Holla Forums "proves" racialist theory with a few graphs

i asked why.

There is a lot of hoaxy 'science' out there no doubt. But why would you want to breathe in petrol fumes?

Is there some advantage?

we didn't "prove" shit, most people on Holla Forums follow the scientific consensus.
We were just collectively jerking off to our own demise.
The "proofs" we posted here were this youtube series. youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

that's not fumes, that's freedom

If human nature exists and we know what it is then could you explain it?

more control of the people? government existence is inherently authoritarian, and the best way to control people is to make them believe there is no harm in it expanding its power

both climate change and racialist theory are myths to expand the power of the government

Theres a huge difference between trying to justify taxonomic classifications from the 17th century for ideological purposes, and climatology. You should double check any graph you see, including climate science. That being said the scientific literature confirms climate change, while race realism is based around pseudoscientific claims and misusing concepts like heritability and evolution.

human instincts do exist, there are some aspects of humans that are inherent and are best for us to keep them. it doesnt mean we arent reprogrammable, of course, but trying to change something that is not broken never results well. the human nature is real and it is there for a reason, to maintain out existence

But the scientists are not governmental officials, they are people like you and me.
And they answer only to the scientific community and unis around the world

your logic is meh.

We arnt talking about instincts, we are talking about the concept of human nature IE how all human beings are supposed to react. When its brought up in a way that supposes that "this cant happen because of human nature" so if its is human nature that prevents us from doing something then just demonstrate what human nature actually is. It should not be hard.

And yet you support corporations the purest form of tyranny at least with a state you might have some say no matter how small that may be

Oh wow I was in that thread. #HistoryWasMade

Hydrocarbons aren't free lad. Consider your lungs upgraded.

human nature IS our instincts, the subconscious ways we react to events in certain ways to maintain our existence. we are inherently competitive creatures, and thus trying to destroy competition with idealistic egalitarian societies will never work, whether it be anarcho-communism or authoritarian communism

and both you and me could be bought/forced/trained by the government to spread lies in favor of the government. the government isnt there to make profit, it has a nearly limitless income from taxes justified by "social contracts", and it could spend that money on anything, primarily on things that will help it expand its power. unreasonable belief in science is also not very smart btw, theres a thing called scientism.
not to mention, remember once everybody believed everything revolved around the earth because the religious government in power wanted people to believe that myth to stay in power, justified by being the monarchy thats "given by god"

tyrannical corporations are supported by the government, in a truly free market, corporations cannot maintain its power for an extended period of time or at an extended amount due to constant competition.
even your own anarcho-communist theory that the government is there to maintain and help corporations support this btw

His logic is nonexistent

thank you tumour creators

I don't know what you're trying to say. They're both political echo chambers, of course they universally agree with what they like and disagree with what they dont.

I like the fact that instead of using cooperation, the antonym of competition, you use "egalitarian" to give an ideological sounding to it.

So basically you know nothing about neoliberalism?

Take for example the Obama admin's position on fracking:

democracynow.org/2016/12/1/headlines

Or you could look up the scientific literature for both. One seems valid, and the other one doesn't.

Ya, get ready to be banned once you actually start arguing climate science instead of questioning scientist's intentions.

...

1. I find it amusing that you didn't reply to . Stop arguing with leftypol about the ethics of being a scientist, go read the scientific literature. Double check that with what other scientist day etc - that is what's relevant in determining the merits of climate change.
2. Tyrannical corporations are not propped up by a state, corporations existence is contingent on the state. Not only are you scientifically illiterate but you are both economic and historically. The reason leftist oppose capitalism has nothing to with how "voluntary" a transaction is, the historical circumstances that give rise to private property are not voluntary. This wasdue to coercion by the state to force peasants off common land such as the enclosure and game laws in Britain.

Ancaps are nothing but vulgar apologist for the status quo, and your "turdway centrist" position on race realism and climate change is laughable at best, but mostly pathetic.

Why not saying the same thing about the climate deniers? Hell they have a much more logical reason to do so, the energy industry is making billions of dollars tell me what stops them from buying few scientists here and there to deny the effect of their industry ?

The scientific community has more than one way to spot bullshit and stop it, are you saying that the whole of the scientific community is wrong only few guys "that are backed by companies" are right ?

Your own logic of "manipulation to do expand power" works against your argument and kills it.

Sage'd for conspiratorial and bourgeoisie nonsense

*can't

Ok, then what are those instincts in regards to human social relations with empirical evidence?

The only reason you are alive and able to communicate with us is because of mutual aid. If human nature was all against all you would have been eaten by your parents to save calories.

You say that with such confidence, surly you can give some empirical evidence to back up this assertion? Or are you basing it all on faith in what you feel is right? I can wait for you to provide evidence, take your time.

Racial theory using graphs is trying to say that there is some kind of innate "thing" to being black that causes you to be more violent by simply comparing averages. Climate change graphs aren't trying to prove that there is something innate to the world causing climate change. We're measuring reactions based on environmental causes. That's a hell of a false equivalence.

This is the stuff of fantasy state and business are intertwined becuase it suits them to centralize power this way. You will never tear them apart as they actively support each other

we actually are not. Only in instances where only one party can be successful are we competitive, and at that it's simply a matter of self-preservation. In scenarios where any participating parties can be successful, humans tend to be cooperative.

...

Those infographs sure won me over