Lots of Holla Forumsyps out of the woodwork today, why don't we have a nice acclimation camp for Holla Forums to ask silly questions and throw hot takes at us? Feel free to ask us "commies" questions about economy, race, antisemitism, WWII, you name it, we answer!
Short FAQ Q: Do you support Hillary? A: No
Q: Are you liberals? A: No
Q: How much is Soros paying you? A: Six gorillion dollars
If your question wasn't answered by FAQ, please proceed to this thread and ask a question from us or participate in a discussion
I'd rather have them gathered in a single thread than sperging in multiple threads unannounced like dogs guilty of secretly pooping on the bathroom carpet and then hiding in the corner hoping nobody will notice Mods don't anchor this, it's a containment thread but it needs to be bumped so the Holla Forumsyps could find thisThis thread does not apply to naziposter tho :ˇ)****
I wanna talk about the validity of race. Maybe get into Spearman's Hypothesis a little. Anyone commies cummies up to it?
read this polyps
And what is it about? Telling someone read this ! with no context as to why it needs to be read is useless as shit.
First you have to honestly tell us if you are white yourself.
No. Are you gonna present a argument against race are not?
this, it's not even a pdf
Noy until you show me your skin color. Everyone knows that the majority of Holla Forumsyps are nonwhite larpers. So post your hand.
Nope. Are you gonna make an argument or just try to fuck with me? I mean, here's your chance so show your BASE COMMIE FRIENDS XD how you totally owned those DUMB POLACKS.
Nah let him ask the question. I'd be curious what he has to say about these two quotes.
Getting redpilled was easy since I had a personal interest in evolution, history, and philosophy. There is something intuitive about human nature. Reading a multitude of multi page screen caps was easy since the content made sense and and followed a rational progression (inb4 >muh rationality!). Same for hours spent on jewtube. The islands of theory in my mind became connected and a larger multidisciplinary cognitive map of the world and its history emerged. It made sense. When I read you guys in most cases it lacks energy. Most of it does not make sense and lacks importance and urgency. No rational historical map emerges of the world. At least not one that applies to the future. Reads loopy with big important words that don't go anywhere. Have you ever been to old hotels that feel and look like the glory days have been long gone? They even smell peculiar. That is how feel reading here.
An honest moment here fam. Still helicopter rides for all you commie faggots.
So you want more material that feeds your schizophrenia and you feel what we post is not as entertaining as the alarmist conspirationist bullshit you get from InfoWars, is that right?
its a book explaining economic anthropology and the origin of debt. its relatively short like 500pages i believe. good read
Oh just read State and Revolution at least ffs. We both know right-wingers are miserable humorless weirdos who are a bore to be around.
Should I read Bordiga?
read marx first
dont do it
Adorno is funnily a better starting point for people coming from Holla Forums
Ok fam ordering some Bookchin right now
Why does he bring up the Flynn Effect when talking about group differences? Even James Flynn admits that the Flynn Effect is not corralated to g while group differences are. Sociologist fallacy. This can be explained by genes as much as environment because we would expect people predispositioned to low Autism Level to have trouble with funding schools, completing school, growing food, being low SES. Just scrolled down on the first link and say: Few problems: childern and Autism Level. Childern are more environmentally impacted and this goes away due to gene amplification. If you want to look at the affects of adoption look at adult follow ups. And Autism Level. We don't care about Autism Level. We care about g. Adoption doesn't raise g (when talking about a humane environment, i.e., no child abuse, malnourishment. So really read SES does not raise g).
Also, where is that cat poster race denialist guy? I wanna talk to him.
Hers the pdf, although I wouldn't tell any of Holla Forums to read it.
Nothing has ever made me want to reject Holla Forums more than this. Literally "Low energy, doesn't make sense". You and your theoretical islands can stay cancerous.
You poor intellectually dishonest soul.
Funny you say that because that is how commies come across. The core of internet humor is right wing and I'm not even talking about full 1488. Ffs mate, why does the author have to be Lenin? Who's mentor was an intellectual larper living of the 1%. Do you really think that Soviet communism was a great success? Say what you will about the NutSacs but at least their ideology left human dignity intact and did not cause the death and misery of millions of people.
Hitler came the closest to realizing John Lennon's Imagine, but within his own cultural borders. America pre-central bank wasn't too bad either but they were ruthless. Give me an author that basically says: look early communism was fucking gay, here is a realistic implementable version that does not cause the death of millions and does not negate human nature. That isn't a facade. Who do you guys have left? Norks, Vietnam, Venezuela? Who gives a shit. The only one worth mentioning is China and even they were basically poor peasants until the 90's until they began implementing their own version of capitalism. But what did they certainly succeed at in the process is controlling their population. That is communism, population control without dignity. It is Europe's wet dream which they are working towards. The financial benefits of capitalism with the population control benefits of communism. All under the guise of egalitarianism. Such intellectual dishonest bullshit.
A fucking Adorno. Did you even try to not come up with the most self hating white? The only one of those cunts who I give some credit, who went beyond loopy pseudo intellectual babble, is Habermas. His theory how capitalism basically colonizes society is spot on. That is why colonialism victimhood is a crock of shit. We are equally getting shafted and gamed to this day. But by who? Not a fucking class. By human nature and its network. You're not on top, cry me river. Neither am I. What are you going to do about it? Every human is born into history and late to the game. Communism said lets kill millions in order to sort that out. Hitler and other benevolent dictators said lets really work together based on merit. Yes they killed people too but mostly radicals on the other side who would only subvert their efforts. Pino killed what, 3000 commies? Chump change mate. That's like Iraq wiping out ISIS. Getting rid of the radicals in order to run the country. Though time and time again communism killed the innocent: peasants, teachers, craftsmen, intellectuals, anyone. Suffering. Show me an author who acknowledges that and then gets to the applicable core of your ideology which actually has a realistic future..
It's funny how when a miserable third world country is caught in a downward spiral of shitty environment lowering Autism Level lowering the cognitive environment lowering Autism Level… it's the fault of their genes, but when white trash and basement dwellers in one of the most prosperous first world countries mysteriously fail to "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" and join the labor aristocracy it's the fault of da joos.
I can't even understand how your brain doesn't collapse on itself.
Alright, forget Jews. Ever heard of a place called Poland? The Nazis fucked them worse then the Soviets fucked Ukraine.
Also, reading from your read link Catposter posts some studies. I'll go over what he posted. What he posted just asserts these claims.
Are you making assertions about me?
In what way? Why would any of us do that? I mean basing your politics around race is dumb as shit, but I could really care less about skin color. You guys obsess over it though. So its not a matter of making an argument "against" anything, other than your misguided fixation on it, we simply hold extreme apathy in this regard
This, our apathy towards race is resultant from our universalist view of people in terms of labour, prove race is real and we'd still view all people under this lens. If you prove race realism, what are the results anyways? Start segregating people to create more divides? How will you turn countries filled with countless ethnicities and cultures into monolithic structures?
What? Was Hitler killing his own people? What was the commie great success? Because almost all the world super powers did not decide to come down on them, bankrolled them for decades first and handed them half of Europe on a platter. The Germans got jumped mate. Soviets already killed millions before Hitler was even a thing. Tell me how Germany was being bad, taking into consideration the times, and disregarding postwar victor memes.
Thanks for disregarding them pesky jews. Mate, at least 8 million people died thanks to communism in the Ukraine. How many Poles due to Germans? 10/20/50K? Not nice I know, but the Poles certainly poked the hornets nest by killing ethnic Germans in their lands. What I'll concede though is that that is still a grey area of history but you can't truly believe that the Poles were playing nice. And seriously. You don't think Poles got fucked even harder by commies? Talk to Poles, see the hatred for Russia in their eyes.
It is the way you guys write a lot of times, lacking some sort of direction and therefore passion. Trying to make old concepts relevant while most of it seems outdated. Like a forced meme.
Let me ask this though: what do you guys actually want to happen, which is actually feasible? Any good screencaps, infographs, whatever. Surely you must be able to condense your theory? And asking the commies an not the anarchist because anarchism is just plain retarded and I think even commies will agree. 100% completely negating human nature and lets ignore the infrastructure and society that is already in place.
You ever feel doubt about your convictions about the things you named? No? Good, I'm here to change them.
Gas them all or at least deport the niggers, muzzies and spics at gunpoint. The alt-right is the movement of peace though!
All jungle apes have to leave! Access to white societies is NOT a human right! Living near white people is NOT a human right!
Bye bye baboons!
What race amounts to is a deterministic structure of ethnicity/culture/intelligence under the eyes of genetics. Fuck the MASSIVE amount of nurture that goes into the equation, fuck epigenetics, fuck trying to interpolate how these race genes actually interact in the whole system and what their basis actually is. It is all after the justification of an abstraction of human development to therein justify totalitarian human distinctions.
Just think, all of this because of one dedicated Brazilian shitposter on 4/pol/ whose dedication to spamming cuck threads at insecure NEETs changed the course of history
If you're gonna post in Holla Forumsface at least try to be low-key bout it. It's like you're trying way to hard to be some kinda Stormfag caricature.
You have to go back, monkey man. Living in white society is not a human right.
I never said that, from a medical perspective it is a consideration but likewise not a very solid one. From a genetic standpoint it is likewise a deviation but not necessarily one with solid and clearly defined boundaries. Most of the misconceptions arise from a misunderstanding of epigenetic regulation.
dog I don't even really care but you gotta make arguments or you're gonna catch a ban for retarded shitposting. If you wanna come here and debate thats fine but this aint gonna cut it
Nothing's a human right. My British citizenship ain't a human right, but then again revoking it ain't yours either. The only thing that matters is whether you can take it from me or if I can hold onto it.
Why do you keep on ban evading?
funding and fighting a war for oil for 50 years isn´t either idiot also let me remind you that africans were minding their own shit until the """ eternal anglo """ tried to build an empire
yo you finish da big ego book yet afro, I remember last time you thought he was ranting about jews
Can you disentangle nuture from genes? I mean, all organisms are genes expressed in an environment so at best you have heritability. Your parents are .5 of your own genes. Is .5 of shared environment really genetic? Your peers, countered under unique environment: they're chosen because people prefer those genetically similar. Should that be genes? It's really fucking hard to tell nuture from nature when you really get into depth of it. a) you need genes in the first place for epigenetics so if someone is going to even take on an epigenetic impact, it's going to be down to their own genes which makes epigenetics heritable between two people; b) epigenetics is taking into account when factoring for shared environment in regards to heritability, or else it's in unique environment. You don't need genes for heritability. Something that's always been known. But if you're interest in additive and epistatic affects then good luck with that shit.
Whatever. I was taking the piss out of you. >From a genetic standpoint it is likewise a deviation but not necessarily one with solid and clearly defined boundaries. You don't need clear boundaries for validity. Examples: tall-short; dark-bright; car-truck-SUV; mountains-flatland-slopes. Explain the epigenetics part. This is a meme now days.
Don't forget bout The Eternal Croissant.
Me on the left
Never made that connection, let alone posted bout it on Holla Forums.
as well as the spanish, portugese plus my home country, germany btw has the """ wordfilter been removed or am i just dumb? never tried to use it before
wtf was this post?
POST FEET BITCH
There's saved and then there's fucken saved. This time it's the latter.
I sincerely remember a while back saying you were listening to an audiobook of him but that you stopped or something in relation to him going on about his classification of jewish thought. Then again, could have been anyone really.
Portuguese first mate, and mostly trading. Though what were they doing in Africa? Conquering and killing each other, building empires. Arabs? Same thing. India, Asians, New World same thing. Almost like there is some innate human mechanism at play. Europe upped the game though and took it global. Should Europe ask Cro Magnons, Mongolians, Ottomans and Persians for reparations. Should Brits ask the Scandinavians? The Chickasaw the Cherokee? You can see what goes on here historically don't you? Central Asia and Eastern Europe were minding their own business before the commies came. Every large nation wants to build and empire.
I too was minding my business before my country got invaded by RABID JUNGLE APES
Don't reply to that post. Maybe if we all just ignore it it'll go away and take the stormfag that posted it with it.
yes going from absolute backwater shithole to being the 2. worldpower in 30 years plus raping Hitlers ass after having fought 2 additional wars in the 20s Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf how a war would be nescessary and also even if you´re dumb enough to believe that poland attacked first you completly disregarded the whole german expansion prior to ww2 lol easy, look up privatisation
Yes? How many layers of cognitive dissonance are you on?
Try millions of ethnic Poles, but even that is actually peanuts compared to the long-term cultural and economic devastation they inflicted on the Polish nation. Are you the same poster who was accusing others of intellectual dishonesty a few posts ago?
Actually, no. The commies were demonstrably more benevolent, especially towards Polish nationalism. I expect you to be sufficiently amazed by that historical anomaly. People who lived under imperialist oppression hate their last oppressors? Crazy.
So what standards do you use to define success exactly because I'm pretty sure that was a tour-de-force right there? I mean, Putin must have wet dreams about pulling off something like this. Also I'm not even here to defend ☭TANKIE☭ assholes but it's plainly ridiculous to ignore the various achievements of the Soviet Union in all matters. Why do you think they were the US' primary rivals for half a century? Porkies were sweating bullets in the 60s and going into full crisis mode over the pace at which socialist states were progressing.
Thankfully for you, since your best defense remains "the Nazis got wrecked so fast they didn't even have the time to collapse on their own like those other totalitarian shitholes that got to massacre their victims at their leisure."
Goddamn it! You got me!
What do you do when people are NS but are not Hitlerites?
I knew it, afro is actually a meme in itself. AFRO GANG IS TAKING THIS THREAD NO Holla ForumsYP CAN STAND IN THE WAY OF AFRICAN UNITY
Yes you do. In science we refer to it as statistical signficance. It is the basis of defining clear cut differences in populations based on the likehood those differences are due purely to chance, or derived from actual concrete phenomena.
A meme? Epigenetics is a fundamental mechanism in gene regulation. Maybe its the alcohol messing with my head but I can't think of how something like that would be a meme, nevertheless I'll try to lay it out in layman's terms: Epigenetics involves chemical modifications to your DNA or regulatory components of it that DO NOT actually affect your genetics. The most canonical version of this is DNA methylation, basically adding CH3 chemical groups to C nucleotides. This results in gene downregulation. Epigenetics regulation can also happen with histones, which are proteins that your DNA is wrapped up on and eventually forms your chromosomes during mitosis. Histone epigenetics is a bit more complicated than simple DNA methylation however. In general though it is thought that histone acetylation results in gene downregulation. Conversely, histone methylation can result in a gene either be up or downregulated. The reason all this is significant is because it decides whether a gene is expressed or not. What good is a recipe book if its buried in your garage? So that being said, epigenetics are regulated phenomena and tightly controlled in response to many stimuli, including the environment, social interaction, nutrition status, ect. It has been published and quite well established that epigenetic regulation is a major component of the "nature vs nuture" argument. Thus, taking epigenetics into account gives ones a clearer picture of biology, and as a result suggests nature and environment have a massive influence on one's development, and in many cases can override genetics. Thus, simply resorting to "muh genetics" is reductionist and ludicrously disingenuous, if not outright fucking retarded.
Sincere doubt. Read Marx first before opening your stinky mouth.
So it was some thirsty guy who had snow fever?
BYE BYE BABOONS
I gotta admit that pictures funny for some reason sage for lack of contribution
Should we toss species for being fuzzy? Because you're making the contuimm fallacy.
Statistical significance is wether or not a variable is reliable. Not validity or what is predicts. We're talking about validity: "You don't need clear boundaries for validity" and not reliability. While they may go hand in hand you can have one without the other. I know what it is. It's a meme because people think this explains group differences. As said, epigenetics, which stems from environmental causes, are factored for when talking about between group heritability in either shared or unique environment. Hence why it's a meme.
Species don't fucking apear because they're isolated you dumb cuck, otherwise we'd see crocodiles and aligators and shit being incredibly different from eachother, yet they're not. Becaus they evolved into perfect waterdwelling predators and don't need to evolve further
Read the convo. We're talking about if a concept needs to have an exact critera for it to have validity (aka, can not be fuzzy). So why you're bringing up isolated populations not being a critera for species is beyond me when that wasn't the point of me bringing up species, but showing that even the concept of species is vague as all hell.
That is why these discussions, albeit interesting, have no end. We are worlds apart and the fundamentals on which our rational thinking is based differs too much. Even before knowing the true nature of WWII I could understand how fucked communism is.
You serious can't see how the scales are off? Tens of millions self inflicted Soviet deaths. How does that even compare to whatever Germans did?
Millions, seriously? You must be taking into account the 10million, I mean 6 million, no 4 million. I don't know anymore, the number just keeps going down. How many jews again?
Scale nigga, scale! Go for it, take into account the holohoax, and humor me, you can even use the first estimate of 12 million. STILL commies took the cake with tens of millions more. And then lets add the other commie states to the tally. Jesus christ you guys really care about the proletariat. All equal in death.
The Americans managed to go to space without killing their own people, impressive. And then they did not bankrupt themselves and are still in the game almost thirty years after soviets bit the dust. What the soviets did though, for sure that was impressive and they certainly had the manpower for it. Not bad even still if commies had 25 years of external funding first. But what happened then mate? It came crumbling down. Like almost all the others and only China evolved. And at what cost? The so called pigs did not even caused the fraction of deaths in the world as the commies. Meddling for sure, just like the Soviets were meddling in the world. Almost like it is, there it is again, some sort of innate human behavior. Russian people were already amazing with some great writers and scientists. They would have been great without communism, maybe even greater.
Almost a decade Germans had a great life with dignity while soviets already had made great gains in the death and human suffering department in their first five years. Few millions dead already, not bad.
Holy shit. Yeah Russians are some of the most toughest and direct peoples in the world. They don't sugarcoat. Must have been their pleasant history I guess. Show some proofs that soviets did not kill their own people?
Nigga Marx, for real.
It's funny that you guys literally want to meme a jewish trick back into reality for a better world while the right wants to undo a jewish trick to bring back balance to an imperfect system that does not cause the deaths of millions whilst creating some prosperity that does not implode on itself (for now). But hey not bad for a wealth generating system that was going before communism and is still going after communism. Your ideology is dead. I'll keep doing mine, you do yours, but in the meanwhile I do see right wing ideology having the best shot at changing the system though it is a uphill battle and maybe nothing will come of it. The game is fucked up, but I don't deny that the game is being played. Niggas we are going to disagree.
60 million according to the guy in your pic's estimates (he got treated for cancer in a gulag).
Mayr personally gave up on the idea that isolation is the primary cause of speciation. Mayr, owing both to its implausibility and to the paucity of evidence. The implausibility arose because it seemed to require that an incipient species must change both its ecological niche and its reproductive biology simultaneously, whereas neither change alone could become established. In recent decades, however, Guy Bush, along with others, gathered increasingly strong evidence for sympatric speciation in some insects and other groups. These researchers maintained that sympatric speciation was readily achieved in certain groups, such as insects that mated on the same plants on which they fed. In these cases, changes in ecological niche and reproductive behavior were manifestations of the same genetic changes, which overcame the objection that neither change alone could become established. Despite his earlier skepticism, Mayr conceded that “so many examples of sympatric speciation were found, particularly among fishes and insects, that there is now no longer any doubt about the frequency of sympatric speciation” (Mayr 2004a, p. 108).
And again, how is this relevant to my point? My point was showing that species it self is a fuzzy term and that fuzziness itself is not a reason for not using a term. What you brought up has nothing to do with my actual point.
That is irrelevant. Species are already an incredibly murky subject in biology. As an example, certain viruses mutate so rapidly in hosts its hard to classify them as the original species that infected the host. Nonetheless species are largely defined as organisms that are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. This isn't inherently based on genetic code, and more to do with DNA organization. In other words, the number of chomosomes you have. So I'm not saying toss the concept, I'm saying its irrelevant. Especially when you consider the genetic homology between humans and bananas, or even humans and apes. (70% and ~98% respectively). And factored in with regard to humans, the differences between "races" is even more murky and less clearly defined. Which makes it a rather pointless thing to engage in unless absolutely warranted for, which is exceedingly rare in my experience. According to what definition? From wikipedia page on a Student's t-test, one of the most common statistical analyses in science: This sort of test is used to either accept or reject a hypothesis. It gives validity to a hypothesis, in other words, based on whether or not the distributions "follows a Student's t-distribution under the null hypothesis." In other words, the generate a statistic as to the chance a difference in distribution is generated purely by chance. The lower the p-value generated by this formula, the lower the odds the result is chance. In other words, it lends credence or validity to your result.
It easily can. It's quite simple they way you're raised influences your epigenetics. There was a rather pivotal "nature vs nuture" mouse study on this very issue. You can read more here:academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/61/8/588/336969 nevertheless it is quite accepted that people have different cultures, and as a result the social constructs these generate effect not only our psychologies, but our epigenetic profiles. Furthermore socioeconomic factors, such as wealth inequality, can effect various biolgical outcomes, such as psychology and health related disparities/outcomes. This is relatively considered common knowledge and quite well documented scientifically.
pathetic pic related
Nah, and your protests are disingenuous too. The entire Nazi mystique rests on physically removing/extirpating (whatever that means) large swaths of the population within the lands they governed or occupied. I'm pretty sure that's why your ilk cheer on them. So you're basically arguing against your own convictions here: a failure to "uproot" large amounts of undesirables would be considered a defeat for the Nazi ideology.
I specifically specified ethnic Poles, specifically, because I understand you specifically don't consider Jews human or refuse to acknowledge anything bad ever happened to them specifically. But I don't need to. The civilian deaths in Poland caused by the Nazi regime already outstripped any "communist dictator", relative to the population, besides good old Pol Pot. Speaking of Pol Pot, since you're open to the idea of death tolls propaganda I must point out that the US dropped more tons of explosives on Cambodia than it did on the Axis powers, shortly before Pol Pot allegedly dodecimated his population, so I'm pretty sure a lot of the deaths under that regime are more correctly attributable to the US bombing campaigns, either directly or indirectly. Granted, given that the US essentially supported Pol Pot with their bombings, you might say he was ultimately responsible for that in a way. By the way, the people claiming millions of Poles died under the Nazis include rabidly anti-communist Polish nationalists who feel that Soviet atrocities get too little press compared to Nazi ones.
I had initially called you out like 30 posts ago on that same absurdity:
Completely relevant. It's about validity. I've shown that other wildly accepted concepts are used despite their vaguely bounded definitions. And It's still used because it has validity. Which is what we care about. And I proved 25 other definitions. What makes yours better? It would need to be validity. Neither is race. Race is based on either a) subspecies or b) genetic clustering. Take your pick. I prefer b) because subspecies is a vague as balls conversation that leads to stuff like this: philosophy more than facts. It's a relevant comparison showing that a concept can be fuzzy but still valid. Yes, hence why we care about allele frequency, since genes itself is just a trait regulated by nucleotides. Being murky and less defined does not mean it does not exist. Just makes it fuzzy. Do you concede that fuzziness doesn't mean a concept isn't scientifically valid? I'm using statpac's. You're thinking of P values, my guy. This is P value. Correct. That's in a hypthosis. Not a taxonomic rank or catorigization. You're mistaking validity in a hypthosis for validity in a categorization as being the same. That's your problem. For a hypthosis (P values that is).. Not taxomony or catorigization, which will gain validity not from statistics but, depending on the context, it can be used to help explain the world.
Wtf why does race even matter? and why is Autism Level even talked about?
BYE BYE MONKEY MAN
Does Holla Forums even try at this point?
Depends on the person. Personally because I feel attached to my race. I present some ideas to you if you want but I'd have to assert things. The only reason why group differences are talked about is because people will parrot around that it's okay for a race to lose their sovereignty and self determination. So, we try to show why each race is unique and deserves their own space. Hate works best for it. If love worked best I would be doing love. Not my fault hate is a good tactic.
So ultimately it doesn't really matter. Cool.
what /polyps/ never realize is that there can never be any form of self determination as long as there is a ruling class. You think that everything would be nilly willy cause everybody has the same skin colour without realizing that the workers of the world a much closer to being your brother than the assholes that only want to sell you shit.
That's your flavor of system not mine. Whatever. I came to discuss race. Not true. But I can not survive to see better things if the group which I am part of does not survive. Hence why I must secure my group. Well, I mean, Whites do have a kinship coefficient of .25 with me, so… half brother…
No arguments are needed. None of it matters. Day of the Shark soon for all communists. Stop lying to yourselves, and helps us re-distribute your worthless bodies to nature. Don’t be selfish, it’s for the greater good!
Sure. Are you saying emotional values have no meaning in the real world? I can also bring up biological arguments if you like, such as kinship coefficients and inclusive fitness. Also, where did I get outraged?
Right wing? The fuck? We’ll help them probably considering your parasitical nature,but then continue our own wars with them.
Fear is Nothing to be ashamed of. It’s a natural process, survival of the fittest and all that. Take heart you will finally be of use to something in this world.
you dont´get it, do you? Your "race" as a group doesn´t have any common interest that isn´t justified by just itself. It´s a logical fallacy. Meanwhile, as the group of "worker" there is a multitude of common interest that are shared universally and have a materialistic justification. Easy examples that even an idiot can understand: bad argument good argument, because they are directly linked to materialistic real world things, and not just ideological things
Please, no more. Your last post nearly killed me.
Okay! Do you stand by all of these statements then?: #1. emotional care for a child is valueless for the child; #2. emotion can not lead to someone valuing and pursuing XYZ thus creating something meanful to person A.; #3. emotion can not being the driving factor of action for TUV.
If you were all confident in your ability to produce value you would be adverse to the thought of it being taken from you and redistributed to others based not on merit, but by virtue of their existence. Hence why communists are either A) Intellectuals who publish papers for a living (that hardly ever get cited anyways because they have no value) or B) pissed off working class people who feel they are getting a raw deal, or C) middle class LARPers who would be the first to die in the actual revolution and its immediate aftermath. B) are usually the shock troopers of A) and they are always the ones to suffer the worst under the power mongering that B) engages in when the world is so unfortunate to give them any semblance of political power and access to and monopolization of force.
That was splendidly put. So when are we roasting the porkies?
End corporate welfare from the state and you wont have any porkies left.
That's loony even by ancrap standards.
But management of resources for a company producing billions of dollars in capital means you are not owed millions of dollars in compensation? I suppose if the NFL makes billions per year but the players really only need few tens of thousands to survive they ought to do just that.
Is that a joke where the punchline is that you won't have porkies left because you had to deal with them all first to end corporate welfare and the general prostitution of the state to corporate interests?
what you are discribing in 1 and 2 are social values and in all 3 the emotion still doesn´t have any value in itself as it is still the action in the real world that does anything whatsoever just a few things for you think about so that maybe you can come to your own conclusion: 1.Is it impossible to act against your emotion or act without emotions? 2. If 1 is possible, is their any way an observant can in any way be sure of the emotion that caused an action just by observing? 3. Is in 2 the action a fact even befor validating the emotional state
The common interest would be our sovereignty and survival, which is to an extent just self interest due to us sharing .1-.33 of our genes depending on what you set the base population as. Is interest needed to be justified out of self interest? Why is that? So if my group is able to being materialistic value than it is justified then and only then? Ok: more of my race = more properties owned and general power. There. Justified through self group interest for a materilaiatic reason. This implies that there's no common ground generally among the race, which there is: survival and group interest. Group interest can also extended beyond race, but race is a factor.
Ok. Well, then you have to show me evidence that there's reasons why these things do not matter.
this is exactly what i mean, the reason for the group existing is the groups existing itself wih doesn´t come from anything and doesn´t lead to anything, it´s self contained and therefore a logical fallacy Ok but my materialistic argument is that if my group is every human being it has absolut property and absolut power. Therefore, my argument is materialistically better.
What I'm describing in 1 and 2 is emotion being used as a clear driver for outcome of 1 and 2. Simple one would for explaining would be #1.: the child values parental emotion. The child having parental emotion leads to a good outcome for the child. The child's outcome is valued. Since emotion is the resource the child values, then emotion is valued and meaningful. Rather it is a social value or not does not matter. What matters is that clear value, steming from whatever or called whatever, is there. If emotion in all 3 are variables then they do have value (assuming the outcome has value). Yes. Is it possible to get to work without a car? Then the car is meaningless. Unless the car is a variable, which it is in my examples. Yes. Seeing the action alone? No. In general? Yes. On average, of course. Kek.
What the group leads to is what the group decides. In this, what it's biologically predisposed to do since we're talking about biological beings. Also, you're saying group interest, an extended self interest, is logically fallacious. This implies that there's only group of humans. As said before, anyone not on my sub-population as a anti-kinship with me, factualizing they're not my group.
i am not arguing wether or not emotions exist or not i am just saying that an emotion itself does not have a value. the mother can have emotions for the child as much as she wants but what the child experiences is an action. for the act of getting to work the car is completly meaningless in your example. you arrive to work. for the act of you arriving at work it does not matter if you drove by car or propelled yourself through the air with fecal matter also being on average right about being able to determine the emotion is not in any way an argument about being sure. Sure is absolute. Which the action is, not the emotion.
You're not getting what I'm saying. If emotion is a variable or a driver for action or outcome XYZ then emotion is valued if action or outcome XYZ is valued. Such is in the way someone can value their wife's love because the outcome is them feeling good their marriage.
ok i am starting to get annoyed since you are this dense. The ARGUMENT doesn´t come from anything, it doesn´t lead to anything and it is self contained. It´s premises require the truth of their conclusion. that´s the most basic logical fallacy their is hell didn´t they teach you this in school? Also human is a group. everybody that play magic in atlanta is a group. you are part of an endless number of groups. just because you value one specific of your groups more than the others based on a logical fallacy doesn´t mean you´re in any way right
I love how Holla Forums doesn't know why porky engages in philanthropy and makes it out to be some big conspiracy theory.
you don´t value your love because you can´t experience your wifes love you can only experience acts that you suspect are based of your wifes love. If your wife were to lie to you until your death about loving you but acts just as she would´ve acted if she really loved you doesn´t matter. u wouldn´t know. there is no certainty about thinks you can´t experience. (i could go even further and proof that there is actually no real absolut certainty at all about everything that isn´t axiomatic and virtual but that would take way too long)
Because? On you to show why self group interest is a logical fallacy. If group X does Y and group X survives, it leads to Y. So the conclusion is X leads to Y. All of these groups derive from genes expressed in an environment. Since that's what we all are, having my genes survive leads to myself surviving. My sub-population is between .1-.33 me. Them surviving leads me part of me surviving. Thus, it is self interest and group interest for us to survive. Aka: in-group bias is in our interest. Let's do in-group favouritism.
You have no certainty you're be alive tomorrow. Does that mean you have no value for being alive tomorrow? Also, you're nicpicking examples while ignoring the rule.
i even spelled it in caps for you cmon man
being alive or dead is not an emotion it´s an observibal state. My argument was that emotions are not an observibal state and therefore meaningless.
Whatever. Here, blank slate. Here's my argument: I am genes expressed in an environment. If I want to survive, I pass on my genes. My sub-population shares between .1-.33 of a kinship coefficient with me. Thus, to maximize my self survival, their survival is my interest to.
Observable by everyday means? Sure. Observable by other means? Sure.
you don´t survive because you pass on your genes. that simple
ok dude one last time: you can´t observe emotions. you can observe actions.
Completely untrue. All organisms are genes expressed in an environment. Everything about you is genes expression and reacting to an envirmoent. Pass on your genes and you pass on what makes you you. Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying. As in I can't just look at someone and say 'yeah, he's feeling love' or some shit? Sure. But I can test what chemical composition is in your blood stem and what interaction that has with your genes regulation emotion. That is observable.
you are your consciousness and not your genes dude the chemical in your blood themself have no meaning at all. the actions that come from them have a meaning. it´s a question of the perspective
It's a question of self survival. But I don't into philosophy so I'd have to concede there. Any arguments against my kinship model of self interest?
You are your genes. I have to keep repeating this point: you're genes expressed in an environment. Every trait about you is genes expressing themselves in an envirnoment. If the envirnoment calls for it, the genes will change their expression. In this sense, there is no true environmental causation for any trait. Only influence and genes reacting. The only time we can say that envirnoment plays .X part is the question of heritability, which has problems in itself when ask what envirnoment is. But on the individual bases, heritablity does not matter. The only thing you can pass on is genes and the only thing you are is genes (in an envirnoment). For you to survive you can replicate yourself, your genes, by an offspring. But you say "you're not your genes. Burden of proof is on you.
it just occured to me where the the problem in understanding could lay: it´s the difference between inherent value and given value. The modern philosophical point of view is that value can not exist for itself, but is always in the context of at least two. Anyways i´m really giving you props for staying with me this long if you´re not into philosophy since my whole argument was from a philosophical standpoint. also no i don´t know this whole kinship model since i´m not the original user you argued with. My guess is that it´s something biological in which case i am not interested in arguing because all sciences in their nature as sciences miss the critical point of meta-self criticism
Personally I've found the essence of human nature through mind-break doujins.
Seriously this. This thread was made for Holla Forumsyps, no reason to all dank meme style as if the thread needed derailing.
if you don´t make your existing dependend on your consciousnes, why don´t you go all the way and stop with the genes? you are a big bunch of atoms wich express themself in an enviroment. matter can not dissepear it can only set itself differently back together. and as much as your genes live on without your consciousness your atoms do as well in pretty much the same manner. so either way your consciousness is important and your genes don´t matter or it doesn´t and your genes matter as much as one of the carbon atoms in your left ear
Ooops forgot to take off shitposting name/flag
Okay. See I'm in not into philosophy. So I can't argue against what your points here. So on that I must conceded. Kinship coefficient, as far as your concerned is 'how related, genetically, X is to you'. Were X is what organism you're comparing. Or here: Mom: .5 related to you. Dad: .5 related to you. Brother: .5 related to you. Grandpa: .25 related to you. Half sibling: .25 related to you. Well, people of different subpopulations have anti-kinship with you while your subpopulation is set to .0. If you set, say Africans, to .0, aka your base population, a random individual in your subpopulation now becomes as genetically related to you more than your grandpa. A random person in your subpopulation is now .33 genetically related to you. See how that can be significant from a genetic point of view?
I think that you were trying to meme fukken saved but you accidentally the whole thing. Feel better buddy
So basically what you're asking is: Because while atoms make the genes, the genes itself make me. Atoms is only one side, but genes in an environment captures everything about me. Traits; atoms; chemicals; SNPs; rare alleles; everything. To how I think and feel.
Also, genes are the only true thing I can pass on. Along with "environment", whatever the fuck envirnoment is.
that system seems pretty rudimentary to me given that genes don´t work like "you´re 50% your dads genes and 50% those of your mom" as it doesn´t even, as you discribe it here, take dominant and recessive genes in consideration but that doesn´t matter for me as a philosopher because my problem with sciences is that it only asks what, and not why, as in biology tells you what your genes are, but not why you should care.
Did someone on 4/pol/ post a link here? Where do these guys come from all of a sudden
i´m not telling you that you should preserve atoms i am saying that caring about passing on your genes is equally as stupid as caring about your atoms. all that stuff about them capturing your essence is of as much use as a foto with no one to look at it
No, no, no. You're misunderstanding between are and expressed. You are .5 of your mom's and dad's genes. What you express depends on what dominate traits are passed down from each. These are too different questions in relation to kinship. Kinship coefficient does not rely on what genes are expressed, but what genes you have, expressed or not. So see how your critique is a misunderstanding?
Nope. Because you can not preserve atoms. You can preserve genes, which are you. You can only argue that self interest is not rational. Which fails from a biological prospective. Don't know about philosophy.
because genes are the only viable evidence for your existence and how they're coded determine your physical existence and how you experience the world as an individual therefore your genes could by proxy be responsible for your every 'unique' thought and your very personality
This user knows what's up. This is just a trufax statement.
from personal experience I know >>>Holla Forums has no scientists or historians posting tends to be a significant amount of ignorance on world history and subjects concerning biology and physics especially
They don't into statistics either. This guy thought statistical significance proved validity, not only in statistics but in taxomony too.
This does not explain why i should care about them.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. What on Earth are you talking about, you cretin? I'm guessing you read the Alternative Hypothesis' bastardization of Fst values but you're incapable of even regurgitating it correctly.
No. I read Harpending's paper. Why don't you explain were I'm wrong?
your own justification for not caring about them could be due to dimethylation of one of your chromosomes affecting how your genes are expressed this could result in your cerebral cortex containing less or more white/grey matter, or even how large your neural synapses are you and the ego that is you are nothing but a chemical program being expressed
yep statistics is used widely in biology and psychology when they're trying to adhere to the scientific method all goes over their heads
For fucks sake. Dudes. Decision time. Is race real and does it really matter? (race in the genetics way and not the socially constructed view of how a person of x ethnicity should act)
bollocks. There's not a single cell in my body with the same DNA of another one, there are always small variations for the most varied reasons. Epigenetics is a big one, but not the only one. Not to mention DNA has little to do with how we think, the brain is extremely plastic and constantly adapts to the current situation. Hell see split brain patients to see that we are not even a single coherent entity within our brain.
You want to prove validity (i.e. explaining the world) by using statistical significance when talking about catorigzation scheme? Ok. Can be done. Again, this doesn't argue against the validity of race. Only what context.
No, you're reifing your "self", never heard of the concept of an evil twin?
Can we at least agree that Manson was a cross-spectrum /ourguy/? Nazis and Commies alike adored the man, from GLR to The Symbonese Liberation Army.
Top kek you think recombination means you don't get .5 of your alleles from your parents? Are you stupid or just fucking with me?
yes race is a label defined by significant differences in phenotypes these differences in phenotypes have genetic origins differences in genetic code can have result in a whole host of different factors we dont have the ability to understand yet for instance how do you know that the colour you see is the same as what everyone else sees? how do you know if the emotions you feel that guide the decision making of every primitive across the globe are the same as the next person? the manner in which you experience existence is through the lens of your biological based physical existence
But what if the two comes in conflict? What if my homozygot twin brother have a self interest opposing mine?
Are you kidding me? Modern science is all based on statistics and probability. The laws of thermodynamics are entirely based on probability, hell even the law of conservation of energy is a theory of probability supported by statistical analysis.
So, Nov. 4th, huh?
recombination is a great deal random, it could be .45 .55, .47 .53, 40. 60. In the end most of your ancestors are erased from your DNA. Not to mention mytochondrial DNA which is only female so you're getting cucked unless your family line is passed through consistently through girls (having 3 or 4 boys = fucked)
No shit, so what?
Ok right. So genetics are real, sick. Does this in any way prove nazis right? Is racial segregation/purity the way to go? My thoughts would be having more mixed genetics the better. Evolution n shiet.
there is no immortality except through cloning, get over it.
Be honest. How many of you voted for Trump for accelerationism? I did
Tell him to stop being a fag then.
Did you read the whole argument. Summed up, I'm red and he's green:
I don't understand which side are you on with that mutualist flag, but as an eurofag, I think this is a dumb move to vote for Trump for accelerationism. Is it really that fucking hard to not vote at if you despise both Clinton and Trump (which is entirety of Holla Forums, ideally).
you'd think that too but there are many problems with this degenerative genetic conditions like sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis arent eliminated by diversification of the gene pool instead they are spread over a wider range affecting more of the population there are some theories stating humanity has reached the apex of our evolution without the pressures of natural selection forcing us to remain adaptable instead sexual selection is the only reproductive pleasure in time such a process usually results in weakened overspecialised organisms that can only exist under the right conditions on specialised diets we're marching towards extinction unless technology can supplant biology
Look up outbreeding depression. Rather it happens in humans is debatable and people just avoid it. Especially since it's subjective to what is better.
I used to be a 4/pol/yp so that should explain somethingplus I'm drunk af I feel that people would be too complacent under Clinton.
AnCapistan will fix it.
by sending us back to the dark ages not a solution thats like saying I can stop wanking myself to death by cutting off my hands
I'm sorry, who is of the two that believes statistical significance is enough? Your summary contradicts your point.
there's nothing wrong with proles living in the dark ages. Technology is so fast knowledge can't die, there's nothing wrong with restricting it to the right poeple.
So in the end, using race as an argument is a sort of moot point. Down to personal preference then?
Entirely wrong. For evolution to apply you need replication, selection, and mutation. (For evolution to apply you need replication of genes, selection for and against genes, and mutation of genes). Selection can be in the simple form of people shooting their brains out, a guy dying in a car accident or people not reproducing more. Evolution is still on going. Unless you somehow have every generation reproduce 100% to the T every person and then somehow stop accidental deaths and gene mutations, then evolution is happening.
The guy I was arguing with did. Sorry if my post didn't convey that.
I don't vote but I am definitely reveling in the lulz of the current situation. Reformism isn't a real thing.
sickle cell anemia only affects sub-saharan blacks in Africa because of the slave trade they've been exported across half the Western world and every quadroon or mixed race half-breed has the potential to suffer sickle cell anemia cystic fibrosis sufferers 94% of them can trace jewish ancestry hell even by race different races have varying concentrations of non-human hominid DNA Caucasians possessing Neanderthal DNA, Asiatics possessing Denosvian, and Africans possessing a very primitive ancestor Rhodesiens
yes but is it beneficial to the gene pool? in current day this is dysgenics plain and simple
To tell if something is greatly beneficial biologically ask does this allow my genes to replicate more? If being dumb does, then yes it's beneficial from a biological prospective (and strictly a biological prospective).
that is the question of r selected or k selected species we are not an r selected species like locusts or cockroaches or rabbits that intend to survive through sheer reproductive capability we are a k selected species like most higher order mammals such as lions or elephants we cannot currently decide our biology, our biology decides for us
Greater replication doesn't always mean more offspring. So it fits if you wanted to use r/K.
If biology is all that it matters, how is it that the white race is dying? Doesn't that imply that it is unfit for survival? Doesn't that imply it is inferior to the others?
White race as a whole has a birthrate below replacement. Not White conservatives. So White conservatives are the future kek
So does biology determine political leanings as well? Man voting would be much easier if all it took was a blood test.
millipedes have survived for 450 millions and are present on nearly every continent on Earth their biological success is without question didnt achieve much though eating rotten leaves and farting out nitrates are their only achievement
By an individual bases? Yes because you're genes expressed in an environment. Between people? You're asking about heritablity of political views. In the U.S. that's around .4 (but breaking it up into specific issues can be higher, around .71).
Correlation js not causation. The fact that political views are often inherited does not mean they are expressions of your genes.
We're teasing out correlation by showing it's not (or how much) causation by environment and since we're genes expressed in an environment… You get were this is going. On the individual bases, they are. You're talking about between, which is heritablity and we're already asking that question. Between two random individuals it seems be .41 down to genetic differences.
You haven't shown or demonstrated anything, you just stated that we are nothing else than our genes. And saying that we are genetically predisposed to s certain political leaning is idiotic. I hope you are not actually making this argument setiously
You don't honestly think that's how it works, do you?
I doubt you understand it given your assertions.
Because your half-assed explanation is barely coherent and I only guessed what you were talking about because I'm familiar with the work you're butchering. I resent having to divine where you went wrong. But fuck it, let's give it a shot.
I'm GUESSING you're trying to describe a scenario where there is a child of 1 pure African and 3 pure-and-maximally diverse European grandparents (or vice versa) and trying to simplify relationship calculations by shifting the -.33 "anti-kinship" coefficient to a .0 interracial base. Following this shift the European grandparents are considered .33 related to other random Europeans (including their own spouses) and the African grandparent is .33 related to random Africans, is that right?
Other way around: your single minority grandpa may be more genetically related to random individuals in his subpopulation than to you (yes, coefficients of relationship can depend on the direction of the relationship when you get away from the standard symmetric set up.) Think about what "your subpopulation" as the grandchild is actually supposed to be: the global community of African-European quadroon mongrels or something? It's asinine. If you're pretending Europeans are still your subpopulation as a 3/4er, then your relatedness to random Europeans is just under .25, which means you're marginally more related to your African grandpa than to unrelated Europeans.
You're quietly steelman'ing your case by using African-European pairings also, other pairings such as Euros-Asians or Euros-Semites (let alone something like S. Euros-Levantines) have much lower anti-kinship, in which case intraracial genetic relatedness completely pales in comparison to relatedness with your close kin. I understand Amerimuttss obsess about being cucked by the BBC but most of the world has other things to worry about and continental (aka "intraracial") rivalries with neighboring ethnic groups.
I stated you genes expressed in an envirnoment. What else are you? Go ahead and tell me how you can tease envirnoment from genes when talking about phenotype when looking at one (1) person. Or else you're talking about heritability. Again, when talking about a single individual we can not talk say what is phenotypically down to genes and envirnoment. It's a nonsensical question when talking on an individual organisms bases. We can only talk about variance of genes and environment between Organism A and Organism B because it is the only question that makes sense. We can't say Organism A is genetically predisposed to XYZ. We can say Organism A is genetically predisposed to XYZ in relevance of Organism B's behavior/envirnoment. oh but i am
I also forgot to mention that kinship coefficients are generally considered LOWER BOUNDS for relatedness because they assume maximally diverse pairings within the sub-population. If you're the child of a hillbilly white and some African villager, your parents are more like .9 related to their own grandparents and .2 to random members from their racial group for example, which means the child is still way, way more related to his 4 grandparents than to the two ancestral racial groups.
*to their own parents, although when you're that inbred that basically applies to their grandparents or cousins too
Yes That's just nicpicking. You know that I was speaking as if your grandpa was part of your subpopulation. Again, I was talking under assumptions that you're strictly nonmixed yourself. You're nicpicking all these 'lol what if' situations and then pretending that since the kinship is closer to your mutt grandpa than a random European that it must debunk! the whole order of relations. You'd still have a higher kinship coefficient with a random European than African. So you're accusing me of cherry picking in other words. Kek. I just did a basic example that was giving in Harpending's own paper and you fault me for it? I mean, if people are so goddamn stupid that they can't tell my example isn't the end all be all that's on them. Can't even tell what you're saying here. Close kin being, what? Your brother? If you have a half brother that's mixed and one that isn't, then your kinship will be closer to the unmixed one, but your kinship will be closer to say, compared to a random individual in your subpopulation. And? I never said this is false or lied about it. They use Fst, which is taking using random individuals, so… Actually, if anything they're a bit underestimated due to assertative mating. Correct. Again, are you retarded or something or do .33 if we're talking Africa. This puts you as being more related to your brother than your own parents. This does put a grandparent more related to you than a individual from either parental population. What is your point? You're not telling me new shit but just crap that Harpending went over himself in his own paper. Like, my guy, you're telling me shit I already know and this didn't dubunk! my claim. Terrible fucking critique.
I'm sorry what is the point of your argument then? You are admitting that we are the product of our genes interacting with the environment, how can you extrapolate any political statement from that, when you already start from a position where relativity is the only constant.
Not to mention other issues: you are just trying to get out of Theseus' paradox by using external entities as baseline, but that does not really solve the issue: our genes are not the same throughout the body, they constantly change in both their application and conformity.
Not to mention our thoughts have little to do with our genes in any significant way. As I mentioned before our conscience is not a constant, it is a flux of different consciences recognizing themselves in the same entity. If you look at split brain patients they present what can be described as two different consciences existing in the same body, which is the one product of genes interacting with the environment and which is not? Which is valid? Which one can be compared to the external entity B?
Someone asked 'is there a genetic basis for political views. I said 'yes. But if we're talking about an individual we can't say how much because it's a nonsensical question. We can only ask 'what variance between A and B is''. Because we're asking variance, which is heritablity. Aka, what is the variance of X between A and B is down to environmental differences and down to genetics. No clue what you're saying here as I'm not into philosophy. Look, on an individual bases I can not tell you how much of the variance on trait X is down to genes and envirnoment causation. Why? Because a) I need to compare it to something (which then makes it heritablity); and b) you're genes expressed in an environment. It's like asking how much is a cow down to environment or genetics. It doesn't make sense until I compare to a second cow. So the only answer when looking a one (1) cow is genes expressed in an envirnoment. The conscious itself is a product of genes expressed in an envirnoment. You can ask the variance between two organism, if you wish. But both are causation of genes entirely (when one (1) organism is taken into account).
Look, if you want to say heritability of political views is .0. Fine. Whatever. Like I give a fuck. But on the individual level, saying genes have nothing to do with political views doesn't make sense. And no, I don't mean 'lol gene for Anarchy, I mean that you are genes interacting with an environment and for you take on that view in the first place needs to genetic bases to do so even if XYZ stems from an an environmental source.
I'm going to sleep.
Ok I might have misinterpreted some of the things you said. If this is the case I'm sorry. Theseus's paradox, also known as Theseus's ship is a mental experiment dating back to ancient Greece. Pretty sure you already heard it at one point or another.
Here's a very quick summary: take a ship with let's say 200 pieces of wood. Natural wear of the ship will force you to replace a piece of wood every year. After 200 years is it the same ship? There is not a single piece of the original ship in it, so how can it be considered such? If at the same time we keep all old pieces and at the end of the 200 years we use them to build a ship, is this now the original ship or is the other ship with all new pieces the original ship? (good video if you are curious youtube.com/watch?v=dYAoiLhOuao)
What I meant to say is that to me you were trying to escape the paradox by using an external entity as baseline. In other words you were trying to avoid considering that consciousness is not a constant, by using genes as a base to state that there is indeed a non fluctuating state of mind which produces a certain genetical-political leaning. The external entity results useful here because it avoids the problem of considering genes themselves as a fluctuating variable as we have an immutable baseline which can be used to extrapolate "genes expressed in an environment" in a deterministic and finite manner.
Hopefully I made myself a little bit clearer and if indeed it turns out I am misinterpreting you by all means tell me.
Ah, so Grandpa's Axe. I getcha. No, I don't think that's what I'm saying at least. He asked a question regarding genetics. I answered giving my Knowledge in genetics. But yeah, can't entirely tell if you're misinterpreting me or not since I'm not into philosophy so I'll just give some examples to see what sticks and maybe you'll get it.
Smelted iron: can I ask how much of it is heat and how much is iron? Doesn't make any sense because it's heat applied to iron. But!, I can take two buckets of smelted iron and ask what is the difference of heat it took to smelt bucket A compared to bucket B.
A fire! How much is the fire material burned and how much is it is heat? It's heat applied to a material. Doesn't make any sense when looking at one (1) strict fire. But I can compare two (2) fires and ask is the fire due to heat or the material used between fire A and B.
So see how it's confusing as fuck for genes? It makes no sense and I'm not pulling shit out of my ass because biologist, real biologist and not as in me - some guy online don't even touch this question because it makes no fucking sense and trying to untangle it is impossible.
??? How the fuck am I supposed to be nonmixed when the premise is that one grandparent is African? If I'm nonmixed European there's no question, I'm .0 related to my base population and .25 to my grandparents. Duh? You're also much more related to humans than to other apes and much more related to primates than to other mammals and to animals than to plants, guess that means you must help the pandas so they can eat bamboos and spread your common animal genes. Utterly moronic line of reasoning. Kinship coefficients work great at predicting family/clan/hive strategies, using them on distantly-related individuals who may not even be living on the same continent is pseudoscientific bullshit. Genes are memetic, not fucking magic. If you don't understand this you're just autistically masturbating to your own abstractions without even considering there should be an identifiable way they could relate to reality.
.25 and above for the sake of the argument. Grandparents, uncles, nephews, half-brothers etc. Not sure what you were going for there. Your relatedness will indeed be higher to the unmixed one than to the hybrid one, your relatedness will still be higher to the hybrid one than to a random individual in your own population. I'm pointing out that your example is the most extreme case. I don't care if it's yours or one given by Harpending. Your claims dealing with .25 relatedness fail even harder if you use pairings with lower anti-kinship. If you're European and have an Euro-African half-brother, he'll be more related to you than your European first cousin once removed. If you're European and have an Eurasian half-brother, he will be much more related to you than your European first cousin, over twice as much as your first cousin once removed etc.. let alone some random European. If you have a Euro-Arab half-brother it's not even worth calculating, you can just consider him your half-brother for all purposes.
… That's what a lower bound means, yes. Your actual relatedness to your relatives is much higher (and your relatedness to your subpopulation is somewhat lower) because they are not perfectly diverse. Which means kinship ties with your relatives are in reality more significant than ethnic ties compared to your model.
Think again, idiot.
Motherfucker, I bothered addressing your garbage because you originally said:
Ok I see what you mean and yes I was misinterpreting what you were saying.
My critique was more like this: as far as I am concerned it is difficult to say that genes have a direct impact on the political leanings of a person as the conscience that takes this decision is a flux of different conscious states that can be very different in time and have in common purely the abstract notion of a shared entity. We can also go a step further and apply the same discourse on genes themselves, which change throughout the existence of said shared entity almost as much as the conscience flux does. I was criticizing less the genetical aspect and more its effective influence and applicability.
Again. You're not really critiquing the actual concept at this point, but how I presented and what information I bothered to convey to other anons. The only thing I have to tell is is this:
According to western historians: Total German deaths on the eastern front (until 1944): 2,742,909 Total German deaths on the western front (until 1944): 339,957 Not to mention the brunt of the Nazi assault was during the first two years of war: 40-41. In that period the land lease was still limited, the mediterranean route was still closed and the allied involvement in the war was limited to the air war. The Soviet Union did not win the war by itself, but it broke the Nazi army by itself.
not to mention the famous quote "WWII was won with British intelligence, American steel and Russian blood" attributed to Stalin is most likely false.
Reals > feels
You literal faggot. Fuck of with your wartime casualties. We already know commies treat soldiers like cannon fodder. Show me the proofs that tens of millions of civilians did not die in soviet paradise.Lets pretend that your thought leaders did not advocate death in the name of revolution. Must be lies then. If that is your equivalent of the holohoax then you must have some great proofs.
I literally wrecked every positive claim you made but I guess you're too dumb to notice or too dishonest to acknowledge that. I wrecked your claim that close kin such as grandfathers or half-brothers are ever less related than random members of ancestral groups, even at extreme distances (-.33). I tore apart your incoherent scenarios ("if you're European but you have an African grandparent…") I dismissed the implication that this sort of reasoning is significant at smaller distances (and yes, you did imply this by using African-European pairings as "an example" of the general concept, when it the most extreme case) I mocked your biomagical abstractions I criticized the candid assumption that the ideal kinship coefficients at perfect diversity and average population Fst are useful in reality for the situations you pretend to model. I pointed out you critically fail at communication. What is left of your posts exactly?
I reiterate my assessment: you're a fucking idiot. You don't even understand what you're calculating.
I like how this Holla Forumsyp is "making fun" of the Soviet Union because it lost a lot of men against the Nazi, forgetting that the country went through two revolutions and a civil war (in which even the Americans participated), had the vast majority of its countryside destroyed and still beat the most powerful army of the planet by itself before the allies could start making significant contributions to the war effort (both in terms of boots on the ground and lend lease)
Somehow he feels proud of the Americans who could not be bothered to show up in Europe until the reds already won. He feels proud that the 400k soldiers they sent defeated what the German army could spare from the Soviet front, where the adults were actually fighting. Not only that but they needed the support of the entire commonwealth and the French resistance and still they were defeated multiple times in France.
Best nation in the world, ladies and gentlemen. Best nation.
Can you tell me exactly what statistics you are basing yourself on to state this?
Because Hitler didn't halt his forces once they reached the de-marked "spheres of influence" line established in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Unless you somehow expect Stalin to tolerate German troops on the Soviet border. I think you mean "enriched half of Europe". Um no sweetie, 900 gorrillion is cold war propaganda.
Literally like talking about sport matches mate. My turn. You've been eternally BTFO. No no, shut the fuck up. Context does not matter, soviets lost that one so they are shit. Checkmate.
The jew taught you well. I asked you first nigga. Shit, you at least must have some screencap lying around, at least an infographic to peak my interest. Give me a starting point, hook me.
What's your point? I wholly agree, soviets carried that war. Imagine Normandy without the eastern front. I'm talking about average Joe deaths in the soviet union, unrelated to war. Its in the school history books so it must be true. Show me proofs that it isn't.
Oh your original image implied you disagreed to me. I don't actually like the Soviet Union much at all so you'll have to find some ☭TANKIE☭ if you're looking for someone to butt heads with over it. Failing that I would say you should look into the specifics of the famines and such and see that they weren't just because of bad policy, but also because of things like bad weather and sabotage.
If anyone is super bored, define "leftist" vs "liberal" vs "classical liberal"
I'm murican, that's the context I'm looking for but it isn't required. I wouldn't mind knowing how those terms function in other parts of the world though.
Really? There are still people talking about the jews? You were the one to state that the Soviet Union killed 900 gorillions. Have the intellectual honesty of at least googling a random article to support your thesis. Also You can't make this shit up.
Imagine my shock.
Ota ne saatanan aivot sieltä narikasta ja laita valoja siihen vitun kytkintauluun, homoburgeri.
Semi-polite sage due to not contributing proper content to the discussion
Shooting stars (the ones you're supposed to wish on) are meteors. They're not stars and they're not millions of light years away. They're burning up in the Earth's atmosphere. I really want to post that pedantic explanation so I guess I will answer your question in order to justify it.
'Leftist' is a term that I've pretty much only heard get thrown around since 4chan went all 1488. Before then, people would still throw around epithets about e.g. Revleft or LF posters, but they'd be pretty specific, like 'communist' or 'tankie' or whatever. In real life I can't really imagine referring to any person or coherent group of people as 'leftist' - the term as it's used is so broad as to be functionally useless. Any word that can simultaneously potentially refer to MLs, trots, anarchists, single-issue feminists, and environmentalists is too broad to bother with. When you're referring to social democrats, liberals, and fascists all with the same word, you're being incoherent. As far as I've seen the term's only real use is for ideologically shallow extreme right-wingers who need a term more twitter-friendly than 'niggers, nigger sympathisers, and their jew paymasters'.
In Canada, Australia, and the UK there are Liberal Parties, which are either the predominant right-wing party of capital (CAN and AUS) or trailing it (UK). The American use of the term - referring essentially to a Labor or Green Party voter interested in social welfare and socially progressive policies generally - is quite familiar across the Anglosphere though. You may find yourself having to specify 'small-l liberal' once in a while. Anyone active in any part of the far left will generally have some bile reserved for these folks, see Mao's 'Combat Liberalism', Phil Ochs' song 'Love Me I'm a Liberal', any conversation between socialists and anarchists, etc. Generally liberals will have one ideal or another that they will decide is more important than winning right at the most inopportune moment. Generally that ideal is the integrity of the system itself, which really makes you question why they came to the rally in the first place.
'Classical liberal' pretty much refers to people who consider themselves ideologically committed to capitalism. Their rhetoric builds off writers like Locke, Bentham, Rawls, etc. There's nothing necessarily all that consistent between them aside from their enshrining of bourgeois property rights as the highest or most fundamental principle. In practice they're an entirely reactionary political tendency, so their positions end up as a nice even blend of 'whatever big business wants' and 'the opposite of what I think the communists that live under my bed might want'.
Every Holla Forums post in this thread just proves how fucking stupid you have to be to be a Holla Forumsyp.
you fetishize genes too much. They are the basic blocks of livings things, but we share most of this shit with the other living beings. Environment and the addition of experiences has way more weight in developing "you" (your consciousness, they way you experience the world) than the genes… Also, the only evidence of you existing is your consciousness, you simply can't be certain of anything else existence, including genes. Genes are the support on which we are built, but that's like saying what matters in a computer are the logic gate of the processor, the different components and the connections between them, while I'd argue that at our level, what matters are actual code/tasks that are running on it, which are mostly agnostics to the support, the important is the function realized, and not how this function is built. If the computer was built differently, but my interactions with were identical, I wouldn't notice a difference. The "existence" of the system I interact with is about the functions realized, not how they are realized.
Well those three comparisons aren't that useful, it is easier to look at this like this: - Liberalism: the concept of providing freedom through changing how the state is run: - Classical Liberalism: the state should provide for freedom by: reducing its control over individual, protecting civil liberties, reducing its ability to gain power and leave the economy be so the individual can do what they want. Examples include: UK Whigs, most revolutionary liberals like pre 1860s, Most of the Founding Fathers (not Adams, fuck Adams) and a few modern political parties like the FDP of Germany. - Social Liberalism: the state should provide for freedom by; ensuring checks and balances are protected, by upholding civil liberties either through decriminalisation of moralistic laws or ensuring greater protections for persecuted peoples. It also provides several positive economic freedoms; such as freedom from "want" by creating a rudimentary welfare state to ensure a minimal standard of living. With this, the individual has more liberty to live their lives as they are able to live at the very least a suitable economic existence, and are able to engage in social liberty. Also basically the same political stuff as classical liberalism.. Examples are: The British Liberals from about the 1880s up until the modern day (You will know them as the lib dems), FDR, the left of the CDU in the post war period until about the 1960s. - Neoliberalism: The best way to provide liberty is to allow the unregulated accumulation of wealth as it allows the individual to act in their best manner. This coupled with a supporting foreign policy designed to help generate economic growth to further provide freedom by providing a good economic situation. Sacrifice of other freedoms for the sake of economic freedom is permissible. Examples: Modern US Democrats, most modern conservative parties, the New Right were the forbearers of this.
As we can see here, liberalism is about providing "freedom", but is done so in (inherently) contradictory ways.
Tbh Leftist is only something I have seen with regards to chanology: mostly a way to try and united "muh libruls" with "muh gommis" to create a great "other".
Why do discussions of feminism or LGBT always move toward pharmaceuticals?
It bugged me too, but the very last line was enough to make me lol and mindlessly repost
I appreciate it, thanks. I'm right-leaning. I don't want to dehumanize my enemy. I think we want the same shit, we just talk about it different enough that we have to have sleazy politicians playing sides, elections, wars, and so on. Conflict comes to us humans far easier than clear, constructive communication lol no one is going to read my shower thoughts down here
Holla Forumstard here. am I allowed to discuss national syndicalism here?
yes I'm sure, as long as you don't repeat a mussolini and give straight into the bourg interests.
I am actually a great admirer of benito. but he should have hanged the whole piedmontese aristocracy and made different choices. but the situation was complicated and he wasnt perfect
1. Genetics are grouped strongly by geographic area in what we call "races". 2. When environmental causes are flattened out, genetics account for all the variability in personality and intelligence. 3. Personality and intelligence determine life outcomes.
These are facts so far proven by scientific research, and there's more incoming. I don't think science is just going to stop because you find the answers inconvenient.
Socialism must adapt to and deal with problems in the real world, that is the fucking point. Marx wasn't 100% right because he didn't have 100% of the information, or even a fraction of what we know about people now. Ergo we need a new form of socialism.
These groups are used to study changes through time and genetic variability not to describe different kinds of humans. Oh wow really? If we remove nurture all that remains is nature? I like how you also conveniently avoided to mention how much is genetics and how much is environment. In what world do you live in exactly? There are extremely intelligent people living in absolute poverty and idiots with more wealth that they can count.Of course "personality" and intelligence are factors, but social status, birth, country of origin and sociopolitical circumstances are far more important.
I have seen the grand total of zero studies supporting your opinion.
I like how you just state something obvious and pretend it was a deep revelation only you could reach. I guess that genetic potential is manifesting itself, right?
How does being redpilled relate to history for you?
Actually a local, but what do people here think of forming broad-front with green parties? Even if they aren't explicitly socialist?