> First of all thank you for taking the time to write this long response.

Thanks to you too for engaging with me respectfully. It's a shame that this conversation needs to be anonymous on my side. This will be my last response for some hours. Need to get some work done! :D

> Essentially you have leapfrogged the middle to end up on the other side.

I don't consider this the other side. My position is a fairly moderate "diversity is not as good as it's made out to be". Peter Thiel shares my position as well, but I ack that he's considered fringe at the moment.

> You'd be surprised how many people would interpret your position as a pretty radical one

By "not radical" I meant, I'm an armchair philosopher. I don't think my position is strong/confident enough to merit agency. I am happy merely talking about this, and not acting on it. For instance, I won't go and insult someone from an inferior culture (from my perspective) because of this position.

> It is going to the dogs, but this is in large part because of the group which you say you are a part of

Here, I completely and vehemently disagree. You've just stated this without any effort to argue why. And this truly is the core disagreement. As I said, my "group" isn't Trump or Nazis, but conservatives who want to conserve what is good in this society. What is killing this society is a rejection of enlightenment ideals, promulgated by the leftists and tolerated by the liberals, using violence when necessary.

> hypocrisy

I try to see things from an unbiased perspective. Whether I'm an immigrant or not shouldn't change what's good for western society (and therefore the world). So, this should perhaps prove to you that I'm not taking this position out of self-interest (unlike the whites), but could be taking this position out of ignorance, and I'm open to being convinced out of.

> Why would you mistrust them and not mistrust the other sources that you have found?

I mistrust them as well. Obviously. You could have simply steelmanned me here.

> It appears to me that you are consciously selecting for sources that agree with your way of thinking and discarding those sources that disagree with your way of thinking.

Umm no. This is literally the definition of scientific skepticism. That you try to find ALL explanations of a given phenomenon, and then pick the one with most merit, which explains the phenomenon completely using as few assumptions as possible and refutes most or all counterarguments.

As I said later, I often find mainstream media correct. For instance, climate change is a real threat (but MSM has the most shitty way of talking about it). I convinced myself of it not by MSM in this case, but by reading IPCC, watching nicely-done documentaries about it. On this topic, the rightwing media had only trash explanations, which was easy to see. Skepticism works. I'm not fooling myself. At least, not in such an obvious way.

At the very least, picking the best out of multiple sources is better than aligning with only one.

I should also add that I don't want to believe in what I believe. It's such an uncomfortable stance. I want to be proven wrong! If you have something I could follow which would convince me out of this, I would honestly be grateful!

> Those are considered 'fringe' (and worse) by a very large fraction of the population.

I agree. Again, I don't trust them blindly, but they offer good explanations. SSC and SH are not that fringe. I know senators listen to SH, and a lot of tech folks read SSC.

> conservative thinkers like Niall Ferguson, Douglas Murray,

I never said they are unbiased. I literally called them "conservative". They can't be conservative and unbiased at the same time. Cmon, give your opponent more credit.

> my own deductions from facts obtained from unbiased sources

By unbiased sources, I mean sources like the IPCC report, surveys by trusted names, etc.

> What makes you think I don't? The fact that we disagree?

You seem to not like anything your friends would disagree with, and therefore it seems you're in a filter bubble. Also, your previous comment to the tune of "I've never met someone who openly takes this stance" is another clue.

> So, how is that working out for you so far :) ?

I don't understand the rhetoric. Good?

> destroy it an that given half a chance would deport you

Core disagreement. I don't think they plan to destroy it. Further, I'd rather have a functioning Enlightened society where I'm not living, than a dysfunctional society where I am.