/lit/ - Literature

>>18554015
>BLOCKS YOUR PATH

>>18554069
fpbp

>>18554069
I haven't read the book, but it is apparently very non-scientific.
Even the human skulls thing was wrong. That guy had actually measured them correctly, and Stephen got it wrong. It's just that the sample happened to be biased, from what I remember.

I am not saying Murray is scientific though. I am unfamiliar with his work.

>>18554069
Doesn't that book dispute a bunch of skull measurements in an old study, that was then repeated again (on the same skulls) after this book showing the original study wasn't wrong?

Murray’s work is such a stupid diversion that results in nothing but meaningless squabble. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were a fed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/a-well-worn-argument-about-race-intelligence-and-violence/2021/06/23/936d815a-c7be-11eb-81b1-34796c7393af_story.html

>>18554015
>why nobody talk bout the discredited charlatan’s rehash IDpol bük?

>>18554105
>>18554109
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html
NYT Announcement
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110184/
Study
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/theres-new-evidence-confirming-bias-of-the-father-of-scientific-racism/
Refutation

I'm going to have to hear about race and gender for the rest of my life, arent I?

>>18554216
hopefully globohomo is real and by the time I'm 70 they will have done away with race and gender entirely

>>18554241
Unlikely - you're part of a bigoted generation (whatever it is). That's never going to go away. On the upside: when you're put in a Nursing Home, a SuperQueer CNA will probably smother you in your sleep after finding out you posted here.

>>18554196
>Father of scientific racism
This doesn't seem biased at all

>>18554069
>>18554077
>>18554105
>>18554109
>>18554196
You're all missing the point. The elites want you to argue about skull sizes so you don't notice who the real enemy is.

>>18554069
It isn't even related to the OP.
Not to mention written by a charlatan that literally argued about biology from a "revolutionary" point of view and openly lied about results.

>>18554015
He's a civnat at heart like the rest of the CRT hacks. In 1960 Murray would have been a rational voice. Today he's out of touch.

>>18554346
He's nothing like the CRT hacks.
He argues with them on the twit box all the time.

>>18554216
Probably, so just stop listening to other people and isolate yourself in your own private existence, which is what I've been doing with great success for the past two years. Corona was a great help.

>>18554374
Murray is an old-school liberal, CRT is new school. Familiarity breeds contempt.

>>18554467
>crt is new school liberal

bullshit. CRT is as illiberal as it comes.

-t. old school liberal

>>18554015
Wrong Murray

>>18554196
Let me get this straight, the "new evidence" of bias in Mortons measurements is that another study also found results in line with Morton (but reached a diff conclusion w/ respect to racial superiority and the like). Ok, how does that have anything to do with Gould being wrong, ironically, for the exact reasons he accused Morton of being wrong?

>>18554483
You don't instinctively oppose genuinely alien things; you oppose native ones changed slightly enough you recognize them and feel threatened by them.

Classical liberals, assuming all men were equal, proposed abolishing unequal treatment and treating everyone equal - then we'd logically see equal results.
Equal results didn't appear, despite equal treatment, so there were two choices left. Either the unequal treatment was invisible and can only be canceled out with affirmative action (CRT) or men are unequal (the trad right).

The latter isn't on your radar, so you're offended by the former; but what they both share is moving on. Old school liberalism made sense before it was tested. Now we've made the experiment, and the far left and far right disagree on what it means but they admit it happened. Old school liberals don't. They're trapped in the past.

>>18554530
Classical liberals did not assume all men were equal in the sense you're implying here

>>18554536
Of course they didn't believe humans were identical clones. They did believe in the general mediocrity of humanity, the general will, and a universal capacity for self-elevation through education into the ranks of meritocracy.

>>18554561
Not sure if they did, especially as regards dif races which is the crux of the crm/CRT stuff

>>18554530

>Classical liberals ... then we'd logically see equal results.

Who said that? Locke? lol

The 'assumption' that men are created equal is not meant to be an assumption about nature; if all men were equal, there would only be one man.

>>18554570
Ask any educated boomer. Some don't believe it deep down and others lived on the fringe, but the party line they were all fed in whitebread Americana was races are equal and MLK was a saint; loosely tied back to colonial era propaganda and enlightenment memes.

>>18554603
Boomers were brought up in CRE though, that's explicitly anti-free association, so postliberal. I mean the whole classical liberal thing was already dead with the fed and the new deal and it never existed in any ideal sense in the first place, but the Civil Rights Act is so extremely illiberal that it draws a line in the sand of sorts

>>18554655
Could you expand on your interpretation? the civil right movement as illiberal isn't a take I'm familiar with.

>>18554655
>the Civil Rights Act is so extremely illiberal that

Sources?

>>18554675
>>18554674
It destroys freedom of association...the government can force people to hire or rent

>>18554699
Oh, it's cope. I thought you were going for a edgy rightwing take or maybe a rework of Hart's causal ideas, but you probably need to re-read Rawls and Mills.

>>18554530
Despite a few simplifications (for instance, equating 'man are unequal' with the trad right), that's a very apt taxonomy of the contemporary situation. Good post.

>>18554728
How is that cope? Freedom of association is basic tenet of classical liberalism.

>>18554728
Incidentally, The Concept of Law remains a great read.

>>18554216
>whole American post-war regime is founded on a reaction to Nazism
Yes, you are going to hear about race and gender for the rest of your life.

>>18554530
"Why aren't blacks equal yet despite ~60 years of Civil Rights?" is about as concise a summary as you can get of the motivations behind contemporary left-wing racial resentment.

>facing (((reality)))

>>18554297
Yes.

>>18554797
MLK's goals weren't reached within his lifetime, and they still aren't reached, despite the progress we've made.

I sort of want to read that, but I also see racial grifting -- even if it's from someone like Murray -- as vile. So, I won't give it second thought.

>>18554832
They're never going to be reached as long as access to high-paying/prestige positions are to some degree gated by academics.

>>18554842
Everyone on here should know the core positions of race realism by osmosis at this point, no need to read the book really.

>>18554842
Your little horizontal lines alarmed me, I felt like something jagged and momentous was being unveiled, but it turned out to be just a random clause you could have enclosed in commas

>race realism

>>18554740
>>18554728
Answer me you faggot

>>18554298
>near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
And why does he think this is a certainty?

>>18554728
>>18554675
>>18554674
Rawls isn't worth reading and Mills is not without his glaring deficiencies (but a good read and imo one of the better promoters of the tradition). I'm not who you replied to, and I would characterize the CRE as liberal (despite current revisions by contemporary "liberals", but I imagine what anon is referring to is virtually everything that came after it, starting in the '70s.

The Civil Rights Movement succeeded overwhelmingly in widely changing the perceptions of Americans towards blacks, but income inequality, which is almost entirely a class problem (Why would anyone think it would meaningfully change as a result of the CRM?), persisted. It was the CRE successors and their attempts to frame this problem racially (while the attempts are understandable), and their apparent disillusionment (hence the retrospective rehabilitation of Malcolm X and black nationalist/anti-integrationist perspectives) with the "failure" of the CRM to achieve what it sought that began to perpetuate illiberalism.

That illiberalism, starting in the '70s, took the form of advocacy of double standards via CRT and social engineering projects like affirmative action, public/subsidized housing, and desegregation busing that were very poorly received by the poor and lower-middle class whites that were most affected by it.

>>18554851
This anon has it right

>>18554975
Why isn't Rawls worth reading, when he's seen as one of the best analytic political philosophers of the 20th century?

>>18554985
>Why isn't Rawls worth reading, when he's seen as one of the best analytic political philosophers of the 20th century?
That's exactly why. Don't waste your time on American "thinkers".

>>18554975
Even antebellum abolitionists harbored an essentially religious view that racial equality of ability was true and that black equality of life outcomes would follow from finally granting blacks rights. When this failed to materialize, their descendants concluded that there must be dark matter-esque racism permeating society preventing equal outcomes being realized, because racial equality must be true. The Holocaust no doubt reinforced those beliefs.

Of course they aren't really true and you aren't going to get 13% black representation in anything requiring an intelligence test or report card unless the State places its thumb on the scales. And to some degree it's probably necessary, but it would be easier to just have a quota than to pay armies of bureaucrats to enforce compliance with ever-changing "mandates".

>>18554958
Because there is, in all likelihood, a lot more potential in everyone.
Our conditions never needed to be this meager. Our net intellect need not have been so meager either.

>>18554985
I would characterize Rawls more as a political or moral philosopher, rather than a analytical one, at least in his works I'm familiar with (his most popular and influential), but the reason I don't think he's worth reading is very related to my previous post. It is no mere coincidence that Rawls' major work is released in the midst of the CRE.

Rawls represents the logical conclusion of the rationalist approach to some form of utilitarianism and as such he misses the forest for the trees: Rawls' conception of justice is lifeless. Rawls quintessential agent is the rootless individual acting strictly for his own gain. He abstracts the human being into the rational agent and in doing so strips him from everything that makes him human. For Rawls there is no trust between people, no family to favor over any stranger, no conventions or norms, no common tradition, and, perhaps most importantly, no consensus; Rawls denies the group, of a common culture and relatively like-mind, from forming their own conception of what a society and order and justice looks like. It only allows for pervasive disagreement that is not available to compromise. It is ironically (at best) the state of nature that we were trying to get out of centuries ago in this very tradition. Rawls' most common critique is not one that can be easily dismissed: we are never, nor could we ever be, behind his veil of ignorance.

But my critique is only one (and not even close to among the most eloquent or well-argued). There are plenty others probably more convincing, ie Nozick's or, notably, MacIntyre's, which is a very telling one as it relates to both Nozick and Rawls, to say nothing of Marxist perspectives, or of procedural issues.

>>18555224
And I should add among other good critiques is the one that Rawls' argument potentially further justifies the complete commercialization of all aspects of life, in pursuit of individual self-interest, and the implications of what this actually looks like (ie the totalitarian welfare state). In other words, tradition, norms, and conventions, perhaps except of the most basic kind, may not have a place at all in the Rawlsian state.

>>18555058
meds or evidence, one or the other please

>>18554958
Seems obvious based on sheer numbers. The vast majority of people since the development of agriculture have spent their lives toiling with very little opportunity for advancement; surely some of them were natural geniuses whose talents went to waste.

You guys are missing the point. Can we discuss the main point Murray is trying to convey?

>The charges of white privilege and systemic racism that are tearing the country apart fIoat free of reality. Two known facts, long since documented beyond reasonable doubt, need to be brought into the open and incorporated into the way we think about public policy: American whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have different violent crime rates and different means and distributions of cognitive ability. The allegations of racism in policing, college admissions, segregation in housing, and hiring and promotions in the workplace ignore the ways in which the problems that prompt the allegations of systemic racism are driven by these two realities.

What good can come of bringing them into the open? America’s most precious ideal is what used to be known as the American Creed: People are not to be judged by where they came from, what social class they come from, or by race, color, or creed. They must be judged as individuals. The prevailing Progressive ideology repudiates that ideal, demanding instead that the state should judge people by their race, social origins, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.

We on the center left and center right who are the American Creed’s natural defenders have painted ourselves into a corner. We have been unwilling to say openly that different groups have significant group differences. Since we have not been willing to say that, we have been left defenseless against the claims that racism is to blame. What else could it be? We have been afraid to answer. We must. Facing Reality is a step in that direction.

Do you think people on the center left or center right will be brave enough to talk about the real reasons for disparities in crime rates and cognitive ability between races?

>>18555322
>Do you think people on the center left or center right will be brave enough to talk about the real reasons for disparities in crime rates and cognitive ability between races?
no, not at all, they are cucks eg donlad blumpff. the key phrase in the prior paragraph was "used to be." the leftists' masters never believed it to begin with and the average leftist is a slave to their ideology so they will never be capable of having lifelong morality

>>18555322
It takes no bravery or guts to blame poor people for their poverty. Never understood why people try to portray that as a brave, gutsy path to take. It's more painful to confront how heavily the burden of the past weighs on us, how widely distributed some of the blame is, and how many perpetrators have gone unpunished, and to try and accept how many wrongs never will be accounted for.

>>18555359
>Never understood why people try to portray that as a brave, gutsy path to take
nobody says that retard, they just note how bitter poorfags like you get when you are rightfully held accountable for your actions

>>18555322
I really resent you co-opting the legacy of my country with your insane creed

>>18555359
Why are you so insistent on doling out blame and punishment rather than solutions to the problem?

>>18555322
If they were capable of sustained intellectual honesty, they wouldn't be centrists.

>>18555364
I'm not poor. My house has always had good food in the cupboard, savings in the bank, proper utilities, etc. My parents were never unemployed long-term, and neither have I been. But I know many people didn't have such an upbringing.
>>18555381
I'm not. I was just mentioning part of the situation. Finding and implementing solutions is another challenge. Some policies are bound to be unpopular when there are factions that benefit from sowing discord (CRT proponents on one hand, and racialists on the other). For example, black communities would benefit from having more DA's to try, convict, and put away gangsters who terrorize neighborhoods, and more police and detectives to collect evidence and solve crimes. But one side is too busy demonizing police, and the other is too busy justifying or rationalizing things like police militarization and tougher penal policy. There's some hope though, as long as people can be taught to see through bullshit.

>>18555419
>My house has always had good food in the cupboard, savings in the bank, proper utilities, etc.
not rich
> My parents were never unemployed long-term, and neither have I been
retarded parents
>But I know many people didn't have such an upbringing.
hangs out with the poor
yep, we have got one. if you aren't rich (aka noble) you are a pathetic waste

>>18554015
What's the "main point"? Blacks are statistically more likely to be violent? There's a ton of sociological explanations which Murray obviously doesn't like so what are you left with?
>the real reasons
That's the thing, Murray's a lolbertarian so everything he's going to say is predictable.
>America’s most precious ideal is what used to be known as the American Creed: People are not to be judged by where they came from, what social class they come from, or by race, color, or creed. They must be judged as individuals.
ummmm, the declaration of independence openly seethes about indian savages and basically all of those categories were legally going to be very important in any court more so at the foundation of america... you have to engage in some serious revisionism to think a sexless mulatto was ever the ideal america

>>18555419
>black communities would benefit from having more DA's to try, convict, and put away gangsters who terrorize neighborhoods, and more police and detectives to collect evidence and solve crime
Ok who's going to pay for it? You're not advocating taxing the poor more are you? You're going to have to do some redistribution to get that funding for that to not do just more harm. Also most of those gangsters are just socially maladapted entrepreneurs so maybe you can utilize their talent in the process of raising funds

>>18555322
If the American Creed tells you that you should ban advanced math courses for equity reasons, or stop expecting people to use proper grammar because it's racist, or that expecting people to show up to work on time is racist (all of these are things we have seen out of Antiracists in the past year) then the American Creed is stupid and we should end the American Experiment as soon as possible. In reality, America is about equality, individualism. The American Spirit (tm) is closer to the Handicapper General than to some sort of heroic individualist figure.

If you are anywhere right of like, a liberal from 10 years ago, you were, are, and always be the villain in the Massachusetts Liberal morality play. You can't appeal to the American Creed by claiming that what you believe is the real American Creed when it's actually the opposite, even the most dimwitted liberals can see through this facade. It's like being a Polish anticommunist dissident trying to tell the CPUSSR that your anti-Communism is actually getting back to the roots of the October Revolution and to Lenin, it's blatantly false.

>>18555359
Blaming the poor is one thing and holding them responsible for their actions is another. Any positive change MUST respect each individual's agency and responsibility for their own actions. A change without that is looking at the bandaging the symptoms rather than the cause. That is not to say that they are singly at fault.

>>18555477
>equality, not individualism
Fixed

>>18555495
There's no proof morality exists or people can be logically held responsible for their actions.

>>18555477
Vonnegut would disagree. Market forces have commoditized elements of 'black' culture which simultaneously encourage the normalization of a 'black' (i.e. slave - coding a tool-like significance) ethos and disparage prominent 'community' members as central to trends of escalating violence and destabilization interracially. Americans disinhibit by adopting a distinct pseudo-culture that they normally repress or diminish in some fashion; the regularity with which this occurs indicates a degree of stable stereotypy the average American conceals despite the trend toward progressivism (the AAVE, the hyperfetishism, etc). Having the establishment kowtow when compared to effecting actual change in communities (where the issues are predominantly intraracial) probably feels tokenistic and hollow to a careful observer. We're dealing with a mass of mobilizing people unwilling to examine the history of their subjugation in any meaningful fashion.

>>18555520
thanks for the book, too bad it's entirely useless in reality because it cannot act as the basis of a democratic system (or really any system)

>>18554530
yes, jordan peterson and his ilk are all classical liberals but from the POV of curent liberals, he´s just another conservative looney

>>18555542
> it cannot act as the basis of a democratic system (or really any system)
Sure it can, the system might just be a little to intellectually scary/dangerous for the contemporary midwit

>>18555565
people are not morally responsible for their actions. why arrest them for murder? they are not responsible

>>18555651
I am tall and I am thin
Of an enviable hight
And I've been known to be quite handsome
In a certain angle and in certain light
Well I entered into O'Malley's
Said, "O'Malley I have a thirst"
O'Malley merely smiled at me
Said "You wouldn't be the first"
I knocked on the bar and pointed
To a bottle on the shelf
And as O'Malley poured me out a drink
I sniffed and crossed myself
My hand decided that the time was nigh
And for a moment it slipped from view
And when it returned, it fairly burned
With confidence anew
Well the thunder from my steely fist
Made all the glasses jangle
When I shot him, I was so handsome
It was the light, it was the angle
"Neighbours!" I cried, "Friends!" I screamed
I banged my fist upon the bar
"I bear no grudge against you!"
And my dick felt long and hard
"I am the man for which no God waits
But for which the whole world yearns
I'm marked by darkness and by blood
And one thousand powder-burns"
Well, you know those fish with the swollen lips
That clean the ocean floor
When I looked at poor O'Malley's wife
That's exactly what I saw
I jammed the barrel under her chin
And her face looked raw and vicious
Her head it landed in the sink
With all the dirty dishes
Her little daughter Siobhan
Pulled beers from dusk till dawn
And amongst the townfolk she was a bit of a joke
But she pulled the best beer in town
I swooped magnificent upon her
As she sat shivering in her grief
Like the Madonna painted on the church-house wall
In whale's blood and banana leaf
Her throat it crumbled in my fist
And I spun heroically around
To see Caffrey rising from his seat
I shot that mother fucker down
"I have no free will", I sang
As I flew about the murder
Mrs. Richard Holmes, she screamed
You really should have heard her
I sang and I laughed, I howled and I wept
I panted like a pup
I blew a hole in Mrs. Richard Holmes
And her husband stupidly stood up
As he screamed, "You are an evil man"
And I paused a while to wonder
"If I have no free will then how can I
Be morally culpable, I wonder"
I shot Richard Holmes in the stomach
And gingerly he sat down
And he whispered weirdly, "No offense"
And then lay upon the ground
"None taken", I replied to him
To which he gave a little cough
With blazing wings I neatly aimed
And blew his head completely off
I've lived in this town for thirty years
And to no-one I am a stranger
And I put new bullets in my gun
Chamber upon chamber
And I turned my gun on the bird-like Mr. Brookes
I thought of Saint Francis and his sparrows
And as I shot down the youthful Richardson
It was St. Sebastian I thought of, and his arrows
>Nick Cave, O’Malley’s Bar

>>18554216
Society is going to collapse due to global warming within our lifetimes, so no. Climate change will kill liberalism.

>>18555520
>the first book to deny that people are morally responsible and that morality exists and to connect these two claims
>2018

>>18555693
Check his efforts on pedophilia, it's premised on this foundation.

>>18555651
You just don't. You don't claim murder is right or wrong either. You just accept reality as it is. A little scary but if it's logical

>>18554069
Retard.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Z5CHFUvn1U/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0s47gWHMBK0/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1fSaWH0SESs/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ex5wZBH-uQw/

>>18554216
Hopefully. But after WW3 you‘ll have to worry about food and water and people killing you instead of cancelling you. Most likely though governments will still exist and you’re going to spend the rest of your life after living under some indeterminate emergency martial law. You‘ll also probably die of cancer painfully a decade after the bombs.

If we don’t go larp and end the world then it’ll probably end in a decade or two. Nothing fashionable has ever stuck around for long. Socialism and capitalism are just formulated systems of inherent ideas that are pur at odds through their formulation.

More than progressives dying out imo I‘m hope for libertarians and liberals to go first. Those are some stupid motherfuckers who can‘t seem to do anything but larp and complain in a way that is so unattractive that even annoying hardcore progressives are more well liked.

>>18555322
How do you work with this as an Egalitarian lol

https://twitter.com/MythinformedMKE/status/1409539548762316805

How is this not just a total repudiation BY BLACK ACTIVISTS of the entire Civil Rights Movement? The US Government forced whites to integrate the school system at gunpoint and now black Americans tell us they "don't really think analytically". What was the point of the whole thing?

>>18555805
>It’ll probably end in a decade or two.
Eh, it's pretty much America's state religion at this point. It's going nowhere.

>>18555853
The point is: whites are always oppressors, never allies. Ally implies a symmetry that cannot exist by nature of the inequitable privileging of whites. Blacks should be encouraged to kill their oppressors at every turn. Mixed families should be encouraged to after-birth abort. Whites need to die, when they've been phased out, their stifling culture will fade away. It's the only way. Violence is always the only way.

>>18555853
>at gunpoint
The photos you see aren't whites being forced into integrated schools. They're either obviously staged or protests being broken up because black students were getting death threats.

>>18555370
>>18555384
based

>>18554530
Very good summary.

>>18555859
Hourly reminder the D.C./media establishment is not "America".

>>18555689
i hope so

>>18555258
Evidence? Like a poorly slapped together book, Murrays specialty, that all you need for proof?

No. In fact, I could come back from a different dimension where more enlightened people took root and produced hundreds of geniuses a generation and your bias would still reject the idea.
You lack quite a lot, so can’t grasp it. There’s proof for this, but you can’t see it.

>>18556084
It's the only part that matters, in terms of predicting where things will go

>>18554196
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/theres-new-evidence-confirming-bias-of-the-father-of-scientific-racism/
>Refutation

That just boils down to "Morton was right but he WAS racist so there!"

Fucking sad.

>>18554504
You know very well why.

>>18554975
>>18555039
It isn't about elevating blacks. It never was. It's about using them as shock troops against white civilization.

>>18555224
The whole Rawlsian veil of ignorance struck me as intuitively silly and dilettantish when I first saw it as an undergrad. I assumed that I must be missing something, since it was promoted and presented so gravely as some kind of pinnacle of moral philosophy. But no; upon further reflection, it seems even stupider than I had initially presumed.

Its premise seems flatly incorrect for most purposes, even if we accept a bunch of priors/premises about the desirability of 'fairness' and so on. We can do that, but as you note, Rawls just skips right over the fact that 'society' is not an atomistic process. You can't necessarily derive conclusions about societies or their conditions through the analysis of individuals in the first place, since 'society' is not just an additive process of 'individual' X + Y + ...n. The whole thing reeks of some kind of radical post-humanism in which interchangeability CAN be presumed with respect to people.

If something like 'preserving a culture/people into the future' has any value, then the veil of ignorance makes no sense, since it has no means of incorporating that into its moral framework. It's very blithe in the way it ignores any sort of group interests, or any kind of permanency extending beyond the individual lifespan. It seems downright autistic when dealing with social dynamics. It feels like something that a megalomaniac autist would find appealing.

>>18555058
If you had a lot more potential you wouldn’t be working at Walmart bro

>>18555224
>>18555256
>>18557071

Thanks for the reply, famalams

>>18554489
This was ok but not as good as Strange Death of Europe or Bloody Sunday.

>>18555451
>who's going to pay for it?
Funny how nobody asks this when people bring up raising police budgets or in most other contexts.

>>18557319
Idiot. You can’t think.

>>18557071
>Its premise seems flatly incorrect for most purposes, even if we accept a bunch of priors/premises about the desirability of 'fairness' and so on.
Well, everyone knows Rawls' thought is just warmed over Massachusetts liberal Protestantism at this point, what did you expect

>>18554298
enough of this Hebrew non-sense. Somehow, this fucking kike thinks Africans are just like Einstein? The only things Africans are good at is starving to death and wonton genocide. These people never developed a written language, and live in fucking mud huts.

When did man loose his common sense?

>>18554015
I'll check it out. thanks for the heads up.

>>18558826
Writing was only developed independently like twice.

>>18559439
And?

>>18560238
What do you mean "and"? Hence it's dishonest to act like not independently inventing writing makes you some sort of subhuman.

>>18555520
if action is gravity, and reprisal is action, then how is reprisal not the same gravity?

>>18560413
where do magnets fit into that picture?

>>18554346
>CRT is nationalist!

>supporting genocide of your _nation's_ people
>supporting erasure of your _nation's_ history and culture
OR:
>nationalism
Pick ONE. What a ridiculous and deliberately horseshit trollbot take. Libertarians and their celebrity vloggers are such an embarassment

>>18554530
the classic midcentury divide was a disagreement about the reasons why blacks have such crummy outcomes; liberals argued that it was because of environment (and thus could be corrected with expert administration) and conservatives maintained it was an innate inferiority (thus must also be addressed by expert administration). the divide now is that liberals straight up refuse to acknowledge consistent poor outcomes for blacks and attribute it to white maliciousness (thus unintentionally positioning blacks as naturally subordinate to whites) while conservatives inherited the old binary as a grab bag of opinions (blacks are equal but lack discipline, blacks are inferior and can't into discipline, democrats made blacks inferior for some nefarious reason, etc)