Spooks are a spooky concept

leftcoms.exe

The irrational system based on the rotation of the sun is fucking stupid, so the stars align and we have a day and night rotation?
Pretty fucking spooky for you to say some metaphysical concept has influence on people shitposting habits. Its just a spontaneous thing.

Holla Forums isn't sending its best

w e w

Individualist anarchists are a cancer and should be purged from this board. They are not leftists.

Easily triggered r/socialism cucks need to be purged from this board.

Yes, and normally instead of that pic I would say "You probably thought that was very clever, didn't you?"

I've read it

It's garbage

Read Stirner, he understood that. Stirner is the end of all philosophy.

99% of stirner fags haven't read stirner

Communalism is not individualist.

...

True, but you can be better than that

Your opinion of its quality - or even its actual quality 0 doesn't change the fact that you should probably read Stirner if you have an interest in understanding Stirner. I'm not sure how you're this confused.

Its not a co-operation. Just has I have never seen a state, I have never seen a cooperation. Imaginary wire connecting other people is a spook.
Also individualism is the best way to encourage Collectivism. It has all the good parts(Grouping together) without the bad parts(HAIL THE PROLETARIAT)

Stirner=Baby's first intro to pomo

Still sticking with the Bell Curve, are we Holla Forums?

Slightly worse than "spooks are spooks"

...

Shit nigger I believed you actually read for a second

I don't give a fuck. If people want to argue "egoist anarchism" that's fine.
If they want to argue for agorism or ancrap. That's fine.
If they want to "debunk" the Holodomor, talk about race, defend third worldism, support socdem or criticize Rojava: That's fine.

I don't get sand in my vagina from people not sharing my point of view.

You cannot secure individual rights without a collective. An individual cannot defend himself against other collectives (corporations, foreign states, bands of thieves). A union, army, or constabulary is a collection of individuals securing their self-interests and liberty where they could not defend these things on their own.

This argument is slightly higher argument than "all unions are collectivism".

...

I just love it when people don't understand what material means.

And

You know what isn't material?
Egalitarianism

Looks like you've been interacting with r/soc to much. Back to r/t_d with you.

SPOOK OFF

Egalitarianism is a reddit meme. Nothing to do with us.

Do an MRI of a African Brain and a MRI of an Asian brain and they look identical barring any serious abnormal defects.

You Nazis keep bringing up genetic differences as if a slightly different skull shape and thicker bones makes everyone of African dessent a nuckle dragging barely literate ape man.

When is the last time someone argued that on this board?

Brain imaging pseudoscience is modern phrenology.

...

You know that that is how we discovered that serial killers and pedophiles have different brain structures from normal people right?

We can make actual observations based off of what we find in the brain and our conclusions based off of these findings hold true under testing.

Read Bookchin. (Remaking Society)

You mean because there's an egalitarian flag which nobody uses but the occasional Holla Forums raider? Or are you alluding to something else.

Read "Liberty or Equality"(Erik Ritter)

I'm arguing (and so did Bookchin) against egalitarianism.

And I know the book.

I am a geneticist and that is definitely not an argument. There are real genetic differences between the races and they have a measurable impact on physiology. That's just reality.

Yeah, like how neurologists discovered that nationalism and racism are symptomatic of a hyperactive threat-processing center of the brain.

I wasn't arguing against that.

I was arguing against the "culture is genetics" maymay.

Wew lad.

Then you should have no difficulty defining "race" in genetic terms. Go on then.

M8 you're gonna confuse someone

Implying that differences in physiology (including brain physiology and Autism Level) wouldn't have cultural consequences.

Not an argument.

Show me your calipers.

LOL is the string "ＩＱ" too triggering to you special snowflakes?

plz respond

You're not a geneticists. Only retards have ever done this.

Nice ruse cruise, OP.

And you're not a grammaticus, I suppose?

I don't check my spelling when replying to shitposters.

Why should I when it's not a position I hold in the first place?

Except that again, I'm not. You can argue that behavior has a basis in genetics. But to equate culture with genetics just doesn't follow.

pls stop molesting kids

Do you even biology? It can be done just as we genotype any set of sub-species.

Motherfucker genes have consequences. The level of every protein in every cell in your body at any given point in time is determined by your genetics. It is not destiny, but it matters. And yes that includes as far as cognition is concerned.

Then explain it, retard.
If you can with your inferior brainpan.

How many cultures have you been a part of? Culture is in many way the sum of smaller behaviors, which are inevitably affected by genetics.

"Why would you argue against your base position?" is a question you sent to yourself.
God damn this is autistic

...

Not here to spoonfeed, sorry. Please see Evolutionary Biology 101 at your local community college. I'm not going to spoonfeed you that shit.

...

Not an argument.

not an argument.

spook an spook

If you are an empiricist, you must acknowledge the existence of Autism Level. It is measurable and correlated with many other phenomena.

I'm going to spoonfeed you gerbers and put you in a diaper.

ANCAPS ARE SIONISTAS!

Is what happens to leftists when they are confronted with someone who knows a chink in their armor better than they do? Gotta say I was hoping for something more dramatic.

"NOT AN ARGUMENT! NOT AN ARGUMENT! THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE NAP! I AM A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN! Autism Level! PHRENOLOGY! NOT AN ARGUMENT," I autistically screech as I am being arrested for keeping child sex slaves in my basement.

When an ethos gets everyone so totally buttmad, you know it's gotta be right.

Lobotomize yourself if you haven't already.

Except behavior and culture aren't the same. Unless you want to argue that the ability to speak French is genetically determined. (And not just in the sense of having an aptitude towards learning languages)

What?

Again. What part of "I'm not egalitarian, I don't believe in equality and I do not argue in favor of egalitarianism" do you not understand?

*teleports behind you*
*impales you with my 26 in sword*
heh, guess i found the chink your armor, kid

Literally none of it, which is why I haven't attacked you for being a egalitarian.
God damn you people get upset over silly shit.

yep that sums it up

NO one is arguing that different groups of humans can share similar genetic mutations not shared by other humans, but how do you define those groups is the question. Populations in biology are considered non-reproducing with other populations. All human populations interbreed with one another, even if it's not common and not direct, there is still gene flow within almost all of humanity (exuding those jungle tribes that haven't been found yet). Where you chose to draw the line is largely arbitrary and often based off a handful of surface features.

By measuring what we determine to be significant differences between populations and correlations within.
Like we do with animals and other lifeforms all the time?

Nice meme. But it's evident this isn't true. Mixing of populations (in the past mostly at the periphery) does and did occur, but not nearly as much as is implied. After all, that is one of the reasons why outward differences vary so much.

This is literally r/socialism tier.

Wow finally an actual argument instead of a bunch of autistic screetching.

Sub-species may interbreed. What you are describing (genetic transfers between subspecies) does not preclude the existence of the subspecies themselves.

t. strawmancap

That's not what a spook is. Read stirner.

Yes, but what evidence do you have that subspecies exist among the human race?

None, because there isn't any.

Spooks exist.
They just exist as spooks.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Read Stirner.

That's my point, most genetic evidence points towards humanity not having subspecies

I really expected better of you, YPG-flag guy

Like the part where aboriginals score lower on ÍQ tests even when adopted and adjusting for income and upbringing?
Or the part where many populations around the world vary strongly in terms of appearance and height?

Do you know how absolutely tiny the genetic difference is between your average human and a great ape or even a fruit fly? And how those tiny differences make all the difference?

Even Bookchin acknowledged we're not equal. What we disagree on with polyps is that's not an excuse to (practically) enslave and exterminate people (and thus extend the vicious cycle of violence that in the age of WMDs will eventually mean the extinction of civilization), but rather elevate everyone to the highest level.

Do you know what the definition of a subspecies is?

This liberal pretend game of "we're all equal!" has never made anyone more equal. It ignores systematic differences and oppression that can be overcome through collective effort, both socially and technologically.

Do you?

Geographic distinct "populations" is basically another word for "subspecies". At least in this context.

I don't think this should be bumplocked.

Based BO.

When do we get a communalism flag senpai?

That isn't a meaningful definition because I can just draw any arbitrary geographic lines and produce different "subspecies" I can create an infinite number of subspecies that way, because any two given geographically distinct populations will have some sort of genetic diversity between them.

What you need to do to prove that humans have subspecies is to demonstrate that there are groups of geographically distinct populations that have low enough gene transfer between other populations that they represent a unique evolutionary lineage of humanity

I use the flag because there is no official communalism flag, and egalitarianism, in some sense of the word, was the flag I liked the most. Not for some naive with to actually make everyone the same.

Why? You aren't a communalist, you piece of shit.

Kek, did he buttblast you in another thread so now you're chasing him around like a neurotic ex?

...

Yes. Modern biology and taxonomy are pseudoscience anyway.

You don't say?

San vs Tehuelche?
Aboriginals vs Irish?
Icelandic vs Japanese?

The aboriginals had been isolated for almost 50,000 years. Is that distinct and isolated enough?

Read Bookchin.

That post reaches the correct conclusion (about Holla Forums) based on the wrong premise.
Your racial beliefs are based on more-or-less true premises (that genetic differences in brain development are real) but reach the wrong conclusions.

If you try a bit harder you might be able to reach the right conclusions using the right reasoning from the right premise.

define subspecies

I belive the whole problem is, that you could just as effectively find enough people within the same "race" which seem to look as different as the people in the picture. Sure, groups exist with visible differences, but drawing borders, in some metaphysical way is nonsense, imo. One can talk about groups, but race connotations implying rigid, eternal and static differences between the two. And that's kind of what evolution isn't about, but I'm not expert either.

I really wish people would drop this anthropocentric view of nature where only humans have any discerning differences between one another.
There can be remarkable diversity in capabilities between animals of the same (sub)species, perhaps not as pronounced as they are in humans, but they are real.

Besides, just like humans, animals can migrate over time, it's not a unique aspect.

http:// www.thefreedictionary.com/Subspecies
"A taxonomic subdivision of a species consisting of an interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms."

The aboriginal populations of Australia certainly fitted that definition.

How was what I said anthropocentric? I regard animals in the same way. I'm just concidering a dialectical interpretation of races, species and so on (eg.: marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dialectics)

Yeah, I'm sure Bookchin would love your crypto-fascist views on race.

Shove your calipers into your fucking eyeballs

Autism spooks

WE HAVE THIS THREAD EVERY
FUCKING
DAY

Just read the book okay?!

Read an actual study and pick up a few courses in evolutionary, population and behavior genetics.

nature.com/jhg/journal/v62/n3/full/jhg2016147a.html
twin.sci-hub.cc/752b2ec98a263c8a25a018ef846e81b8/nagle2016.pdf

Last link is a study that proves the Aboriginals are a genetically isolated population.

What part of "Bookchin didn't believe we were all equal" do you fail to understand?

Stop drinking the liberal cool-aid. Genetically distinct populations exist.

In that case I appreciate your point. However it's not as clear cut as it might seem. There are plenty of cases where seemingly indistinguishable subspecies were recognized as being part of the same populations, and then later recognized as separate. And visa versa.
The Aboriginals are arguably the most extreme example of population isolation in humans.

However, note that it's definitely more complex than "White", "Black", "Native", "Aboriginal" and "Asian" people. And just like with animals, the lines are often blurred.

Ok, but is this equal to "races" exist? If you define races as "Genetically distinct populations", then fine, saying otherwise would imply that there wouldn't even be allowed to be genetic difference between individuals. But as I already mentioned, "race" is a tainted word, and I consider it excellent as a political category for historical reasons.

I haven't read all your links, but assuming that they're true, what practical implications would this have? I suppose you, as a follower of Bookchin, wouldn't conclude some Nazi-tier politics, just because differences do exist.

You're aware that species and subspecies are classified genetically these days rather than by appearance, right?
You think if it was possible to categorize race people wouldn't have done it, with modern tools?
Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid is 19th century guesswork which doesn't fucking work when you consider genes directly, Asians were viewed as subhumans by most racialists until the 20th century.
There are only clines.

I've seen this argument used many times. Yes. It is. Call it "races", call it "subspecies", call it "populations". It's essentially the same in this context.

I recognize that difference exist, that in some cases these are unfavorably expressed in certain individuals, and that it is desirable to overcome what can be genetics burdens.

The idea that acknowledging biodiversity makes you a "nazi" or a "fascist" is ridiculous, and whole fact that somehow automatically implies you want to kill people because they're different says more about the nay-sayers than the advocates.
I'm not the one advocating genocide or ethnic cleansing. But all these "egalitarians" seem to think that is the logical conclusion if we assert we're (genetically) different.

It's not the conclusion, but the legitimation.

But I agree with you, that diversity exists, I believe it's obvious, but one has to disconnect this from the value of a human being, which in has no connection to a persons "genetics burdens". As long as you insist on that, I don't think anyone can really accuse you of being a Nazi/Fascist. (But you probably understand the response you got, when considering that your images are literally Holla Forums bait)

I am aware. But it's proven that Japanese and Icelanders, Irish and Aboriginals, and native Patagonians and native Namibians are (genetically) distinct populations characterized by isolation from each other, in some cases for ten-thousands of years.

19th century "genetics" in this case is as relevant to the 21st century genetics as alchemy is to today's chemistry, or ether theory to quantum mechanics.

people have spooks, therefore spooks are real therefore spooks are material

How does that even follow? How is acknowledging differences a carte blanche for mass murder?

Is modern society so far gone that any assertion of difference must be embedded within a value assessment? Christ.

Obviously there are more steps in between, including the transformation of general xenophobia (fear everyone unknown) into specific xenophobia (fear of strangers of a, e.g race), and then into racism.

Far right-ideologues claim this, and many people on the left, fall for it indirectly. They accept the far-right consequences of their logic, so they doubt the logic that lead them there (existence of biological differences). Sadly this is a common pattern in the left, that they define their political stance as not-right-wing, and assume they have to protect everything the right critiques. And by doing that, they often loose their own ability to critique.

but he's right lol

Yeah and?

So if we accept that there exist genetic differences between races, what conclusion follows from this that isn't tautological? You can't draw any political or social conclusions at all.

The point is that some people are pushing egalitarianism for the sake of opposing the straw men of neo-fascists.

Just because polyps are wrong doesn't mean we have to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. See .
The argument of total perfect equality is not just false, it makes those arguing for it look ridiculous. The differences are self-evident, even if you don't have a master in genetics or evolutionary biology.

What differences?

Posting in the autism thread

Are you going to continue with the ignorance, or will you actually bother to read something up about genetics?

Some of the listed populations have been isolated from each other for up to ten-thousands of years. As a result they haven't just diverged in terms of appearance, but also height, metabolism, tolerance of certain foods and environmental conditions, and also intelligence.

Now of course there exists variation within these populations, but that's not dissimilar from animals.

Do you really look at south American tribes and the original inhabitants of southern Africa, or Icelandic people and Aboriginals and think "Yes, exactly the same. No difference."?

so read physicalist retardation or buddhist literature???

lol at this, one strong man can level like 4 or 5 weaklings by himself. one well trained, intelligent strong man can fuck up a dozen weaklings. This is the mentality of bug people

buddhism doesnt even claim the self does not exist

Remember when Dorner took down the whole federal state by himself? Me neither.

ITT: The autism of ontology.

Read Miyamoto Musashi.

...

Musashi was fucking alpha beyond his years.

Name ONE (1) thing that isn't a spook

You literally can't

Hunger

There's a lot of words in this thread, but not a lot of sense.

that's the point.

Spooks are a spook is a spook.
Have you ever seen a metaphysical metaphysical construct?
I bet you haven't.