on the main currents of society (faint praise but more rhan I would offer 95% of the blankminded autists within the rationalist community (*within*).


 * And that he speaks certain truths to power (that racial differences exist, that women on average tend to have divergent interests from men, etc.)


 * And that he is well-read and brings a lot of knowledge to the table. And that he is rather unbiased and free-thinking about subjects when they first come to his attention, if, admittedly, he doesn't readjust or reconsider those views as often as one ideally or two. Though, then again, how many people passed a certain age do.


 * Etc.


 * In other words, what he brings to the world of ideas and rational consideration is far more than what he takes away. One can argue of course to what degree his writings might cause harm by whatever definition of harm one might choose, but for that to be the focus of this entire article on rational Wiki - and without even supporting sources - is an embarrassment to the forum.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 95.15.39.90 / talk
 * On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Christopher (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Whistling past the graveyard
If Steve Sailer promotes "racism" by drawing attention to the empiricial research into human biodiversity, then 23andMe does it as well. The official denialism of HBD faces an unplanned, decentralized cultural insurrection from the people who have started to learn and think about the findings of modern genomics. A few decades from now society's serious people will probably recognize Sailer as one of the guys who figured out some important things about human nature. Advancedatheist (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Great article
This a great article, someone needs to stop that vile man.

Hey, um…
Like, this guy's a cock and shit… but some refs would be pretty good. 101.168.42.139 (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

A wiki calling itself "Rational"...
...really shouldn't use made-up words like "transmisogynist" to describe people, now, would it?

Or is this some kind of "postmodern," "self-aware," "ironic" thing, like Uncyclopedia, or The Onion? Poe's Law, I guess.
 * Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome
Great article. I think it needs some more cheap name-calling in case anyone mistakes the writers here for something other than sophomoric useful-idiots. Nice touch supporting the "lead/crime" hypothesis. A moment of thought would discount it by looking at Hong Kong or other places, but moments of thought aren't whatthe juvenile SJWs at "rationalwiki" are known for. 116.255.78.133 (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but I don't think Sailer-sempai will ever notice you. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. Evade criticism with cheap Freudian/Soviet personal psycho-analysis of your opponents. He's not pointing out massive flaws in our rationality he's just trying to get noticed. Your website is good recreation for thse opposed to Semitic anti-White activism and the idiot traitor fellow-travellers that tag along: is this the best you can do? 116.255.78.133 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're confusing 'weary contempt' with 'fearing my mighty rationality'. If your starting point is 'HBD' and 'scientific racism' then you've abandoned science and rationality before you even start. So your more-rational-than-thou protestations just come across as hilarious. You even manage to hit a load of crypto-racist shibboleths in your petulant little reply - 'anti-White', 'Soviet', 'traitor'. Do you really not see that falling back on that rhetoric makes you look like a foamy-mouthed loon to anyone not steeped in your particular woo? What did you expect to get in reply when you start peddling woo on an anti-woo website? We've had more coherent objections from anti-vaxx proponents, for fuck's sake. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. Chanting "racist" is the cornerstone of science. You win. 116.255.78.133 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet, you seem determined to have the last word on a site you seem to think is populated by "juvenile SJWs". I would have thought that by now you would have at least entertained the notion that the problem lies not with us, but with you... Queexchthonic murmurings 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And you are? 116.255.78.133 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ^ South Korean sock IP. You know who.Runescapes (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Is Steve Sailer really an Islamophobe?
I'm not convinced he is – my reading of Sailer's writings online suggests that he regards Islam (or at least, its sexual moral code) as a harsh but justifiable way of dealing with the problem of elevated male libido in what he calls the "Jealousy Belt" (the lower-middle latitudes including the Middle East along with most of the Mediterranean region), where male competition for mates is at its fiercest.

In his analysis, the Jealousy Belt is distinguished from both northern Europe (where males are inherently much more shy than in the Jealousy Belt) as well as from sub-Saharan Africa (where traditionally women did almost all of the hard labour, giving men far less motivation to punish adulterous women than in societies where men must labour to provide for wives and children). The reason why almost all the hard labour in black Africa was done by women was due to the lack of animal-drawn ploughs (because the tsetse fly would kill draught animals – note how the Boers lost their livestock when they tried to venture north of the Limpopo river). Hoeing can easily be done by women, while guiding an animal-drawn plough requires a man's superior physical strength.

In short, Steve Sailer seems to be a true racialist rather than an Islamophobe – he sees Islam not as a disease, but rather as a response (and one which imperils non-Muslim cultures) that is symptomatic of a severe societal problem rooted in genetics.

--GCarty (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole entry for Sailer reads as satire; the same troll who wrote it also made JayMan. Compare to good entries such as John Fuerst, while Hbdchick's page is average (it can be improved).OldSword (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

/r/The_Donald: If RW hates it, we should like it!
Or, "Calling Someone a Racist is Racist: Redux. 21:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)