Author Archives: Robert A. Lindsay

The Truth Is Racist

  • Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests.
  • Black people impose considerable costs on society.
  • Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. Queera flagged this fact as racist when I used it in a post and threatened to ban me.
  • Blacks commit 8X more crime than Whites.
  • Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime.
  • Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes.
  • Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites.
  • 80% of Black kids are born to a single mother.
  • Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. My Black female next door neighbor flipped out and called me racist when I made this remark.
  • Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around.
  • Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s.
  • Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly.
  • Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification.
  • One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime.
  • Black people tend to be louder than White people. When I was a schoolteacher, a principal flipped out and threatened to fire me once when I said this in his office.

Those are all straight up facts, but if I say any of them out loud or write them on my website, I will be barraged with accusations of racism.

Queera flagged this entire quote as racist and threatened to ban me if I kept writing stuff like this.

10 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Hispanics, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Whites

This Is Not a Free Website

Someone just told me that this is a free website and I am “charging people money to use a free website.” But that’s not true. This is not a free website. It’s a pay site that operates on a monetary model. Doesn’t it say that in the very first sticky post on the site?

There are two tiers.

First tier (Basic mode) is if you want to just read or comment sporadically. That’s free.

Second tier (Enhanced mode) is if you want to comment regularly, join the crime forum, or be a guest author. In that case, you have to pay $10 -20 for lifetime privileges. How anyone ever got the idea that this is a free site is beyond me.

I would like to point out that many paysites operate on a two tier model, one basic with limited features and the other enhanced with a full set of features.

5 Comments

Filed under Meta

Are Schizophrenic People Smart?

Although of course schizophrenics vary in IQ, the research shows that lower IQ is associated with schizophrenia. Typically the lower IQ was present before the schizophrenia hit. Whether these people already had pre-schizophrenia and the low IQ was a signal of that or whether lower IQ is an independent risk factor is not known. I suggest the former.

I am not sure if schizophrenia itself, once it hits, causes an IQ decline, but it would not surprise me. The process of developing schizophrenia involves considerable damage to the brain. It makes sense that this brain damage, in addition to causing the disorder, also lowered your IQ.

In summary, people with schizophrenia tend to have lower IQ’s than normals on average, but the difference may not be large. I think it was only ~3 points.

1 Comment

Filed under Intelligence, Mental Illness, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotic Disorders, Schizophrenia

What Is the Grey Area between Bisexual and Biromantic?

Answered on Queera.

Aren’t all biromantic people bisexual? It would seem that bisexuality would be necessary to be biromantic at all.

Let’s look at this rationally.

I am a heterosexual man. Of course I can fall in love with a woman. How the Hell could I possibly fall in love with a man if I have no sexual attraction to men?! It makes no sense.

Consider a gay man. Of course he can fall in love with a man. How in God’s name could he fall in love with a woman if he’s not attracted to women at all?! How does it make sense?

How could a straight woman fall in love with a woman?!

How could a lesbian fall in love with a man!?

None of these things make any sense at all.

Generally you feel your strongest romantic attraction towards your maximal sexual attraction. This will be true even of bisexuals.

George Michael was strongly attracted to men and women through his whole life, but he said he could only fall in love with a man. His strongest sexual attraction would have been towards men.

I have talked to lesbians who were attracted to both men and women but women more. One told me she could only fall in love with a woman. Indeed, her orientation was 25–75 in favor of women.

The two things, romantic attraction and sexual attraction, go together quite well. You fall in love with what turns you on the most. You want to have sex with whatever you fall in love with the most.

It’s not rocket science.

Leave a comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex

What Percentage of Homosexual People Is Acceptable To You in a Given Population?

Answered on Queera.

Believe it or not, all of the answers said that if a country’s population was 100% gay, that would be absolutely wonderful! I’m sure having all the population of your country gay would be the greatest thing since sliced bread! What the Hell’s the matter with people? It would be catastrophic for any country to be 100% gay, though we’re probably headed that way in the US at the rate we’re going here.

How could having 100% of the population of your country gay possibly be a good thing!? Color me mystified.

A given population as in for a country? 3%. That’s the percentage in the US, and it’s just fine by me.

Understand that homosexuality is bad for society in the sense that it causes a lot of costly problems for society. Furthermore, taxes paid by gays do not make up for the costs that society incurs from homosexuals.

  • Homosexuals live 20 years less than heterosexuals. This is horribly sad for gay people that they miss out on so many years of wonderful life, but it seems to me that reduced lifespan is costly to society.
  • Gays have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders. While this causes a lot of suffering to gay people, and this is sad, at the same time, mental illness is costly to society.
  • Gays have much higher rates of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse than straights. The gay male party and play, scene revolving heavily around methamphetamine and club drugs is particularly alarming. Lesbians in particular smoke a lot. The costs of drinking, smoking, and drug abuse to gays themselves are no doubt significant in terms of disease, mortality, and the suffering that can come from excessive substance abuse, nevertheless, this incurs a lot of costs to society.
  • Gay men obviously have a very high STD rate. At 20% infection rate, the HIV rate is especially alarming. Most of these diseases remain confined to the gay community and have not broken out significantly to the straight community, with the exception of the Black community with all the down low men. But the great heterosexual HIV epidemic spreading from gays to straights never occurred mostly because HIV goes from men to women and then it stops, as spokesmen from the New York Department of Public Health said as early as the 1980’s. That’s not completely true, but it is very hard to get HIV from a woman. Hepatitis A, B, and C are or were very common in the gay community, vastly more common than among heterosexuals, most of whom only acquire B and C from IV drug use. Parasitical diseases such as shigella, ameobiasis and giardiasis are also extremely common among gay men, whereas they are quite rare among straights. In recent syphilis epidemics, up to 85% of cases are among gay men. Syphilis is quite uncommon among straights. Gay men have elevated rates of anal cancer, and the rate is rising. The rate is vastly higher than the rate among straights.I would like to point out that it is gay men themselves who suffer most from these diseases, and this suffering, although self-imposed, is often tragic, horrifying and heartbreaking in particularly in the heart-wrenching case of HIV. Lesbians have very low rates of STD’s but higher rates of breast cancer. I doubt if lesbians impose a disease burden on society. The very high gay male STD rate, in particular the HIV rate, obviously imposes considerable costs to society.
  • Tragically, gay men have a suicide rate 3X higher than straight men, even in San Francisco, the most gay-friendly place in the US. The attempted suicide rate is also very high. Gay male teenagers have a tragically very high attempted suicide rate at 8X the normal rate. Suicidal behavior causes unfathomable and heartbreaking suffering on gay men. However, attempted and completed suicides impose considerable cost on society.
  • Domestic violence rates are very high in gay and lesbian couples, especially the latter. A gay man is much more likely to beat his partner than a straight man is. A woman is much less likely to be beaten by a male partner than by a female partner. This causes immense suffering to the partners of gay and lesbian batterers. In addition, domestic violence is costly to society.
  • In gay areas, gay men typically take over all of the public restrooms and turn them into miniature sex clubs. This renders most public restrooms unusable by the rest of us. Most gay men typically vociferously support the use of public restrooms as sex dens for gays. I don’t have much sympathy here. Gay men are simply being very irresponsible with this depraved mindset. Further, this is a cost to society.

It is first of all most important to point out that gay men themselves suffer worst from most from these largely self-imposed conditions, a suffering so profound that it almost moves you to tears. Compassion is essential. Nevertheless, there is a cost to society. Some of these issues may be caused by discrimination (see the high teenage gay male attempted suicide rate), but there is a cost to society no matter what causes it. Some of these problems would lessen with increased acceptance of gays, but others would linger or possibly even worsen.

The question comes up whether gays pay for the costs they bring to society. Many gays seem to have above average intelligence for some reason, especially gay men. Gays seem more artistically talented than straights. More gays than straights seem to get college degrees, in particular gay men.

Gay men seem to earn higher than average wages and are disproportionately employed in high paying and prestigious professions. I am always hearing about a homosexual, often a gay man, who is contributing something noteworthy and exemplary to our society such that it mentions a media notice. Obviously, gay men contribute more to the tax base per capita than straights. So gays, especially gay men, offer considerable benefits to society, not flowing from their homosexuality but from other aspects of their lives.

I have not discussed lesbians here because I know little about them, but I doubt that they impose serious costs on society other than reduced lifespan.

However the question rises whether gays pay for themselves. Despite their excellent contributions to society and their higher than normal tax contributions, I still do not think that homosexuals pay for themselves.

The question then arises about whether the rest of us should be willing to carry a small burden for our gay brothers.

Personally I feel that at 3%, I am willing to shoulder the costs of homosexuals to society, as the numbers are so small that it is something we can cope with. I would be willing to tolerate up to 6% gay men in society. I think we could deal at that rate.

However, if the rate of male homosexuality went higher than that, all of these problems above would increase in scope with attendant costs.

Honestly, even when you get to 10% gay men in any country, your problems are going to go up a lot. The % of gay men in New York and San Francisco is quite high, and they definitely impose considerable costs on these cities.

Once you start heading up to 15–20% of any country’s population being gay, I think it would be unsustainable for many reasons (see above).

Homosexuality in society seems to be one of those things, like many things in life, that is best in small doses.

9 Comments

Filed under Alcohol, Anxiety Disorders, Civil Rights, Death, Depressants, Discrimination, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Intoxicants, Man World, Mental Illness, Mood Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Public Health, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Speed, Stimulants

How Swamp Creature Donald Trump Flooded the Swamp: The Rothschild Connection

Donald Trump or (((Donald Trump)))? Obviously it’s (((Donald Trump))). Looks like the Rothschilds own this guy lock stock and barrel. Either that or he’s been in a deep alliance with them and their (((pals))) forever now.

It’s comical how all these anti-Semites fall all over themselves jerking off to this guy. He’s practically the biggest Jew on Earth. That he’s a Judaized Gentile makes little difference – he’s still 500 years kosher and that’s deeper dipped than 90% of real Jews are.

Trump is by far the most fanatical Zionist President we have ever had. He’s so Israel-crazy that you almost wonder if he’s Jewish somehow. It’s so hilarious that all these Alt Right anti-Semites worship this ultra-Zionist Trump, who is virtually an agent of influence of the Israeli government.

Alt Righters are suckers! Their hero is a super Jew and an ultra-Zionist!

LOL!

They’re pathetic! If you’re going to be an anti-Semite, at least have some principles for Chrissake.

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Conservatism, Israel, Middle East, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Regional, Republicans, The Jewish Question, US Politics, Zionism

Are “Camp” Straight Guys Actually More Straight Than Other Straight Guys?

Answered on Quora:

No. The campier the straight man is, the more likely that he is not even straight at all. He’s likely to be either a closeted gay, or he will come out later on. Most completely heterosexual men are not campy.

As far as straight men who are so blazingly effeminate that they are just about queens, over on Datalounge, a gay chat site, one man said that he had known several “flaming” straight men who had wives, families and two or more children. Most people shrugged their shoulders, looked at the wife and family and said whatever.

You see, back then, there were some effeminate straight men with wives and kids. People would shake their heads and say, “Boy, Joe sure likes to iron his shirts, doesn’t he? But God bless him! Every night he goes home and gives it to Mrs. Jones.” And the community of straight men and women would just except him. Nowadays, this man would be called gay continuously.

Back in those days, people were not obsessed with homosexuality. Everyone was straight until proven otherwise. Straight people were not commonly accused of being gay. The sad thing about gays coming out is that we no longer practice “straight until proven otherwise,” which in my opinion was much better, and straight men are much more likely to be called gay than they were back in the day.

So while gay liberation has been great for gay men, most good things have a downside, and this was the downside for straight men. Frankly, I can’t see how gay liberation helped straight men. It didn’t help us or improve our lives in any way, and in a few ways, it made our lives worse.

It was necessary for equal rights for gays, so we should have supported it (and I did from way back into the 1980’s when it was risky), but there sure wasn’t anything in it for us. As feminists are now talking about how feminism is good for men too, I wonder if any gay men would tell us how gay rights was good for straight men in any way whatsoever.

Anyway, this gay man said that he had followed these “flamer” purported straight married men over decades, and after 20–30 years, every single one of them had come out as gay and left their families.

A new study showed that 67% of gay men but only 3% of straight men are effeminate. Effeminate straight men are not common at all.

There are many “feminine” straight men who are quiet, soft-spoken, sensitive, like to read, write, and cook and are not macho in the traditional sense. But a lot of these men have a sort of soft masculinity about them.

I would wager that if a straight man is so effeminate that he is out and out campy, he could be straight, but the odds that he is gay or will come out as gay later on are quite a bit higher than for non-effeminate straight men. In fact, I would wager that most of them are closeted gays or will come out as gay later on.

You cannot be effeminate at all in straight male culture. Even being feminine as above is quite frowned upon. A campy straight man would not be well liked and would have to endure a lot of abuse from his peers. This sort of peer pressure keeps most straight men from behaving this way, which I feel is a good thing.

7 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Sex

Tony Perkins Is an Anti-Gay Bigot, But a Lot of the Things He Says about Homosexuality Are True

I don’t have a high opinion of this reactionary idiot Tony Perkins. While the label of bigot and hater seems correct about him, unfortunately a number of things he says about homosexuality are flat out true. Others are ugly opinions, exaggerations, silliness, or untruths.

The dossier against Perkins can be found here at the site of one of the worst SJW organizations out there, the toxic and cancerous Southern Poverty Law Center. Let’s look at the charges:

contending that gay rights advocates intend to round up Christians in “boxcars.”

False. OK, that’s fanaticism.

But sometimes I wonder what sort of SJW dictatorship our SJW commissar overlords would have in store for us if they ever seized power. Looking at how hate-filled, vindictive, and out and out vicious your typical gay rights homosexual is nowadays, it’s not unreasonable to fear all sorts of bad things from these maniacs.

To give you an example, these gay activists absolutely hate me although I have supported gay rights since the 1980’s when it was dangerous to do so. That’s a good 35 years. And I work on their political campaigns, though I should probably quit based on how they treat me.

In order to be a proper gay rights ally and avoid being a homophobe, the goalposts have now been moved to positions that are so far beyond the endzone that most straight men would qualify as homophobes by default simply for having the normal opinions that straight men have towards male homosexuality (hint: they have a very low opinion of it).

“What most people either don’t realize or willfully ignore is that only 16 percent of Islam is a religion — the rest is a combination of military, judicial, economic, and political system. Christianity, by comparison, isn’t a judicial or economic code — but a faith. So to suggest that we would be imposing some sort of religious test on Muslims is inaccurate. Sharia is not a religion in the context of the First Amendment.”

— FRC email, December 2015

True. That’s probably about right, sorry.

“Those who practice Islam in its entirety, it’s not just a religion. It’s an economic system, it’s a judicial system, and it is a military – a military system. And it is – it has Shariah law that you’ve heard about and those things will tear and destroy the fabric of a democracy. So we have to be very clear about our laws and restrain those things that would harm the whole. We are a nation – let me be very clear about this. We are a nation that was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, that’s the foundation of our nation, not Islam, but the Judeo-Christian God.”

Washington Watch radio show, September 2014

Mostly true. He’s wrong as usual about the Founding Fathers, who were more deists than anything else, but this is standard fundie nonsense.

The rest about Islam is more or less 100% fact.

“The videos are titled ‘It Gets Better.’ They are aimed at persuading kids that although they’ll face struggles and perhaps bullying for ‘coming out’ as homosexual (or transgendered or some other perversion), life will get better. … It’s disgusting. And it’s part of a concerted effort to persuade kids that homosexuality is okay and actually to recruit them into that lifestyle.”

—FRC fundraising letter, August 2011

False. The It Gets Better videos are not part of a project to recruit kids into the gay lifestyle. I doubt if they are trying to tell kids homosexuality is ok either. These videos are aimed at gay teenagers who are distraught, depressed, and have a high attempted suicide rate, showing them that no matter how much they are suffering now, things will get better as they get older.

It’s probably not true that gays cannot turn straights gay, but many straight women have chosen a bisexual orientation, and many straight men have chosen to engage in bisexual behavior, with more and more doing this all the time. And while you can’t turn straight people gay, that doesn’t stop gay and bisexual men from trying.

I can’t count how many times they have tried to seduce me, and they’ve done it to a lot of my friends too. Actually bisexual men are far worse about this because I don’t have much to do with gay men, and bisexual men are everywhere running about in typical straight society. They can get pretty verbally coercive and cajoling about trying to get you to join in their faggy fun too. You need to stop talking to them because they will never stop trying to cajole you into their faggy fun and games.

“Those who understand the homosexual community – the activists – they’re very aggressive, they’re – everything they accuse us of they are in triplicate. They’re intolerant, they’re hateful, vile, they’re spiteful. …. To me, that is the height of hatred, to be silent when we know there are individuals that are engaged in activity, behavior, and an agenda that will destroy them and our nation.”

—Speaking to the Oak Initiative Summit, April 2011

True. This is actually true. Gay activists are out and out ugly. In fact, I am starting hate gay men (though I should not feel that way, I know) due to so many nasty and ugly interactions with them. I will continue to support them politically of course, but the less I deal with them otherwise, the better. Gay men nowadays are the worst SJW’s of them all, like SJW’s on steroids.

False. But I really doubt if homosexuality is going to destroy the country. That’s a bit much.

“While activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality, evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two. … It is a homosexual problem.”

— FRC website, 2010

True. This is a bit vicious, but gay men are vastly overrepresented among pedophiles. 35% of child molestations are molestations of boys by men. Almost all of these men are homosexual pedophiles.

False. But saying that pedophilia is a gay problem is just wrong. And it’s vicious.

The marriage debate “is literally about the entire culture: it’s about the rule of law, it’s about the country, it’s about our future, it’s about redefining the curriculum in our schools, it’s about driving a wedge between parent and child, it’s about the loss of religious freedom, it’s about the inability to be who we are as a people.”

— The Janet Mefford Show, May 22, 2014

False. None of this is true, but I can see why these Christians are upset about it. They say it goes against their religion. Well, OK. So how do you expect them to act?

Part of the FRC’s strategy is to tout the false claim that gay men are more likely to sexually abuse children. The American Psychological Association, among others, has concluded that, “homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are.”

True. Yes, and the APA is flat out wrong and is disregarding all of the evidence of psychological “science” on this issue. You wonder why people say the social science are not sciences. Well, look no further. Actually gay men are 12 times more likely to molest children than straight men are.

Nevertheless, most gay men are obviously not pedophiles.

As the show ended, Perkins stated, “If you look at the American College of Pediatricians, they say the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a danger to children.

False. I do not think it is fair to say that homosexuals pose a risk to our children. “Keep the faggots away from our kids!” seems like a mean and unnecessary thing to say.

In late 2010, Perkins held a webcast to discuss the dire consequences of allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Dubious statistics from a poll commissioned by the FRC and the Center for Security Policy – which was named an anti-Muslim hate group in 2015 – were used during the webcast.

The webcast also mentioned the FRC report, Mission Compromised, written by retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, the FRC’s senior fellow for national security. The report contended that allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would undermine morale and discipline and infringe on the religious freedom of military chaplains, who would be forced to accept homosexuality and would no longer be permitted to express their religious beliefs about it.

In addition, Maginnis predicted that heterosexual service members would be forced to take “sensitivity classes” that promote the “homosexual lifestyle.” He added: “Homosexual activists seek to force the U.S. military to embrace their radical views and sexual conduct, no matter the consequences for combat effectiveness.”

False. I believe that gays are now serving openly in the US military, and this has not affected combat effectiveness like the howlers predicted.

On Oct. 11, 2010, The Washington Post published a commentary by Perkins in which he repeated his argument that anti-bullying policies are not really intended to protect students. “Homosexual activist groups like GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network] … are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family.”

Half true. Sadly, this is correct. Gay activists are indeed using the anti-bullying push to promote tolerance of homosexuals, to redefine the family, and worse, to promote out and out affirmation of homosexuality.

In fact, I would argue that it goes far beyond that, and that presently gay rights activists are promoting the open celebration of homosexuality. As a straight man, I fail to see why I should jump up and down and cheer for homosexuality. What’s so great about it? Who needs it? If it disappeared from the planet tomorrow, would that be a bad thing? It probably would not, as homosexuality offers zero benefits to society while causing a long list of societal problems.

However, obviously the anti-bullying movement is also designed to protect gay students.

In 2013, Perkins claimed on CNN that allowing gay people into the Boy Scouts would put children in danger of sexual assault. When pressed by the CNN host, Perkins again resorted to the FRC’s stock claim, as Perkins once put it, that pedophilia “is a homosexual problem.” “They [Boy Scouts] are trying to create an environment that is protective of children,” he said. “This [allowing LGBT Scouts and Scout leaders] doesn’t make it more protective. There is a disproportionate number of male on boy – when we get on pedophilia, male on boy is a higher incident rate of that.”

True. Well, of course letting gay men by scoutmasters puts boys at increased risk of molestation. Isn’t that obvious? There have been plenty of closeted gay men who were scoutmasters in the past, and they molested more than a few boys. Why do you think the Scouts had the ban in the first place? Because this was a well known long-standing problem in scouting! It was hard enough to try to sort out the closet cases among the scoutmasters, and the new policy was going to flood scouts with a lot more gay scoutmasters. Just what the Scouts need.

Despite gains made for LGBT equality, Perkins and the FRC have continued their anti-gay activities, including opposition to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). According to Perkins, President Obama was working with the “totalitarian homosexual lobby” to sneak ENDA into law and should that happen, freedom of religion will be “destroyed.”

Opinion. Well, you know, this is just wrong. In general, I think that it should be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in housing, employment, etc. simply for being homosexuals.

But we ought to be able to discriminate on other grounds. For instance, suppose a flamboyantly gay man applies at my store to be a customer clerk. My clientele is mostly straight men, a lot of whom are macho rednecks who will not take kindly to a screaming faggot asking, “Can I help you?” In this case, I might be able to hire a gay man if he was straight acting and promised to be quiet about his orientation so as not to scare off my clientele.

Suppose you have a restaurant. The hosts are people who greet customers and show them their seats. I have a right to turn down a flamboyant homosexual who wants to work as a host because he will scare off my diners. Instead, I would happy to employ him in a backroom somewhere, but he can’t be out there greeting diners.

Other than these minor cases though, I think gays should have the same employment and housing rights as members of racial groups or the two genders.

Perkins also has worked to keep America safe from Betty Crocker. In September 2013, he called for a boycott of the iconic brand because General Mills, which produces it, donated custom cakes to three LGBT couples in Minnesota who were married after the state legalized same-sex marriage a month earlier.

Opinion. Wow. Ugly.

In 2015, as the FRC tilted into anti-Muslim sentiment – especially with the hiring of retired Lt. General William “Jerry” Boykin – Perkins said that Islam is such a danger that Muslim Americans should not have the same religious freedoms as other citizens.

Opinion. Not sure what he means by this, but this is ugly.

After a man with radical Islamic beliefs fatally shot 49 people at an Orlando LGBT nightclub in June 2016, Perkins pointed the finger at the Obama Administration – claiming that the administration marginalized Christians and elevated Islam. “We have to deal with the underlying issue, which is an ideology that’s incompatible with American liberty,” Perkins wrote. “An ideology, tragically, that this administration has empowered through its public policy and private diplomacy.”

False. Yuck. The problem here is that this attack had nothing to with Islam. The attacker himself was a gay man, so he was not killing gay men out of hatred or bigotry. Instead, he had had an affair with a Puerto Rican gay man who he met at that bar, and that man had given him HIV. This was a Puerto Rican gay bar. So he decided to take revenge against Puerto Rican gay men in general by shooting up the bar.

In a 2016 FRC email to followers about the issue, Perkins warned: “If government can force the ‘normalization’ or even the celebration of something as universally unnatural as men using women’s restrooms and vice versa, then it can force the rest of its agenda on the American people very easily,” resulting in “social chaos” and the breakdown of all “sexual inhibition and morality.”

False. I doubt if that’s going to happen, but at 60, I would love to see sexual inhibition and morality break down a lot more. Perhaps I would get more dates.

During 2016, Perkins was part of the Republican committee as a delegate from Louisiana that created the GOP platform.

Perkins reportedly proposed a plank that supported conversion therapy for minors, though the wording, apparently revised from the original, does not specifically mention conversion therapy – a pseudoscientific practice that claims to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight, and has been denounced by every major U.S. medical and mental health association. The platform committee ultimately passed a resolution affirming “the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children.”

Opinion. Conversion therapy is a controversial issue, and in general it does not seem to work, although it is proven that sex surrogacy can help some lesbians to enjoy sex with men.

After Trump’s election, the FRC and Perkins were heavily involved in the formation of policy for the new administration. FRC Senior Fellow Kenneth Blackwell was named the head of domestic policy for the transition team. The FRC also took steps to ensure the new administration would undo President Obama’s work advancing LGBT equality – efforts that come after Perkins’ June 2016 claim that a Trump presidency would be better for the LGBT community than a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Opinion. This sounds bad.

6 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Civil Rights, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Discrimination, Employment, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Housing, Islam, Law, Military Doctrine, Obama, Pedophilia, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Religion, Republicans, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

A Lot of People on Quora Are Going Around Saying That They Can’t Have Meaningful Conversations with Those Who Have IQ’s That Are 2 Standard Deviations below or above Their IQ’s. As a Profoundly Gifted Person Do You Think This Is the Case?

Answered on Quora:

It isn’t necessarily true. The reason they are saying this is that studies were done that showed that leaders could not have IQ’s 2 SD’s above the average of their followers. It was also suggested that meaningful communication becomes difficult at 2 SD’s difference. They are probably referencing that study. But just because some study said something doesn’t mean it is going to be completely true in your own life.

As someone with an IQ over 3 SD’s above average, I don’t agree that that is true. I can have meaningful conversations with those 45–55 IQ points below me (3–3.66 SD’s). It is just that I have to somewhat limit the subject matter to areas I think that person would know about. A lot of people in that range are smarter than you think. You just have to keep the conversation around their level.

For many years, my best friends had IQ’s 3 SD’s below me. However, when I was spending a tremendous amount of my time around them, especially after I started university, I did get frustrated at times because the range of communication was somewhat restricted. I didn’t mind spending a lot of time with them, but there reached a point where I was spending too much time with them at which it became frustrating.

But it’s pretty fun to interact with people down around the 100 IQ level when you adjust your own IQ to about that level and learn to enjoy life on that simpler level. For instance, we used to smoke weed, listen to music, talk, joke and laugh about women, TV, people, people, dope, gossip, music, etc. You can have a blast down around that level. I remember stoned nights when the whole room could not stop laughing.

However, as I have gotten older, it is hard for me to relate very well to women around 3-4 SD IQ below me (90–100). We are not connecting on such a huge level – they are often so ignorant, and they act bored or threatened by my achievements but mostly they think they are utterly uninteresting.

People at that IQ level could care less that you just published a paper that got through peer review and was published in an academic book out of a university publishing house. They don’t care that you sit on a review board of a peer reviewed academic journal. They simply do not see that as important, they don’t have a high opinion of it. In other words, they are pretty much indifferent, puzzled or out and out hostile to any sort of intellectual achievement or talk. On top of that, they can sometimes bore the living Hell out of me.

I need the women in my life to be more around my intelligence level. Two SD’s difference and below is acceptable. At 2 SD’s below, I can connect very well and have had deep and intense love affairs with women. You end up explaining things a lot, but they can figure things out after you explain them to them, and you can get into professor vs. rapt student roles, which is an ego boost for me and seems to also be a lot of fun for them.

It’s also fun to watch an rapt student delighting in new knowledge. And at 2 SD’s below me, people are capable of a lot of interesting observations, especially about people, culture, and even politics. They often have sophisticated, clever, odd and even intellectual senses of humor. They’re smarter than you think they are.

It’s not that you cannot have meaningful conversations with people below 2 SD’s, it’s more that at some point you hit this wall that goes up between the two of you, and things get can get a little weird and uncomfortable. There’s a disconnect or a lack of communication taking place. But this is more at 3–4 SD’s below me rather than 2 SD’s.

I also run into regular problems with people not having the slightest idea of what I am talking about. I don’t know if they don’t want to talk to me or they just can’t figure out what I am saying, but they say they don’t get what I am saying. I also get misunderstood a lot. People misunderstand my jokes and read mental illness or dangerousness into them.

My writing is always misread and misconstrued in a similar manner. This has led to a lot of people hating my guts for something I said or wrote when they are completely misunderstanding what I said. Probably a lot of these folks are above 2 SD’s below me. Lack of intelligence is out and out dangerous. I can’t count how many times people misunderstood what I was saying, doing or writing and used it against me. I thought it was due to lack of intelligence on their part, but I don’t know exactly how intelligent most of these people were as I had little interaction with them.

The problem is when you get to 2 SD’s below me, from my POV, a lot of people don’t know how to think. They misconstrue what you say, do or write and see mental disturbance, dangerousness, and severe deviancy into you when it’s not there. However, I have met folks 1 SD below me or even at my level who did the exact same thing and constantly misunderstood or misconstrued me because they don’t know how to think. However, I think the inability to think properly is more common as IQ goes down.

I hate to say it but my opinion after decades of life is “Dumb people are dangerous.” They don’t understand others so they commit aggression and harm against the people they don’t understand. In this sense, lower intelligence levels are not innocuous at all, and for me, they carry the potential of a lot of harm.

I have found that as people’s IQ’s go higher, they misunderstand me a lot less, start to figure me out, don’t read weird or stupid things into what I say, do, or write, and frankly cause me a lot less harm. It seems to require a fairly high IQ to make the difficult distinctions that are necessary to figure out what I am saying, doing, or writing.

I could give you endless examples, but there’s no need to.

If people of lesser intelligence were innocuous, they would not bother me in the slightest. But when stupidity becomes harmful as it so often does, I start seeing the world once again as, “Dumb people are dangerous!”

11 Comments

Filed under Intelligence, Psychology

Why Do Some Asexual People Still Want Relationships? Doesn’t This Only Cause Pain?

Answered on Quora:

Apparently they still want relationships, but they should have relationships with other asexual types or people who have given up on sex for whatever reason. Asexuals pursuing relationships with sexual persons is very irresponsible and must be condemned. Frankly, I think that gay men marrying women, as happens constantly, is also deeply irresponsible and should be condemned in the harshest terms.

In the case of either the asexual with sexual people or gay men with women, the actions of the asexual and gays who do this are quite close to abuse.

Leave a comment

Filed under Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex