/lit/ - Literature

>>13540838
You should read philosophy books instead of those craps.

It's clear you are no lover of knowledge for its own sake, but merely a golem of instrumental rationality. Begone!

>>13540867
I'd like to read books that defend right-wing thought and/or object to left-wing thought.

>>13541661
>left-wing thought.
This is an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one

>>13541661
You should read books than challenge your views so you can learn to defend them yourself.

>>13541162
What an incredibly cringe and bluepilled image. This wisdom he’s criticizing here is more akin to sophistry than philosophy. Take the 15 contradictory proverbs from the People’s Almanac

1. Look before you leap.
He who hesitates is lost.

2. If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
Don't beat your head against a stone wall.

3. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
Out of sight, out of mind.

4. Never put off till tomorrow what you can do today.
Don't cross the bridge till you come to it.

5. Two heads are better than one.
Paddle your own canoe.

6. Haste makes waste.
Time waits for no man.

7. You're never too old to learn.
You can't teach an old dog new tricks.

8. A word to the wise is sufficient.
Talk is cheap.

9. It's better to be safe than sorry.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

10. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

11. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Nice guys finish last.

12. Hitch your wagon to a star.
Don't bite off more than you can chew.

13. Many hands make light work.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.

14. Don't judge a book by its cover.
Clothes make the man.

15. The squeaking wheel gets the grease.
Silence is golden.

This type of “wisdom” obscures truth rather than approaches it

>>13541661
wahhh wahhh baby only wants to read things that baby agrees with wahhh wahhh baby doesn’t like new ideas wahhh wahhh baby doesn’t want to evolve wahhh wahhh baby is scared because scary life scary baby scared baby little baby mommy mommy wahhh wahhh baby baby baby moo cow goes moo read baby story

>>13541672
True, but so is right-wing thought.

>>13540838
>/pol/ here
Here's everything you need to read.
The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano
The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave
Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl
Up from Slavery
The Souls of Black Folk
Their Eyes Were Watching God
Native Son
The Palm-Wine Drinkard
Giovanni's Room
Things Fall Apart
A Grain of Wheat
Beloved
The Famished Road
A Brief History of Seven Killings
The Underground Railroad
The Hate U Give
Freshwater

>>13540838
>I've avoided the humanities because of all the liberal brainwashing. Can you rec me some good right-wing brainwashing book?
This has got to be bait.

>>13541851
You need to relax

>>13540838
The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant and The Rising Tide of Color by Lothrop Stoddard are hands down the best early 20th century books on race realism. The former was referred to by Hitler as his Bible.

Also -- for a broader analysis that attacks liberalism, check out "Why Liberalism Failed" by Patrick Deneen (no race realism but a great book nonetheless) as well as most books by Patrick Buchanan or Samuel Huntington. They don't ignore race but they consider other factors in the fall of Western society -- it's not ALL about race regardless of what stormfags want you to think. Glad you're detoxing from /pol/ and seeking more balanced information though. MAGA

>>13540838
Start with the presocratis, then all of Plato's work, then all of Aristotle's work. Will take you a few years and form a good basis for any non retarded thought you might want to develop. Will also help the retarded thoughts, which are doubtless many.

>>13540838
I take it you've avoided genomics and genetics too. /pol/'s race realism arguments all fall apart once you learn how arbitrary our definitions of race are. You probably don't know this, but it's possible for a black person and a white person to be more genetically similar than two black people.

>>13540838
Pic related has literally been going around for years, OP.
Don't expect to understand Spengler or Evola if you don't get first into the basics of political philosophy, and can't stand to read marxist authors to at least understand their position.

>>13541661
all philosophers prior to modernism are fascist right wing misogynists so you are home
start with the greeks

>>13540838
read fanged noumena

>>13540838
Why do people call themselves right-wing when they support corporate capitalist politicians like Donald Trump? Don't they know that the corporations those supposed right wingers support are more responsible for all the liberal propaganda than the politicians? The irony is that the left wingers like Bernie Sanders, who want to limit corporate power, are doing more to defend traditional modes of living. A true right-winger today must support anti-capitalist politicians if he really wants to fight liberalism.

>>13541870

Absolutely based.

>>13541976
There are two kinds of right wingers, those who only care about millionaires and those who only care about millionaires and hate niggers

>>13542500
i hate millionaires and niggers, and especially hate millionaires who want to astroturf my entire way of life with niggers who only care about cellphones

>>13540838
Aleksandr Dugin said that 'Guenonian' Perennialism is conservativism in its purest form, I concur with him.

>>13541887
The Nazis did not believe in race realism, you can safely discard them. They redesigned IQ tests to be less g-loaded because Jews were killing “Aryans” on them.

>>13541901
Not really. A man from Senegal and a man from Somalia maybe be incredibly distinct genetically, but both will still be relatively unintelligent compared to your average Finn or Korean, and it will be largely due to hereditary factors too.

Once you stop caring about race realism because of “muh master race” and start caring about it because of your concern about the social impact of mass migration, then the truth becomes clear. Call it race, call it cline, call it population, the consequences are still the same.

>>13540838
>/pol/ here
>I've always kinda avoided the humanities
Yeah no shit

>>13542978
>The Nazis did not believe in race realism
They weren't white nationalists like Churchill and such, that is true.
But they definitely recognized race as a biological reality.

>>13541830
Anon... you just opened my eyes, thank you very much.

>>13541976
Because "right wing" doesn't mean shit, you need clearly defined terms. Even more on the internet where we can't tell your local subtleties by your country.

Example : from your post i'd say you are populist, nationalist, socialist, and traditionalist
You can have "right wingers" who are the complete opposite : elitist, globalist, capitalist, reformist and cosmopolitan. A lot of EU leaders are like that.

So yeah right and left don't mean shit. You are probably closer, sociologically and ideologically, to a rural communist than to a urban ultra capitalist.

>>13540838
Sorry to be the messenger but deep(er) literature is not for dumb fucks like you.
If you just read those books looking for some right-wing crap to confirm your bullshit ideology then you completely miss the point of reading. You just wanna "read" books so you can brag to internet leftists about your "deep literature taste" and "prove them wrong" because you've read "book xyz"
>/pol/ here
get the fuck back to that shithole of a board if you want to live in your own bubble. Patting yourself on the back seems to be your only goal here, so why not just skip the reading and let your fellow /pol/tards suck your cock dry?

>>13541976
commie fags get the helicopter

>>13541901
>exceptions
wow

>/pol/ here
Well the first thing you should do, would be to read something that builds Charakter and shields you against various versions of this group-mentality.

> Letters to a young Poet
> Meditations by Marcus Arelius
> Man's search for Meaning

Then read basic stuff like the greeks and start building up more and more knowledge. Soon you'll realise that you can't put ideologies on a Chart, as people like to do. This is the point where it gets fun and you can explore whatever direction you'd like.

>>13543301
sounds more like
>counterexamples

read the ideas of every side of you want to accurately critique them instead of nitpicking on some retards.

>>13543007
They redefined terms like "race" and standards like "IQ" when it did not suit their bizarre Aryan ideology. It's a shame they were so involved with pseudoscientific racial ideology that it ended up staining legitimate racial science afterwards.

>>13543464
what if they sway you

>>13540838
>>13541661
Nietzsche, Carlyle and Hegel

>>13541661
>>13540838
>I want to read books so I can reinforce my biases and carry more "ammunition"
Do you not see the irony in accusing the humanities of brainwashing?

>>13540838
It’s gotta be the Greeks

>>13541883
Nah he's right desu

>>13541901
>more genetically similar
That's implying every single gene is equally as important which is a brainlet argument

>>13540838
Dumb frogposter

If you are afraid of being swayed by leftist points, then isn’t that a testament to how you think that maybe the left has some truth in what they say? You’ve got to understand that reading is about finding the truth, and that it’s not some childish ideological battle where one side “wins” over the other. Those /pol/ charts that reccomend books tailored to specific ideologies are disgusting and chill me to the bone honestly, because the average /pol/tard can’t honestly see what’s wrong with only reading what reinforces their beliefs and never leaving their echo chamber.

>>13543546
As long as you’ve weighed up the merits of both sides evenly, then so be it. It’s your job to look at the matter objectively. If you’re that easily swayed by ANY ideology without questioning it and weighing it against counterarguments, then you’re not ready to read.

/pol/ is just run of the mill populism. There’s not much about it that’s particularly intellectually rigorous.

>>13544139
>If you’re that easily swayed by ANY ideology without questioning it and weighing it against counterarguments, then you’re not ready to read.
this OR you've read too much

>>13544150
Reading too much is a problem I think a lot of people on /lit/ suffer from. All that knowledge doesn’t mean shit unless you have a firm grasp of day to day realities to balance it out. There was a time in history where reading too much was considered a problem in the same way that watching too much anime is today.

>>13541830
That is exactly what he means by "wisdom", bit of a weird word choice IMHO, I'd rather say "platitudes"

>>13540838

>/pol/ here

go back newfag

>>13541162
zizek sucks

>>13543684
Unless you can come with a way of weighting genes by importance and compute the weighted genetic distance for those individuals the point stands. How do you know taking in account gene importance will not make the black guy and the white guy closer?

>>13544189
>Reading too much is a problem I think a lot of people on /lit/ suffer from.
I'd say not reading is as much if not bigger a problem. People who read seriously on /lit/ are a minority and among them people tend to read too much in the same rabbit hole.

>>13544352
Why?

>>13544438
He's a brainwashed Hegelian. He is like those friendly Scientologists you can talk to and even have a laugh about it, but they won't admit anything is wrong

>>13544442
>a brainwashed Hegelian
you could've just said Marxism.

>>13540838
>muh liberal brainwashing

Here's an idea. Have you ever considered that perhaps there is more to life than your right wing safe space? Of course you haven't, you're just a brainlet incel, and if you have keep this attitude up (which you will), that's all you will ever be.

>>13541901
I'm not a /pol/tard but it's blatantly false and have been debunked several times. And think about it logically, it doesn't make sense.
And for OP stop read only content that validates your worldview.

>>13544490
Why would it be so obvious for it to make no sense? Genetic variation is a complex phenomenon, and white and blacks have been intermixing for centuries, not to mention both groups have huge genetic diversity among themselves. It also depends on how you define genetic distance which is a scientific problem in its own right.

>>13540838
Here's an idea. Have you ever considered that perhaps there is more to life than your right wing safe space? Of course you haven't, you're just a brainlet incel, and if you keep this attitude up (which you will), that's all you will ever be.

>>13544189
If you read enough you realize its all the same anyway and can choose your political flavor of the month based on aesthetic preference.

>>13544500
This. There is, also, more to life than a left wing safe space.

>>13544362
>Unless you can come with a way of weighting genes by importance
No that's not my job you are trying to claim that proportional genetic similarity is a measure of classifying difference at a group level which is patently fucking wrong
>How do you know taking in account gene importance will not make the black guy and the white guy closer?
How do you know that the 2 white men who have greater genetic differentiation between themselves don't also share a high amount of genes which aren't present in the black man which can be used to differentiate white from black? Because there's nothing stopping that from being the case

>>13544500
not him, but yes, I have considered. Thats why I even stopped browsing /pol/. I hardly even visit any other sites than 4chan few specific boards. I dont hate non white people anymore, because that was simply irrational, I have no bad feelings towards anyone.
When I am removing non whites and liberals from this world I will do it in a manner that is as quick and humane as possible.

If you try and intellectualize right-wing thought hard enough it becomes leftism

>>13544500
why did you delete previous reply?

>>13544362
Nobody should care about genetic distance. Europeans and West Africans could be next-door neighbors compared to West Africans and East Africans. It wouldn't make a difference. As long as there exists significant disparities in IQ that are chiefly due to hereditary factors, then that's all that needs to be said on the topic. No need to divulge into racial mysticism. Call it "population realism", "cline realism", or some other politically-correct term instead of "race realism" if it makes the concepts more palatable. Whatever you choose to call it, the differences are real and have tangible consequences for society, politics, and economics.

>>13544535
>When I am removing non whites and liberals from this world

Top kek. You aren't gonna do shit. If you try to, you'll end up like the faggot in pic related.

>>13544874
I have to try, anon.

>>13541867
And the center.

>>13544874
is that sam hyde?

>>13544792
good thing IQ science is fake

>>13544893
I thought the same thing

>>13544895
https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>>13544911
>medium.com

Demons - Dostoevsky
Witness - Whittaker Chambers
The Vision of the Anointed - Thomas Sowell

>>13544895
How is it 'fake'? You know what don't even reply, literally fucking pointless talking to you people about this

>only reading things that you agree with
>using information as 'ammunition' in your gay political arguments
>using /pol/
wew

>>13541878
No it isn't - or at least, there's a solid chance it isn't. The modern right, especially in America (which is very relevant considering most posters here are Americans) absolutely thrives on anti-intellectualism. A key pillar of this anti-intellectualism is the false notion that Academia concerns itself with "liberal brainwashing" and that its full of people who are more concerned with pushing an ideology than with quality scholarship and education. Right-wingers genuinely believe that colleges are brainwashing institutions. Even reasonable people like, for example, my dad, who aren't completely immersed in the right-wing world of lunacy but are kind-of exposed to it echo this sentiment.

>>13544923
>arguing, trying to prove a point and convince people on the internet and in real life

>>13544915
It's Taleb though

>>13544301
Language barrier, in slavspeak these are called wisdoms.

>>13544934
not american so dont know for sure but I have heard from many sources that many humanities professors openly identify as marxists, then you have things like black day where white people arent allowed to attend, and if one wears a maga hat he will likely be harassed and maybe even expelled. Is none of this true?

>>13544792
>As long as there exists significant disparities in IQ that are chiefly due to hereditary factors
Southern whites were buttfuck retarded and considered low iq subhuman for quite a while, and with good justification too. Should you get rid of them and other rednecks? What about jews and indians? Should they be encouraged to outbred white since they're smarter on average?

>>13544934
It's not false, though.

It may sound strange, but War and Peace by Lev Tolstoy. It's not really a political book, at least not in a way that's relevant to a modern Western reader. However, when I reflect on my own "path" in terms of my world-view and political beliefs, I think that W&P is absolutely critical in that it did a magnificent job of showing me something that I never really understood on a visceral level, and that is compassion and the idea of Christian love. The part where Andrei is injured and looks on at his romantic rival suffering from injury really hit hard for me, and I think over time I made more of an effort to be thoughtful and compassionate with regards to other people.
>>13544962
> many humanities professors openly identify as marxists
I don't know about percentages, but some of them definitely do. It doesn't mean that they can't do a good job of teaching material. I don't see a problem with professors having a world-view, as long as they are upfront about it and can do their job, which most professors can.
> then you have things like black day where white people arent allowed to attend,
One campus in America tried to do this shit at some point I think. It's not a regular thing in America.
> and if one wears a maga hat he will likely be harassed and maybe even expelled
Being harassed by other students naturally depends on the students, not the staff. I don't know of any college that has a policy on hurting or expelling people for wearing MAGA hats. I can tell you an anecdote to the contrary. I took an American Politics class where we had a basedboy who would often interrupt the teacher with semi-relevant and incredibly annoying commentary. The best thing he ever said was during a part on a lecture on Congress concerned with female representation. He said something along the lines of "it's obvious that females have an advantage because Americans vote for candidates with ideas that don't work because of their gender. AOC got elected despite being a socialist". Despite the political incorrectness and sheer autism of that line there were no consequences to that guy aside from looking like a cretin in front of the entire class.

>>13540838
>/pol/ here
you may leave

>>13545042
No, it really is bullshit. As with every profession, there are slimy, incompetent, and downright stupid professors, but that doesn't negate the fact that the vast majority of them are thoughtful and intelligent people who want to do their job well and are capable of doing that.

>>13545094
Just like priest does their job well sincerely to their best effort -- the "Cathedral" exposes beyond any Popperian level the academic autism of intellectuals, and the poison they serve between themselves.

>>13545065
>>13545065
>It doesn't mean that they can't do a good job of teaching material
how can a humanities professor teach opposing views when he is openly marxist, I cannot believe this? how can he grade a paper that simply goes against everything he believes? also lets not forget the case of Eric Clanton, the antifa bike lock attacker, who apparently got 3 years probation for nearly killing several people, I bet you he is gonna get his job back.

>>13545118
You can be a Marxist but concede to different viewpoints from across the political spectrum, albeit perhaps not in a professional capacity.

>>13545118
>teach opposing views when he is openly marxis
Can you not empathize with people you disagree with? For example, take the abortion debate. Do you think that thoughtful pro-life people can't understand the pro-choice position? People believe in things for a lot of interconnected reasons, not because they read Das Kapital and think that Marx can do no wrong. To go back to the abortion debate, you can definitely understand and even acknowledge the soundness of pro-choice arguments but still vehemently believe that fetuses are living beings and that terminating a pregnancy is
immoral. A Marxist can look at an essay that completely disregards Marx's views on the world and still be able to grade it, if the person doing it is thoughtful. I believe that most professors are.
> also lets not forget the case of Eric Clanton,
Like I said, cretins exist in every profession. You can't proclaim that journalists are all ideologue hacks because someone somewhere really is an ideologue hack. You can't discredit all the good journalism an institution like the NYT does because of that racist cunt that they hired.

>>13540838
So now that OP's request has been fulfilled, lets talk about why we love Nick Land.
I think that Nick Land is the only philosopher for people who, like me, are a radical misanthropist. Nick Land wants to eradicate humanity, and so do I. 95 % of people I've come to meet online or from the media or real life are either absolutes assholes and I get the urge to physicall hurt them, or they are vapid, uninteresting degenerates. Even on /lit/ I'd likely hate most people.
Who gives me the moral and philosophical permission to have this thoughts which would be considered "evil" in christianity? None better than Nick Land.

>>13545187
Land is a meme that no one takes seriously outside of image boards.

>>13545187
He's the only leftist that I respect.

>>13545184
>Do you think that thoughtful pro-life people can't understand the pro-choice position?
as a pro life person I fully understand pro choice arguments, I also understand that in some cases it is necessary, but this is a good one, do you actually think thoughtful pro-choice people can understand the pro-life position?
Do thoughtful pro choice people even exist? the best I have ever gotten from them is agreeing to disagree. The pro choice position and most arguments are based on feelings, they are not rational or their rationale is warped. In fact most liberals are like that, and I would expect any less from a marxist aka a hard liberal.

>>13545230
> do you actually think thoughtful pro-choice people can understand the pro-life position?
Sure. They're not based on sound science, but people - especially humanities professors - understand that politics aren't about wonky technocrats figuring out the most efficient way for society to run. The pro-life position has more to do with religious and philosophical arguments that I personally don't care about (not an American; abortion is not an issue in my country) but I'm sure I could figure out and explain.
> The pro choice position and most arguments are based on feelings
I think you have the labels mixed up. Pro choice are those that support abortion. If we're going by scientific rationale alone (which like I said is not the end all be all in politics) then the pro-life side (those that are opposed to abortion) is out of luck.
> a marxist aka a hard liberal.
That's categorically false . In Western countries, almost all mainstream political parties are small l 'liberal'. This refers to an system of values that celebrates individual rights, rationality and pluralism. Both sides are on board with this, with big L Liberals (AKA centre-left) generally believing that society should be more permissive in terms of social issues (LGBT rights, abortion, etc.) and a bit more restrictive on economic issues (labour laws, various regulations, taxes etc.) while conservatives are the opposite, with more restrictions on the social front and fewer on the economic one. Marxists are fundamentally opposed to some Liberal ideas, mainly property rights as Liberals envision them. This means that they have no friends among either of these parties, because even the most outspoken mainstream Liberals are still working within the grand framework of liberalism.
> b-but Bernie is a commie!
No. Bernie and the rest of them are democratic socialists. What this means is that they work within the liberal framework, but take a more confrontational approach to governance and see the government as a tool to oppose, restrict and reign in the market to minimise harm to vulnerable people and make their lives more stable and safe. However, at the end of the day, the likes of Bernie are still liberals who believe that capitalism has a place in our society.

>>13545334
abortion has nothing to do with 'scientific rationale' it's a moral issue

>>13545334
>Pro choice are those that support abortion. If we're going by scientific rationale alone (which like I said is not the end all be all in politics) then the pro-life side (those that are opposed to abortion) is out of luck.
yes, what exactly is the scientific argument and rationale then of pro choice movement?? what is the rationale on the latest late term abortions? I would like to know, valid, scientifically based rationale, not some kind of non argument that its the womans body/womans choice or that a woman can change her mind in the last 30 minutes before giving birth and the doctors have to abort the baby, or some other liberal/leftist nonsense.

>>13540838
based retard

>>13540838
politics is for the idiots
read philosophy nigga
read Hegel and Kant and Kierkegaard and Heidegger and Trump

>>13545354
>>13545383
I didn't say that there is a scientific argument per se. What I said is that if we only go by scientific rationale we end up with a pro-choice position. If I were a technocrat trying to design an efficient society I would see the following: I don't think I have to argue for the economic benefits of abortion - having fewer unwanted babies is better for society because we have to waste less public money caring for them. Having fewer babies in shitty unstable families would result in a lower crime rate, etc. etc. When it comes to science, there's no reason not to abort fetuses. All the arguments against it are philosophical and sometimes religious in nature that have little to do with the actual biology of conception and development and more with ideas about the nature of being. Let me reiterate that I'm not saying that the pro-life position is less valid because of this. What I was initially responding to is this:
> do you actually think thoughtful pro-choice people can understand the pro-life position?
And the answer is still yes. I don't see abortion as a moral failure because I view cognition as being pivotal to being. Fetuses and even born babies don't think which means I don't regard them as human and I don't view their termination as a loss of life - and yes, that applies to comatose people as well if there is no hope of recovery. None of this means that I am incapable of looking at a pro-life argument and being able to explain it. I just don't care about what they say on a personal level because their arguments generally depend on a world-view that I don't have.

>>13545230
>a marxist aka a hard liberal
Americans have ruined political discourse.

>>13541870
Why did Okonkwo steal the white man's bike?

>>13544934
Have you been to a university recently? Your boomer dad is 100% right. I go to an Ivy League school, and it is apparent even here, especially outside of STEM. You should appreciate your old man’s wisdom.

>>13545003
I can tell you what we shouldn’t do—import millions of working-class Third Worlders. And Indians are not more intelligent than whites—you only think that way because we only allowed the cream of the crop to immigrate here.

>>13545593
> Have you been to a university recently
Going back in September.
> I go to an Ivy League school
I'm at UofT. I've spoken to every single professor I ever took classes with during office hours, and I make a habit of visiting most of them on a regular or semi-regular basis if I have questions or just to chat/build rapport. I've never met anyone who wasn't intelligent, thoughtful, and at least gave the appearance of caring about their students.
> You should appreciate your old man’s wisdom.
He has little wisdom to give in that regard because he's a STEMbro whose entire experience with academia consists of taking classes (never graduated) at a university in Israel.

>>13543046
based

>>13543046
cringe

>>13543046
cope

>>13540838
>liberal brainwashing
It's called an education

>>13543046
based

>>13543046
cringe

Read his blog!

Do it now!

>>13541851
hello mr. resentment

>>13543046
Based. Good job trigerring the poltards

>>13545794
This. Reality has a Liberal bias.

>>13541851
seethe

>>13541901
See 0:11:34
https://youtu.be/tI1rbIYwK4A

>>13541901
>it's possible for a black person and a white person to be more genetically similar than two black people.
is nobody going to point out this blatant lie? unless you're talking about the Pygmies or Bushmen and conflating them with the rest of the africans, then no, there are no two black people less similar genetically than either is to a white person. How do you think a DNA test could tell you where your ancestors come from if that were true?

/pol/'s race realism doesnt even care about how you define race, it's just 'that population is on average dumb and violent'

>>13545499
>I didn't say that there is a scientific argument per se. What I said is that if we only go by scientific rationale we end up with a pro-choice position.
m8 Im not allowing you to weasel your way into this nonsense. If you go by pure scientific rationale you don't end up at any position whatsoever, because having a position is a matter of morals, not of just examining the world such as it is, which is what science does.

>>13544943
This

>>13540838
>/pol/ here
>I've always kinda avoided the humanities
top kek

>>13545949
Morals are definitely very important, but crafting policy also involves (assuming that smart people are in charge) looking at the world in a scientific, rational, way. For example, if we decide that we need a government agency to do X, then we make a decision fueled by ideology. We see a phenomenon and consider it a problem; one that the government ought to solve. But, after that, the process is dominated by experts who decide how the agency will be structured, how much funding it requires, and so on.

With abortion, if we leave morals aside (which is something I repeatedly stated that we cannot and should not be doing) and look at it from a sterile, scientific, perspective, we see a bunch of issues that stem from unwanted children growing up in shitty environments. I think it's pretty obvious that aborting children is less expensive than building more orphanages, spending more time and money on the foster care system, and all the other expensive shit we do. And again, I'm not saying that it's the correct approach to governace, but if we were (which we shouldn't do) to look at a whole host of issues in our society, allowing abortion is the most obvious solution.

>>13546011
Im starting to think you really don't understand that science is not about fixing problems, there are no problems in science, there are just facts about reality, or if your prefer hypotheses which have been supported with evidence and haven't been falsified.

You can view something as a problem or not based on your particular morality

>>13545939
They literally give you percentage of ancestry dumb mutt.

>>13540838
holy cringe
>>13540867
this

>>13546033
yeah, meaning that genes are associated with regions, meaning races, you faggot

Don't bother with humanities OP, their perception of reality is based on the notion that everybody is equal and good natured and that all of the evils in our world are due to the actions of a few rich bad men. That's why they love Marvel films and books like Harry Potter, everybody is good except the bad guys. There are no shades of grey to them, Trump/Putin/Boris are either "one of us" Nazi's. Stick to STEM books, I'll drop some biology books or some shit in a min

>>13546060
>there was no migration in human history
>everyone in a single region had the same race/genes

Hell, there's very little part of the DNA that is only exclusive to a single part of the world. It's just a different mix that get fucked up whenever there's migrations.

>>13546110
Are you retarded

>>13546110
>>there was no migration in human history
Why strawman, are you incapable of being honest? Human populations were separated for tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years, the existence of mixed populations doesn't some erase that.

>>13546088
>I'll drop some biology books or some shit in a min
Do you need to be good at math in order to study biology? I'm shit at math, but getting into a field of science as a hobby sounds interesting.

>>13546119
Nah you're good, biology is the humanities of the sciences

>>13546128
They have the same degree of reliability imo. Inferring transgenerational metamorphosis based on aesthetics is embarrassing. Biosemiotics as the Empirical-Analytic vista into Nature as part of the Phenomenal world Ontologically subordinate to the Self is more sensible. Evolution is FAKE

>>13546114
Are you? Variations between populations is a thing, and migrations ensured that people from two different geographic regions could still be relatively similar genetically.

Just read the beginning
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
Now what?

>>13546117
>Human populations were separated for tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years,
Ah yes, guess shit like the PIE didn't exist then. Just shut up.

>>13546152
>Are you?
No, I have a crazy IQ of something like 155-170 on different tests lmao. You're full of shit, everyone can see through you retard.

>>13546152
You are one of those fundamentally dishonest people, I can tell. It is a simple fact about humans that populations were separated for tens of thousands of years. PIE doesnt even vaguely refute that, you are just throwing it up to muddy the waters.

>>13541870
Don't include The Hate U Give on a list of otherwise good/excellent literature

>>13546161
>You're full of shit
I litterally just posted evidence to the contrary. Where's your?
>>13546163
>PIE doesnt even vaguely refute that
>A group of people who shared their genetics and ancestry throughout an entire continent and more doesn't even vaguely refute your point
Even if I was wrong, which I'm not, I've already proven the original point which was
>it's possible for a black person and a white person to be more genetically similar than two black people.

>>13546182
There is not a single Australian Aboriginal, not a mixed but full blood, that is more genetically similar to a Turk than to all other AA. You know this is true, youre just trying to sneak around it like the dishonest faggot you are

You also know that finding exceptions doesnt change that as a rule, populations are more similar to each other genetically than to other populations, and I swear to god if you bring up Lewontin I will find and kill you

wait, people unironically think that our conceptions of race are based on genetics? people really think that you can look at a human genome and say "yep that's a black guy"? Really?

>>13546208
You can look at a skull and say "yep, that's an X"

>>13546208
It will tell you even the specific type of black guy, eg. Nigerian, Zulu, whatever

>>13546233
might as well throw some sand on the fire and find out the old fashioned way

>>13546204
*sigh*
1) I doubt it but I'm not going to search for proof
2) It's still not the original point
3) If you need to take the extreme to prove your prove your point then it's a bad one
4)read the link I posted
5)drop dead
*dab away*

great thread about literature friends, you love to see it

>>13546208
you need to look at a shitload of different alleles and even then it's still possible to fuck up

>>13546243
I knew youd leave at this point because you have no way left to weasel. That link is engaging in precisely the same sort of weaselling, the motivated reasoning is incredibly obvious.

You can't actually respond to what I said, which is that as a rule populations are more similar to each other than to other populations, that's how we fucking map them in the first place, and it's the result of time spent evolving apart from each other in isolation.

go be a goodthink retard on reddit

>>13546248
Almost like science is bullshit huh

>>13542500
There are a million different kind of right wingers and we all hate each other and will forever be cursed to being ineffectual and bitter cunts, just like the left.

>>13546243
>We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

See here's the truth. Here is the actual real truth which is that no, when looking at the entire genome you cant have two individuals that are more similar, it's only when you look at just a few loci. But they bury it instead of putting it up front at the top. And it's exactly what I said, about populations being isolated, which anyone with a brain fucking knows.

>>13546252
>That link is engaging in precisely the same sort of weaselling
By stating facts?

>You can't actually respond to what I said
Maybe but this wasn't the point
>it's possible for a black person and a white person to be more genetically similar than two black people.
I don't know where you're from but your region's genes governing memory must be pretty bad

>which is that as a rule populations are more similar to each other than to other populations
Again, only if you compare thousands of data which still show a respectable amount of similarity between humans, allowing similarity to appear.

>>13546282

>Here is the actual real truth which is that no, when looking at the entire genome you cant have two individuals that are more similar
>in geographically distinct populations
AKA, it still possible if the individuals of different race live in the same regions. I'm afraid our little is over. Quite disappointing really, I would have expected you to notice my little trap.

>But they bury it instead of putting it up
They buried it quite shallowly then as it is literally in the first paragraph. Why be on /lit/ if you are illiterate? Afraid of proving yourself wrong? Well no matter because I just did.

>>13546325
Oops, I meant part, instead of paragraph.

>>13546325
No it's not possible at all when you look at enough loci. It says it right there.

>>13546348
Only if it's geographically distinct, which is simply not the case for black living in america or france for exemple.
On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase ω. This is illustrated by the fact that ω and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms
Now if you'll excuse me I have to go play Fortnite *snap*.

>>13546389
And I fucked up the greentext
>On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase ω. This is illustrated by the fact that ω and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms

>>13543552
If you’re already a Nazi then of course you’ll interpret their work as right wing

>>13546399
Hegel cannot be interpreted as right wing

>>13546389
blacks living in america are mixed race you dumbass, and you're still eliding the point which is that the black portion in them is distinct from the white portion, which is what races are. The blacks in France are almost all fully sub-saharan of whatever particular variety and the ω would be zero. It's still going to be functionally zero when you compare your average black american to wasps. If someone with 3 white grandparents is closer to the white population then you're just proving my point, and labeling them as black is your famous 'social construct', but you're the one using it, not me, because apparently mixed race people are too nuanced for you and you want to throw out the entire concept of race as a result, when it applies in almost all comparisons between populations that arent undergoing current heavy mixture, which is usually the result of war.

Have fun with fortnite since you can't think for shit

>>13546411

>>13546423

>>13546405
Hegel was a fucking monarchist, I swear to god this board

>>13546428
The city of god... what part?

>>13540838
The Righteous Mind - Jonathan Haidt
Knowledge and Decisions - Thomas Sowell

>>13546543
I initially wrote a gigantic post but cuckchan thinks I'm spam for some reason. These should be a good start.
Don't be afraid to dive into stuff that does not align with your current worldview.

>>13540838
Any metaphysical books advocating a return to race realism?

>>13540838
Start with the Greeks.

This is a meme, but it's also unironically good advice.

>>13541870
It's funny how this transitions so gradually from good to shit the closer you get to modern times. After Wright this is pretty dismal.

>>13545593
>I go to an Ivy League school, and it is apparent there
I don't believe you. I graduated from and Ivy League school two years ago, and while many of the students may have been highly progressive, the views of the professors varied. Could it have transformed into a brainwashing institution in just two years? Doubt it.

>>13540867
Might be too much of a work for him

>>13541920
I don't want to read faggy degenerates that promoted pedophilia though

>>13541870
>Things Fall Apart
Did you just google "books written by black people"? because that book is literally /pol/core.

>>13545230
pro life is based on feelings....

>>13541661
What's the point in reading stuff that just tells you that you're right (whether you are or not)? What is "liberal" to you? Or "leftist"? I assume you are an American.

>>13540838
the bible

>>13546088
>That's why they love Marvel films and books like Harry Potter
This board hates both of them

>>13548098
It's even in the title lol

>>13540838
and what kind of liberal brainwashing is happening lol

>>13545658
.Most of my professors care about their job and teaching well. I never complained about that. But are hopelessly stuck in their ways. There are almost zero conservative, reactionary, or even moderate voices on campus. Most critiques of right-wingers have been more like childish insults or snarky comments than any substantial rebuttal to their arguments or analysis of their values. I can't imagine being "persuaded" into changing my views in university. Pressured? Bullied? Conditioned? Brainwashed? Far more likely. The dialectical approach is simply not present because of institutional bias.

University of Toronto? Then, no offense, you probably have the same slant as your professors. Almost every person I've met who denies the presence of political bias in university campuses turns out to be a leftist who is mistaken in where they fall in on the political spectrum. This is probably where you fall. Most of the student population is divorced from mainstream political discourse too. Their frame of reference is distorted. You are likely no different. I can engage with leftist ideas, give them their due credit, and also provide critique where it is needed too. But I still can identify the slant. Can you?

I remember when I took an intro econ class to satisfy my core requirements. It had the weird reputation despite being popular because the course head "was a Republican". The guy was a characteristic socially liberal AEI-following RINO who didn't give a shit about anything "conservative" except having slightly lower taxes. And yet people in my section would make snarky comments like "why would (course head) believe rehab clinics is sounder economic policy given inelastic demand of drugs, isn't he a conservative?" The students were totally clueless about any view outside their own awareness of the leftist spectrum of beliefs, having little understanding of both the course head's views and the views of conservatives at large. And you know what's the sad part? This dearth of understanding only gets LARGER as they progress through their degrees because they are likely to NEVER encounter people who substantially disagree with them.

>>13547406
Dude, are you pulling my leg? The only conservative professors I know are old boomers who are either dying out or receding into fecklessness due to the hostile political culture. They are certainly NOT being replaced by people with similarly heterodox views, and the ones who are left are not given free reign to speak their mind. People who even think about publishing counter-zeitgeist information, let alone saying their frank, loosely-supported opinion, end up ostracized by the university administration, their fellow academics, and the student body at large.

You also went to an Ivy League school? I think have you figured out. You've probably grown up in liberal/leftist/cosmopolitan environments your whole life, so you can't tell the difference between the views of society at large and a leftist echo chamber because you've only known the latter your entire life. I don't blame you though. If I hadn't come from working-class America, and if I wasn't lucky or inquisitive enough to break free from the hivemind, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference either.

Most of my professors care about their job and teach well. I never complained about that. But they are hopelessly stuck in their ways. There are almost zero conservative, reactionary, or even moderate voices on campus. Most critiques of right-wingers I have witnessed, from students AND faculty, have been more like childish insults or snarky comments than any substantial rebuttal to their arguments or analysis of their values. I can't imagine being "persuaded" into changing my views during my time in university. Pressured? Bullied? Conditioned? Brainwashed? Far more likely. The dialectical approach is simply not present because of institutional bias.

No offense, you probably have the same slant as your professors. Almost every person I've met who denies the presence of political bias in university campuses turns out to be a leftist who is mistaken in where they fall in on the political spectrum. This is probably where you fall. Most of the student population is divorced from mainstream political discourse too. Their frame of reference is distorted. You are likely no different. Hell, it's gotten scary how many of my friends and acquaintances from high school have emerged from public universities, converted into dyed-in-the-wool communists who are nearly impossible to converse with because of their antiquated jargon and radical polarization. I can engage with leftist ideas, give them their due credit, and also provide critique where it is needed too. But I still can identify the slant. Can you?

I remember when I took an intro econ class to satisfy my core requirements. It had the weird reputation despite being popular because the course head "was a Republican". The guy was a characteristic socially liberal AEI-following RINO who didn't give a shit about anything "conservative" except having slightly lower taxes. And yet people in my section would make snarky comments like "why would (course head) believe rehab clinics is sounder economic policy given inelastic demand of drugs, isn't he a conservative?" The students were totally clueless about any view outside their own awareness of the leftist spectrum of beliefs, having little understanding of both the course head's views and the views of conservatives at large. And you know what's the sad part? This dearth of understanding only gets LARGER as they progress through their degrees because they are likely to NEVER encounter people who substantially disagree with them.

>>13543046
based

>>13540838
>/pol/ here

>>13548587
the cathedral: moldbug

>>13540838
Can't tell if bait or just dumb

>>13549522
Hehe I'll be the leader :)

>>13541661
>avoids left-wing brainwashing by actively brainwashing himself right

>>13549563
reading right-wing literature in this day in age is like turning on a fan during a sweltering heat wave. unless you're a NEET, a cultist, or some other non-participant in society, then you're going to be exposed to left-wing views and forced to abide by some standard of leftist orthodoxy just to get by.

>>13549580
real life has a left-wing bias hun

>>13541870
>du bois
My nigga

>>13540838
This post is kino this is the definitive proof that rightwingers are the real ones who depends of safespaces to protect their stupid worldview. Keep yourself in a ecochamber if you want poltard.

>>13550278
>continues to hijack all universities, media outlets, bureaucracies, and other influential institutions in order to enact their agenda and suppress their enemies

>>13550278
ethnostate /pol/tards, yes, but that's not the same as all rightwingers.
future reality has a conservative bias

>>13550356
Im dying, im dying these people actaully think that everything they dont like is part of some secret cosnpiracy to destroy them. Run to the forest maybe the iluminati order of frankfurt wont find you there but please delete all your social accounts first.

>>13550386
Idk man maybe that is because conservative philosophy is to dry and outdated. also i dont think there is a bias toward right wing people you still cant find plenty of books amde by conservative books in the universities.

>>13540838
People like you are what is wrong with political forums. And I don't just mean /pol/, I mean r*ddit ones too. While most people are split on whether or not they like Trump it's the vocal people who think he's either infallible or can do no right who shut down discussion on forums and make them unusable.

>>13548755
Why the hell are you playing the victim so damn hard?

>>13550412
please keep going

>>13550412
bluepilled post

>>13540838
Heres a chart that might be to your liking since even though im left i think ppl have the right to be right wing and educate themselves on right wing thought. But seriously, just try to educate yourself in general, not brainwash yourself with only one side of the story. I mean I know you're a /pol/tard but even so this is just sad

>>13551966
same but with more

>>13551981
one more

>>13540838
>useful idiot whose only purpose is to defend the political affiliation of his choosing

>>13551966
is there any right wing theory books? i am comparing left vs right but i can't find any right wing equivalent of marx.

>>13552390
Reflections on Violence by George Sorel is the Capital of fascism

>>13543046
Based anon keeping the streets of /lit/ clean. Much better job than what the jannies are doing!

>>13541661
google confirmation bias