Frame Game’s Jewish opponent Dave, an anonymous mathematician, constantly interrupts Frame and the moderators but he has many important things to say, particularly in the first 30 minutes.
My notes on the debate:
* Just as physiognomy is real, voice is real. David’s voice is cringy. His manner is rude. He sidesteps many of Frame’s points and takes 15 minutes of painful debate to acknowledge the most basic of Frame’s points. An honest person would accept or reject them right away. David embodies many of the worst qualities of the Ashkenazi discussion style though he did play the ball and not the player (he did not make personal attacks). David also makes genuine contributions to the debate and raises important points.
* JF Gariepy is an excellent guide to sanity and logic. JF smiles and nods when Frame speaks, and is repeatedly annoyed with David.
* David frequently laughs at Frame and JF’s points…a dishonorable debating style.
* JF: “David you are derailing so much it is like you have five streams going on in your mind and I can only engage in one [at a time].”
* David doesn’t want latinos in his country.
* David wouldn’t object to the west rounding up jews and deporting them to Israel because he believes that rights belong to conquerers.
* JF established that David lied about Kevin MacDonald, strawmanned KM…as David claimed KMAC said something in COC that David could not find any such quote.
* Andy Warski to David: “You are filibustering.”
Everyone on the stream had contempt for David’s dishonest discussion tactics.
It’s exhausting dealing with David.
JF: “It was a case of Jewish arguing. Pilpul.”
One of my of my favorite exchanges in the debate was:
David said, “There are many Jewish benefactors, for example Sheldon Adelson, who are extremely concerned that Jews in the United States are becoming less Jewish at a rate that would see the population of Jews halved every generation.”
Frame Game said, “This is a perfect segue to the white identity question. The reason that, I myself, became interested in the Alt-Right is precisely that. The concept of genocide and dwindling numbers and dwindling representational democracy political power as a result of falling birthrates of ethnic displacement. And it is a concern that Jews are allowed to have about Israel and their intermarriage concerns, and it is one that if you were to do that from a white identity perspective it would get you completely alienated in all respects from Western society. You are not allowed to protect the genetic identity of European heritage unless you happen to be Jewish.
* FRAME GAMES: Man I wish I had time to jump into this earlier tonight. Let me respond to a few points here:
1. Halsey, don’t say Dave cited data and I cited anecdotes. That is the exact opposite of what happened. I cited far more empirical data than Dave did, including polling data concluding the Holocaust is more significant for Jewish identity than belief in God, which I cited to support my claim that mandatory Holocaust classes help foster Jewish identity. Do you remember how Dave responded to that? Hint: He didn’t. He changed topics, then changed again after I read him the Stephen Steinlight article from 2001 citing Holocaust guilt as a defense against the dual loyalty charge. Because his argument was busted.
2. I also cited the 350+ Jewish non-profit advocacy groups alone as empirical, quantifiable evidence that Jews are more organizationally and financially ethnocentric than Whites. Where was Dave’s data on that? Hint: He didn’t have any. And you rebutting that the YMCA is a White advocacy organization loses instantly on inspection. What would happen if the YMCA ever stepped into the public policy ring and opposed mandatory Holocaust classes on grounds that it was anti-White? Can you even imagine?
3. The only reason you may have been left with the wrong impression that “Dave had data” is because he demanded quantifiable data for me to prove the claim that Jews are more socially protected in debating civil liberties / diversity issues than White people. I was very thorough in explaining (1) why empirical data is not required to draw such prima facie logical inferences, and (2) that we could speculate on ways to collect such empirical evidence. Meanwhile, all he cited was an ADL study on anti-Semitism rates (he was wrong, if you remember: he said 90% of Muslims were anti-Semitic when even the ADL’s own poll said only 40% were), and then withdrew it because he couldn’t respond to the validity of the ADL’s measurement questions (which, of course, were junk).
There’s so much more here. Anyway, cheers guys.