is this the thing that does it?

i have some delusion that i could hack that to do scan_block

it accepts a list so if you pass it a list of all txids in a block then it would achieve the same thing i guess

hrm, i guess a real hacky way would be to have the user input their desired block height to start scanning from, and have the daemon fetch a random tx from that height, and insert that txid

because from what im reading, the wallet will continue scanning, just using the tx in scan_tx as the start point

feed that random tx_id into scan_tx

dangit now where did i read that it will keep scanning from the entered txid

yeah the scan_tx is meant to be used "after the fact" - an already synced wallet who is missing 1 or 2 tx's or to insta-restore a wallet from seed , i would get an opinion from -dev as i don't know what im talking about

well at some point i'll just test it out to see how it behaves

hrm

it currently has bugs, which are patched in this PR from jberman monero-project/monero #8566

ah there it is. nice. "If a user provides a tx with height > the wallet's known scan height, the wallet will continue scanning from that height. "

danke

What is pruned if I turn on prune-blockchain=1 in monero.conf? I thought all outputs could never be pruned.

DeanGuss, some stuff about the proofs

7/8 of _prunable_ data will be deleted after verification

Essentially 2/3 (1/1.5kb) of a 1in/2out tx can be pruned

Paraguay residencies for xmr

Move to south america 4 tha low

>Due to its geopolitical unimportance, Paraguay is considered a safe haven for people who fear political instabilities in western world countries

paraguay is seriously fucked by the US

gingeropolous: I see. what about this sync-pruned-blocks setting then? If the proofs are gone, does my node even verify the block?

could the fiddlyness of scan_tx be fixed by moving the wallet.bin to a database?

DeanGuss, I dunno.

Sync-pruned-blocks will sync blocks that were pruned by other nodes

monero-project/monero 8330e77 "the pruned version will be sent along with the hash of the pruned data and the block weight. The original tx hashes can be reconstructed from the pruned txes and theur prunable data hash. Those hashes and the block weights are hashes and checked against the set of precompiled hashes, ensuring the data we received is the original data."

ah yeah u found it too

i think the key is "For recent blocks not covered by the hashes, all nodes will ask for full data."

but how did moo make pruning an existing blockchain 10x faster 🤯

i didn't know about sync-pruned-blocks

plowsof11: Slacking on termux node

so basically, every new release, a "snapshot" of the chain is captured in the form of the hashes of all the blocks or something. its partly why the monero binary you download is so large

Yeah, sync-pruned only really helps during initial sync

up to release height

Yeah

gingeropolous: so long story short it requires trust in a the devs to communicate a trusted checkpoint, and using this option leaves your node not truly verifying? I would think it's impossible to verify without the proofs. Or maybe it's more like an "SPV" style secuirty (which isn't much, can be faked with enough work). Or maybe I don't get it? What is a 'precompiled hash' Is that the trusted block hash checkpoint?

yeah afaiu

ok thank you frens

i've never timed a sync-only-pruned or whatever

u ever feel like tech support is trolling you

When are they not. They're bored af with everyones stupid questions.

At some point they just start assuming everyone's retarded, and go from there.

When someone on tech support asks me for a screenshot of the four-token shell command and its two short lines of output that I already copied and pasted into the previous email, I assume the tech support person is either a complete fucking idiot or too low on the totem pole to be allowed to employ any intelligence.

. . . not that the person is trolling me.

So, question about ip address privacy on monero: 1) It seems as though the only proxy options in monero.conf are for connecting to peers (to fetch/serve blocks & relay & send transactions - `tx-proxy` and `proxy`)

With regard to these moneropulse checkpoints options, it seems by default if you specify nothing, it doesn't enforce moneropulse dns checkpoints, but it does check them and then when you've strayed off to an unapproved fork, it warns you in the log

What kind of dns records are these dns checkpoints, and is the request sent via a proxy if you have one configured? SRV records are often too large to fit in a single udp packet, so some apps are cognizant to skip udp and go straight to tcp, which is usable via tor (udp is not).

pertanent questions: Is there any provision in the monero code to proxy these requests that are on by default, and if not WTF, is every node just being doxed to whoever the hell moneropulse (and all their additional trusted 3rd parties)?

afaict, it's an undeniable fact that if these requests exit via udp then we are undoubtedly just doxing all our nodes' true IP addresses despite any monero.conf proxy settings.

Isn't trusting dns checkpoints attested by trusted 3rd parties anathema to a pow blockchain anyway? What's the point of this other than doxing my node to my isp, my dns provider, the root nameservers, moneropulse's registrar, moneropulse and any of their server, cdn, or other infrastructure providers?

Won't my node follow the most work chain? Or is monero captured or broken?

"the root nameservers, moneropulse's registrar, moneropulse and any of their server" what? Do you even know how dns works?

the request goes only to your local dns server which asks other dns servers if needed, so only your dns server knows about the original ip

and add --disable-dns-checkpoints to the command line

moneropulse doesn't even have servers, it's only dns records

Well I suppose in a nice world if your dns cache respects your privacy that's true

But in reality most large public dns servers use edns, an extension where the cache forwards the first 3 octets of your ipv4 to the end of the line

though I suppose it's not as terrible as I suggested. Thanks for pushing back

still though, even if only all the big isps, google, cloudflare, etc know where all the monero servers really are, that seems pretty fucked for a default setting. A setting that afaict is pointless for people who are trying to just follow the most worked chain.

It's a p2p network. Of course it's possible to find all node IPs even without these dns requests

you can just even mass scan port 18080

these dns checkpoints are not enforced by default

it only prints a warning

possible to find the true node IP of every node, even ones using all possible tor settings, the ones clearly attempting to hide their IP?

It only prints a warning, but even if it doesn't print the warning, it still does the dns request by default unless you specifically disable it, and doxes your ip even if you use all possible proxy settings to obscure your ip

Does that seem like a user would intend for that to happen? I think we all want privacy, especially people who turn on all possible proxy settings thinking they're safe.

So the question remains: Is this by-default-doxxing due to the responsible devs' intention, obliviousness, or indifference? (I mean that in the most loving, uninsulting way possible - I would really like to know). I think most of us are here for and would appreciate serious privacy.

And if anyone cares to address my question about what the point of moneropulse dns checkpoints, I'm all ears! I really don't understand the use case, even if somebody turned it on.

Is there something wrong with the monero consensus code that wouldn't allow it to quickly follow the most-worked chain?

I think I figured it out after reading some more: because monero hard forks so often, if we don't update a couple times a year, we're likely to fork off pretty often. MoneroPulse DNS checkpoints would warn you in the logs that you're on the wrong fork. Also due to these regular hard forks, consensus bug can and do happen, and this would clue a node operator into the fact that they need to go get the fix even if they already think they're ready for the

hard fork that goes wrong.

I didn't mean to offend anybody, and hopefully I didn't. Thank you devs for your efforts. Still it would be nice to be able to plug all potential privacy leaks, especially ones that are turned on as a default.

You can use Whonix Workstation to ensure that all traffic is routed via Tor. (I use Feather Wallet in Whonix with a remote node.)

anarkiocrypto[m]: how does whonix get a udp dns request for a txt record through tor?

Maybe try DoH/DoT?

That would go through Tor

There's an idea. Maybe we could get a way to specify a doh/dot server in monero.conf so we can stop leaking our ip addresses.

and then yet another proxy option that the doh server request can use

I don't think that needs to be an option in monerod. You can most likely configure your system resolver to use a local stub resolver that has DoH/DoT support. systemd-resolved and unbound can do this.

They can resolve from DoH/DoT upstream and bind on a local tcp/udp port and then you can pass this local address to resolv.conf

Definitely, you could even rig it up to tunnel in exotic ways, translate udp to tcp and send it through tor, whatever. You and I could do that, but not many commoners. People who aren't cognizant enough to just turn moneropulse dns checkpoints off in the config is who I'm worried about. People who think they're protected and then get doxed by some unthoughtful and unnecessary default.

Upon further review of MoneroPulse, I take it back what I said. I am back to not understanding the value proposition at all.

"Users can also set auto-enforcing the checkpoints via --enforce-dns-checkpointing option to monerod. In case of mismatch, monerod will rollback the local blockchain by a few blocks. Eventually, the alternative ("fixed") fork will get heavier and the node will follow it, leaving the "invalid" fork behind."

If the node eventually follows the "heavier" fork, why do I need to ask a third party what they think?

The default seems at-best pointless and at worst, dangerously doxing.

these dns checkpoints have never been used actually

this mechanism was created in response to the block 202612 attack

if you pull dns data from these moneropulse nodes, you'll see the data is outdated by many years

wowie.. time to yank it eh?

Quick question as a total beginner. What's the easiest way to buy XMR from the UK? Could do card payment or bank transfer. And, does it matter whether or not they do KYC, given the fact that Monero payments are anonymous?

Buy LTC, Doge or whatever, then swap to XMR on any fast swap services, or on TradeOgre

LTC has the lowest fees of the major cryptos, right?

So you could do Fiat -> LTC -> XMR?

yes

Thanks

Does it matter which exchange to use or do they all have similar fees?

Binance is not recommended

Is it even possible to be profitable mining monero?

yes

if you don't pay for electricity

sech1: And if you do?

lol

if you need the heat :P

depends how much

I feel like even if I dont pay for electricity, i will lose money on hardware

sech1: What about buying it in a wallet app like Exodus? Sounds the most convenient, is there any downside with it?

Even if I had all 7 of my computers mining monero all year long at 7 kilohash, I would only make just under half a monero

./monero/bitcoin/

I wonder if Monero could adjust the mining difficulty dynamically depending on its value.

Or if CPU mining is already going top speed as it is.

Mining difficulty must only depend on block times

Mining profitability is about your hardware's efficiency vs your electricity cost

e.g. right now you need to mine at ~100 H/s/W to break even at 0.10 $/kWh

hug-animals: That's just the amount of time that it took to find a given block

merope: Is that baked in, or is that up to the monero devs?

The goal of all PoW mining algorithms is to ensure that new blocks are found (on average) after a specific amount of time

Monero has a 2 minute target block time, Bitcoin uses 10 minutes

ooh proof of work

Yeah

PoW is just to counteract asics?

Or is it for something else?

No, PoW is a general mechanism, part of the consensus rules that cryptocurrency nodes enforce in order to determine the "true" blockchain

Is that then to prevent attacks from mining pools?

If my node says that transaction XYZ is part of block 123, and yours doesn't, who's right?

Whoever agrees with either one of us, more.

hug-animals: No, that's a separate issue - a consequence of how PoW works

oh? hmmmm

Then it is whoever has "proof" of work, though that is a bit ethereal to me right now.

hug-animals: Then I could spin up whole bunch of nodes that "agree" with me, and whoever has the most nodes wins

I could send you money, receive your product, then change history and claim the transaction never happened - screwing you over

Sounds Right to me, and isnt that the reason why you want to prevent asics and such?

hug-animals: Look up how PoW-based consensus works

okay

hug-animals: No. Asics are just a type of hardware - "Application Specific Integrated Circuits"

Yep. I at least know that. It was a problem because it ended up centralizing mining power to asic capable organizations, and took away all the power from cpu miners which was far more distributed. Correct?

<merope> "Mining profitability is about..." <- They are a consequence of how profitability works: if you can develop a dedicated type of hardware that can perform mining operations better (read: more efficiently) than a consumer cpu/gpu, then you will be more profitable than them

Right.

hug-animals: Yes, asic-friendly algorithms eventually give all power to the biggest asic developers

Hence Monero's choice to create an asic-resistant mining algorithm

Note that "asic resistant" does not mean that it's *impossible* to create an asic - it just means that it's not financially convenient because you would not be able to gain a significant performance advantage

Designing a RandomX asic means pretty much designing an entire cpu - and if you can do that, you are basically a competitor of Intel/AMD/nVidia & co.

You'll find way greater success designing a resilient miming botnet than a randomx asic

(But don't do that either, because botnets kill profitability for the other miners)

(Also, you would be stealing)

Ehhhhh

I dont really get the miming botnet

Still helps secure the network

monerobull[m]1: They were sure doing a lot of securing, back when they were all concentrating 40% of the nethash on Minexmr

But in any case, Is it then simply impossible to make mining on cpu's yeild greater results?

hug-animals: Yes

tsk

Free power and free hardware and you're good to go

1 hash = 1 hash. A hashing algorithm has no concept of what device it was computed on

Could one not engineer a hash algo that is generated and decoded using the very specific functions of the CPU?

That's kind of what RandomX does, under the hood: it uses a bunch of cpu hardware features that are very expensive to implement on an asic

Right. but "kind of" being the operative word here. It merely makes those functions requisite to mining, so that asics become impractical, no? It isn't something specifically attuned to decoding a particular algorythm?

<monerobull[m]1> "Still helps secure the network..." <- Also: do you *really* want a large portion of the security of a global financial system to be in the hands of a bunch of script kiddies and fire-and-forget botnets? While people who are genuinely invested into the ecosystem can barely pay the electricity bills to keep up?

hug-animals: At this point, I would suggest reading the design documents in here: github.com/tevador/RandomX

They have incentives to not act against the network. So yeah, in my opinion 20-30 % wouldn't be a problem at all

Even if you gloss over the highly technical parts, the overall goals and implementation of the algorithm are pretty clear

hug-animals: RandomX generates random CPU code and runs it. The intention is that the best mining ASIC is just a CPU.

yes, definitely read the design documents

they are quite informative

you could build a CPU that directly understands RandomX code, instead of x86 code, but the advantage isn't that amazing, because the random code is executed many times in a loop, to decrease the relative overhead of translating it to x86

the profitability problem is common to all PoW systems

monerobull[m]1: Some/many of these people have barely any idea of what they were doing. If you know about "hanoi boy" and his hashrate spikes, that guy was accidentally ddosing smaller pools because he didn't even know what a miner proxy was. We can talk about incentives only if we assume people know what they're doing - and that assumption is provably false in many cases

immibis_: im reading it.

okay mining a hash just means finding the keyword that decrypts it, right?

you don't mine a hash

proof of work is like this: 1) generate a random input 2) run a bunch of bullshit code over the input to get some result 3) see if the result is good enough 4) repeat

both the work, and the definition of "good enough", are complete bullshit and the only reason to do it at all is to prove that you wasted a bunch of computing power

hence "proof of work"

oh

so mining is all about showing that you put in effort. Coins are distributed via the effort put in?

once you have done it, you can tell people which input you used to get the good result, other people can just run the bullshit once (not a million billion zillion times) and check they do get a good result from it

In this context, a hash function is a deterministic one-way function that gives you a different output for every input. There is no efficient method of finding the input starting from the output, so the only method you have is to try every input possible until you find a valid one

merope: That depends on the hash though, no? Don't some hashes have vulnerabilities that lend themselves to decoding them faster?

decrypting*

well nobody uses those ones any more, because they're broken

hug-animals: a big problem with blockchains is how to prevent forks, or at least choose which fork is the right one. PoW solves the question by saying the chain with the most work is the right one.

Ah interesting

^

it doubles as a way to choose who gets the coins to start with, and distributing the coins this way doubles as a way to compensate for the work

Exactly

So are coins not actually discovered? Or decrypted? They are merely allocated to whoever did the most work?

correct. Everything is artificial.

wait until you find out dollars are also artificial

let's not mention dollars any more

Interesting

that topic tends to activate certain kinds of lunatics, so let's not talk about it

So, if nothing is actually being decrypted, I don't quite get the cryptic aspect of crypto

public and private keys are used to prove that the person who makes a transaction owns the money they're spending

Ah

the easiest to understand is Ethereum. Your address is a public key. Whenever you make a transaction you sign the transaction with your private key. Boom

(bitcoin is a little more complicated because of the UTXO system, and Monero is basically black magic)

Ethereum though isnt a privacy coin though because of this?

right, you can just look up a public key on ethereum and see all the transactions they made

looks like someone's matrix bridge crashed

Never heard of UTXO. I was reading a post on /biz/ that stated that bitcoin is more or less subverted by banksters and saboteurs

^chatgpt has entered the blockchain!

hug-animals: never trust anything you read about finance one way or the other, unless it's simple facts (like "Japan just raised its interest rate")

hug-animals: everyone wants you to do whatever makes profit for them

immibis_: I have always been a bit trepidatious about finance, and am unfortunately quite behind when it comes to making a dollar. Trying to parse what is trustworthy is something I having difficulty with. I was convinced to not buy bitcoin in 2012 because it was a "bubble" by Peter Schiff.

I feel like such a retard.

hug-animals: oh there's another rule: Nobody knows anything. Nobody

hug-animals: see, even if you bought bitcoin, it would just as likely that bitcoin went down to $0 and litecoin went up to $10000

(which you didn't buy)

finance people treat it as all random, a big casino

I don't buy that heuristic. I think there are things such as "Self Affirming Prophecies" as well as "Self Refuting Prophecies" which one can use to help predict outcomes.

stock prices and coin prices are self-affirming. If everyone thinks it will go up, they buy which makes it go uo

up*

Yeah exactly

therefore they are fundamentally pretty unstable, going up and down all over the place

My other issue is morally and ethically making money. I always feel guilty, even just for asking for a wage above minimum wage. I dont get whats wrong with me, but ... Something just seems immoral for asking for as much money as possible.

nobody predicted in 2012 that bitcoin would be $60k, and nobody could have.

immibis_: Stefan Molyneux did

but mmmm yeah. 60k was pretty amazing.

let me rephrase that: nobody could have predicted it with more certainty than any other crazy prediction people throw out there. All kinds of people make all kinds of predictions, so it's inevitable that a few come true just by chance.

Stefan Molyneux is also a white supremacist and you shouldn't listen to him.

hug-animals: in the specific case of wage, don't forget that your boss is shamelessly making as much money as possible FROM YOU.

He has absolutely no problem asking for your wage to be as LOW as possible.

immibis_: oh... you are a bot. lol

I think you have just terminated this conversation. Wanna go on /ignore?

immibis_: I've listened to him for years. When people call these figures white supremacists despite the fact that they have time and time again said the polar opposite, its evidence that you are either just playing a political game and are being disengenuous, or you are just terribly credulous.

It reminds me of when I was in highschool, I told someone that my mom was german, and they in response called me a nazi.

hug-animals: I'm not equipped to prove to a Stefan Molyneux listener that he's a white supremacist; maybe you can try in #politics or somewhere like that

the conversation has been had many times with many people on all sorts of media

about many people, too

actually it's ##politics, two #

immibis_: Whether he is or he is not, you do have to absolutely admit that regardless, you attempted to "Poison the Well", which is an ad hominem, and an informal logical fallacy. You might as well have said, "Don't listen to Stefan Molyneux's predictions about bitcoin, because his mother wears army boots."

hug-animals: the principle at work is not "white supremacists are wrong about bitcoin" but rather "please don't give your ad revenue to white supremacists"

immibis_: There is also something concerning about what you said there. "You shouldnt listen to people who I assert are white supremacists." -- I think it is better to listen to all people, and give everyone a fair shake.

I did, that's how I know he's a white supremacist.

immibis_: What did you listen to?

because he is an objectivist, who are known to being radical individualists.

hug-animals: people with very unpopular beliefs often downplay their unpopularity by saying they're just being objective. Stefan Molyneux says that black people have significantly lower IQ than white people. If you called him a racist, he'd say it's just a fact bro

immibis_: Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

immibis_: He didnt say that. He interviewed scientists and researchers who shared that data with him. By that assertion, you would say that Charles Murray is a white supremacist because he published the "Bell Curve".

You shouldnt hold people morally responsible for stating empirical data that they are not responsible for producing.

a nazi officer would tell you that you shouldn't hold the nazis morally responsible for pointing out jewish degeneracy

which is of course complete bullshit

immibis_: The nazis broke the NAP.

a nazi officer would tell you some excuse to "prove" that the jews broke it first

immibis_: If you are an individualist, which SM is, then he makes it a virtue and a point to evaluate everyone as an individual before passing any sort of judgement upon them. For a Nazi, their "Jewish blood" was requisite for prosecution, which SM and all obvjectivists completely abhor.

Stefan Molyneux would tell you the black people broke the NAP

immibis_: No he wouldnt.

even if he wouldn't say "black blood" had something to do with it, he'd still tell you that all these people individually broke the NAP and oh! what a coincidence! they all happen to be black!

You are not arguing in good faith.

These are strawmen.

I've seen it play out enough times. Stefan Molyneux, specifically, said something about "low-IQ rapists" coming into Europe from the south. If you asked him if he thought all black people were low-IQ rapists, he'd say no. He'd just say that he was talking about the low-IQ rapists entering Europe from the south - not ALL black people.

immibis_: Why are you holding him responsible for reading statistics that he did not produce, or was responsible for inflating?

[12:59:16] <immibis> a nazi officer would tell you that you shouldn't hold the nazis morally responsible for pointing out jewish degeneracy

hug-animals: tell me, when someone complains about a flood of low-IQ rapists entering Europe from the south, what is their purpose of making that complaint?

immibis_: Well let me try to steelman you. Your basic premise is that, while these statistics do exist, one should not point them out or draw any conclusions from them, or use them to help inform your worldview, because it will lead to a holocaust.

that is not a steelman

immibis_: Its a myriad of issues. I think it mostly comes down to social identity, and people's ingroup preferences.

immibis_: Where did I miss the mark in my steelman? Let me try to improve it.

my basic premise is that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist

we can see that by looking at his actions, such his complaints about a flood of low-IQ rapists entering Europe from the south.

immibis_: You are obfuscating by using vague language.

"white supremacist" is not vague

Focus on my statement. Stop being dishonest.

immibis_: Yes it is. Because no one agrees what it means.

Stop being a partisan. Argue in good faith.

your "steelman" statement is pretty much entirely a fiction. The entire thing has no relationship to anything I've said.

Which parts of it?

all of it

Okay so every part of that statement, is the opposite of what you believe?

and a white supremacist is a person who thinks white people are supreme=superior=best (or at least better than identified other races)

why do you think that "has no relationship" means "is the complete opposite of"? Now you are arguing in bad faith.

immibis_: And SM doesnt believe that.

let me guess: because he once said he didn't believe it?

No Im arguing in good faith, thats why I am trying to nail down your specific belief.

what is not nailed down about "Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist"?

Lets go back to my steelman and break it down.

1: statistics do exist - 2: one should not point them out or draw any conclusions from them - 3: it will lead to a holocaust.

immibis_: Start with 1 -- Do race based statistics, exist?

your steelman is "drawing conclusions from statistics will lead to a holocaust"?

that's a steelman?

of "stefan molyneux is a white supremacist"?

immibis_: Yes. I'll work to improve it.

Focus. Lets go back to my statements. Stop trying to deflect.

immibis_: Do race based statistics, exist? Or are you afriad to answer?

the question is so dumb I wasn't sure you were serious. Yes, at least one statistic exists which has race as the independent variable.

immibis_: Okay. Good. Those statistics exist.

immibis_: I think, so correct me if I am wrong, that you believe it is dangerous to use those statistics. Is that fair?

Nail down your specific belief.

Do you believe, that it is dangerous to use those statistics?

I don't know what you're talking about. You're being incredibly vague, much vaguer than "Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist"

Ill be more specific:

1: You believe race based statistics exist. 2: You believe it is dangerous to use those statistics because it will lead to persecution of innocent people of racial minorities by those who use those statistics to justify violence or persecution, which you abhor.

you're still being incredibly vague about "those statistics"

immibis_: I asked you if statistics existed based on race, and you said yes.

yes, at least one exists. Which one are you talking about?

Whichever one you assert exists.

What you're doing right now is equivalent to: 1. Political ideologies exist. 2. Political ideologies want to cause holocausts.

it's uselessly vague and can be true or false depending on how you choose to fill in the specifics

or, closer to the topic: 1. Cryptocurrencies exist. 2. Cryptocurrencies make your transactions untraceable. 3. Use of cryptocurrencies finances terrorists.

immibis_: Its not, but you want me to use a specific statistic. Lets use the Bell Curve.

hug-animals: "the Bell Curve" refers to the statement that "human intelligence is substantially influenced by both inherited and environmental factors" ?

or in other words, "human intelligence is influenced by stuff"?

or in other words, "human intelligence varies"?

immibis_: "Charles Murray and his decades-old work on IQ and race, published in his 1994 book The Bell Curve,"

hug-animals: it refers to the statement that "the average IQ of black Americans is lower than the average IQ of white Americans"?

immibis_: Thats what his data measured.

answer the question

immibis_: Yes, his statistics showed a disparity between racial iq between blacks, whites, asians, etc.

hug-animals: does the term "the Bell Curve" refer to the statement that "the average IQ of black Americans is lower than the average IQ of white Americans"?

More or less. Yes.

is that a yes or a no?

Yes.

great! Finally. Getting you to say what you mean is like pulling hen's teeth.

So you are asking me whether it is dangerous to use the statement "the average IQ of black Americans is lower than the average IQ of white Americans" ?

use it for what?

Use it for policy.

what policy?

or Philosophy.

what philosophy?

Philosophy of behaviourism, and policy on say, immigration.

you're being vague again

No I am not. You are evading answering the question.

you're definitely being vague. Argue in good faith.

What policy?

You are trying to make it difficult to nail down your exact position to make it difficult to refute your vague assertion of "White Supremacist."

Immigration policy is specific enough. I am not going to cite a specific bill

Behaviourism is specific enough. Stop making it difficult, or provide an example yourself. Remember, I am trying to suss out your specific and well defined position, so its clear what you actually believe.

I can't tell you whether a policy is good or bad without knowing the policy.

Oh, my specific and well-defined position is simple: "Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist"

You are only making it clear that you are full of hatred for people and think that others are not sophisticated enough to pick up on what you are doing.

bad faith straw man

I have been very clear: "Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist"

And the reason why I say that, is because that is how you act, and a person's beliefs are dictated by their actions, not their stated beliefs.

You have not once acted in good faith. You have not tried to steelman my position, or Stefans.

"a person's beliefs are dictated by their actions, not their stated beliefs." <- oh good, then you have no problem accepting that Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist, even though he says he isn't

I on the contrary, have.

your "steelman" of "Stefan Molyneux is a white supremacist" was for some reason "using statistics causes a holocaust"

which is quite obviously a straw man

I will leave you a bit of advice. I think you are the type of person who would openly lie to a family member, and leave convinced that you pulled one over on them. In my experience, people are a lot more sharp that people give them credit for, and consiquently it is one of the reasons why people quietly and gradually push themselves away from you. Its better to just be open and honest with people.

I encourage you to reconsider how you approach people. Otherwise I wish you well, and have a merry christmas.

projection lmao

hug-animals: FYI I put you on /ignore which means I don't see your messages

I did ss sgp profile photo

Ahoy