/lit/ - Literature

That's incorrect, though. Thinking about human power structures in a lexical fashion betrays you as a non-reader.

social democrat

>>3314301
Power structures are beautiful and must be maintained.

>>3314312

>doesn't understand how power works

>>3314302
I like the sincerity here.

>>3314327
>tfw you will never live in traditional America
>tfw you live in California and whites only make up 40% of the population
>tfw drowning in a pool of shit

>>3314332
>doesn't understand that power structures are completely subjective dependent on cultural norms

>>3314334

>not living in the most diverse city in the world
>not embracing it

Traditionalist northerner scum detected.

>>3314343
You mean south?

>>3314339

>gets the point
>still thinks power structures can be maintained

Why is poverty so endearing?

I think it's because everyone today is pretty much a polished walking advertisement for various companies.

>>3314334
Feel free to move. CA doesn't want your kind anywayz.

>>3314350
Power interests change constantly depending on cultural context. What is in an individuals power interest can be heavily influenced by his society and by extension the state.

>>3314345

No, most of us in the south don't really consider race

>>3314358

It doesn't exactly work in a top-down fashion. It's much more horizontal and complex than that

>>3314363
The south has the highest concentration of blacks because that's where all the slaves lived. Northerners are what brought pig disgusting industrialization to the rest of America.

>>3314302
>>3314333
Social democrats are the cancer killing Europe.

>>3314369

I'm talking about California, you twat.

>>3314377
>most of us in the south
>in the south
>south
>California

>>3314381

Keep following the conversation upstream, buddy.

whatever beliefs will get me a gf

so probably a liberal

>>3314396
Conservatives have more sex than liberals, this is a scientific fact. It's probably because they're more alpha.

>>3314396
>>3314399

>liberal

Go to bed, children. Stop using that term.

>alpha

Are you kidding? It's shocking that conservatives can't help but think of reality in terms of the reductive and dichotomous.

>>3314402
>Are you kidding? It's shocking that conservatives can't help but think of reality in terms of the reductive and dichotomous.

Please apply some rectal healing cream, it pains me to see your hind-quarters THIS inflamed.

Could you give the sauce of these photos, op?

Also, I'm a brazilian socialist.

>>3314405

>>>/pol/
>>>/fit/
>>>/weaboomanchildclub/

>>3314402
It's shocking that liberals refuse to see patterns that offend them.

>>3314411

Quick: define 'liberal'

I'll wait.

>>3314408
Pedophile poverty fetishist.

>>3314412
The American political left. That was pretty easy.

>>3314414
I think you meant: democrats.

My views can be described as Reactionary Nationalist

>>3314413
If you view these images as sexual, please seek psychological help.

>>3314414

That's hardly a definition. Explain what 'The American political left' is, without using vacant qualifiers

>>3314410
/fit/? There's better examples of manchildren boards out there.

>>3314421

>>3314424
It's a manly board so it makes effeminate beta liberals feel uncomfortable and threatened.

>>3314424

I never said /fit/ was a manchild board.

>>3314428

If by 'body dysmorphic and orientation-challenged' translates to 'manly', as it often does, you're absolutely right.

>>3314412
Someone who's always making excuses for other people and encouraging the lowering of standards.

>>3314432

>>3314434

Which standards are universal? Moral ones? Economic ones? By what metric might we decide when a standard is at the proper height?

>>3314437

Fuck off with the tumblr shitfest psuedleft posting.

I'm not coming from that angle

>>3314439

>>3314438
Standards are kind of like the definitions of words. They shift naturally and at a glacial pace over time, but it's disruptive if a hysterical pinko tries to handwave them out of existence.

>>3314443

You would admit these standards are defined by arbitrary temporal social mores? And complain that someone might call their veracity into question?

>>3314432
Why group /fit/ with the abysmal /pol/ then? Seems rather random.

>>3314453

Not too many people outside /fit/ take the whole beta/alpha thing seriously.

>>3314455

>its virtues will cease to flourish

I legitimately laughed.

>>3314458
Science takes alpha/beta seriously, considering 80% of women have sex with 20% of men.

>Caring about something as meaningless as politics

>>3314458
nigga do u even heartiste

>>3314469
>nigga

Wow, so edgy!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because being racist is like super cool and doesn't make you look like a shithead!

>>3314472
Why are liberals so pathetic?

>>3314458
Have you ever been to /b/? They take that almost TOO seriously.

I'm in favour of freedom of speech as long as such a freedom doesn't incite hatred or otherwise cause actual harm to someone.

>>3314502
>I'm in favor of freedom of speech as long as people don't say things that I don't like

>>3314487

Not in years, no.

>>3314507
not at all. I respect your right to call someone a faggot/nigger/whatever, but you should expect the consequences thereof.

Case in point: if you're a stormfag, that's great! Just don't shout rude things at the local black family, or the police will fuck your shit up.

>>3314514
You don't respect my right if you are going to have the police use violence against me for expressing my right.

>Just don't shout rude things at the local black family, or the police will fuck your shit up.

That's not a free society.

>>3314520
I never said the society was free.
Benign dictatorships...shame they simply don't work.

>>3314511
Don't worry, you're not missing much.

>>3314451
Hunger is arbitrary, but undeniable. There are different answers to that demand and different practicalities, hence the change of cuisine from place to place and time to time. We're organic, and our culture is too. Revealing something as arbitrary doesn't refute it.

Eugenics needs to come back into practice. Mentally handicapped people (talking about retardation, not depression, anxiety, etc) should be sterilized, as should violently mentally disturbed people. It's not a right to have children, no one has the right to fuck a kid up, and saying that it's a basic human right for everyone to breed is selfish bullshit. You should have to get a parenting license before raising a child. Also, start giving children (boys and girls) birth control when puberty hits.

>>3314523
(Not the poster who said nigger) but anon the word does get thrown around here on 4chan a lot, and you're welcome to argue against it but I think generally the use of the word is more a reflection of language as it commonly used in US culture than anyone's intent to actually 'be racist.' It makes the kids feel edgy. And if you call them on it they say 'well why is it ok for every rapper to say it and not me' and on and on it goes. The same applies for use of the word faggot.

>>3314566
edge city up in here.

>>3314573
Provide a coherent argument against eugenics that isn't "but my feelings!!!".

Go.

>>3314577

Provide a reason why your notion of the moral superiority of eugenics is based on anything but "but my feelings!"

>>3314582
It isn't morally superior. It's selecting for certain traits that are considered to valuable by the community.

>>3314586
Well we all know how that worked out.

>>3314586

> traits that are considered to valuable by the community

There is no universal metric to define this without relying on 'but my feelings!'

>>3314596
>traits that are considered to valuable by the community

I never claimed there was a universal metric, merit is subjective. But eugenic programs can be useful when a society has a certain goal in mind, whatever that may be.

>>3314586

1. Unintended consequences invariably would invariably arise such as decreasing diversity in the gene pool, resulting in vulnerability to various diseases.

2. Adoption of eugenics initiates a dangerous paradigm shift that is liable to result in discrimination and genocide.

3. Advocacy of eugenics is ineffectual with reference to poor public perception of the philosophy, meaning that from a practical perspective any possible benefits will remain sheerly that. Arguing eugenics, even if it "works" (and it does not), is a complete waste of time given the modern political context.

>>3314612
>1. Unintended consequences invariably would invariably arise such as decreasing diversity in the gene pool, resulting in vulnerability to various diseases.

Jews have extreme susceptibility to rare diseases, but I'd say it was worth considering the high IQ that they possess.

>2. Adoption of eugenics initiates a dangerous paradigm shift that is liable to result in discrimination and genocide.

>muh feelings
>muh HITLER
>muh godwin

>3. Advocacy of eugenics is ineffectual with reference to poor public perception of the philosophy, meaning that from a practical perspective any possible benefits will remain sheerly that. Arguing eugenics, even if it "works" (and it does not), is a complete waste of time given the modern political context.

Opinion.

>>3314595
>Well we all know how that worked out.
>Lumping things together

This form of eugenics wouldn't be practiced based on racial or religious prejudice, it would be based on not ruining the lives of babies and children. Some retarded people will just keep on breeding and breeding and they are completely unable to raise their children so someone else has to. People that go around torturing stray cats and raping people in alleys shouldn't reproduce. How is that edgy at all? It is about feelings; it's about avoiding the needless suffering of children at the hands of their parents, whether passive or active.

>>3314351
upper-middle class fag detected

>>3314618

1. Any potential benefits (which are not certain with reference to the prevalence of non-inherited genetic mutations) are outweighed by the significantly increased probability of an extinction event. Additionally, the high intelligence of Jews may be ascribed to various socio-economic factors, among others, that have nothing to do with genetics. I am not denying that genetics play absolutely no role in determining one's intelligence, merely that they are not nearly the whole case.

2. You failed to substantively respond to the point. While I will admit that "Hitler did it" is unjustly employed by many as a decisive reason for not advocating eugenics, that is not the argument I am making here. My point is that the advocacy of eugenics, even assuming it could succeed (which is quite a stretch), would create a context in which horrific forms of discrimination and injustice could be perpetuated.

3. Which aspect is an opinion? Clearly a majority of people are opposed to eugenics. It is denounced by nearly every Western liberal democracy, many international organizations, and is associated with the events of the Holocaust. Regardless of whether these parties are basing their beliefs on sound reasoning, the stalwartness of their convictions prevents any advocacy from ever coming to fruition.

>>3314363
>live in south
>have shaved head because gracefully balding
>smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk, headed into the mall
>bunch of black guys across parking lot start screaming "Nazi" and "white power" at me and my girlfriend
>they're goose stepping
People consider race. Not just here, but everywhere.
It just baffles me that people think that it's not possible for white people to experience racism. (racism is not prejudice plus power, it's being an asshole to someone solely because of their race)

>>3314514
How about the black family can just fuck the stormfag's shit up and not get arrested for it? We don't need the cops to be brought into personal matters; you're probably one of those people that calls the cops when the people in the apartment next door are playing music too loud. Just go over there and talk to them; most likely they'll apologize and turn it down if you aren't a dick about it. Consequences for your words and beliefs are one thing, being forced to comply and being silenced by police is another.

>>3314654
We already have a system of discrimination against mentally disabled people (would you breed with a severely retarded person?) and child molesters. Eugenics wouldn't create it, it already exists. How would them not breeding lead to extinction?

Politically I'm apathetic. I have a set beliefs that my emotions lead me to and can argue them for fun if I like, but in the end I realize that all I have are opinions; I'm not changing anybody's, and nobody's changing mine. If I had a more articulate and passionate mind for politics (or religion, etc) then maybe I'd be up for a little debate.

I wouldn't say I'm far right or a fascist. But I'm definitely closer to OP than I am to most people in the political mainstream.

>>3314699

I am not sure we are operating on the same definition of eugenics; could you clarify what you are advocating?

books

>>3314719
Sterilization of people that would fuck up their kids. Not about trying to exterminate entire groups of people, more trying to spare kids needless suffering and misery.

asds

>>3314734

Ah, my apologies! I totally misunderstood your position. That said, I am undecided on the issue. On the one hand you can argue natural rights, on the other there are your points (among others). I am not too invested in the issue, but lean against allowing reproduction in cases of extreme mental handicap. Once again, my apologies, totally misunderstood your angle.

>>3314747
No worries, man. It's easy to assume the worst when you read a statement in favor of something that has been used for such horrible purposes in the past.

>>3314343

Why should he embrace something that was was foisted upon him?

>right wing

haha, oh wow

>Having a need to indentify with anything
>Especially with any political doctrine

LEL LOL HAHAAHHA

>>3314463
>citation needed

anarcho-capitalist(the only true anarchism)

>>3315114
How does it feel to be a murderer?

>>3315140
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

member of a Marxist-Leninist Communist Party

>>3314675
>it's being an asshole to someone solely because of their race
Pretty much this for me. But what do I, a layman, know?

My political view? Everything looks dim.

>>3314412
>A person who see's human nature as individualistic, self-intrusted and rational. Because we are self-interested, we want to do wrong in order to benefit ourselves but don't want wrong done to us. So we compromise by making states which prevent us from doing harm as are wish to avoid pain is greater than our desire for pleasure at the cost of pain. It is egalitarian in the sense or morality, but is not truly egalitarian due to them being individualistic rather than collectivist. So one size doesn't fit all. Also, attempting to force people to believe in something is pointless as 1) the threat posed by strife and 2) we can force people to do, but not to believe hence we might as well tolerate people. There are also issue of allowing diversity in order to find fulfilment in a particular way of life. This is why we should allow freedom of speech and action, except when your freedom of action causes harm to another.

Something kinda like this is what liberalism classically was.

>>3314502
John Stuart Mill would be rolling in his grave if he saw this.

>>3314312
I've heard lots of retarded arguments from fascists and girht-wing fags. But you can be glad to have given me the most retarded argument I've ever herd about this dumb shit. Congratulations.

>>3314455
lol this can only happen in USA.

I'm apolitical. I considered myself an anarchist when I was like 15, but after some years I realized how stupid most humans are and how much they deserve to live in the shitty world they lived. Now I'm just an individualist.

>>3314502

“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” ― Noam Chomsky

You really think fascism is a valid, workable form of government?

Mussolini was strung up by his feet and beaten to death by his own people.

Hitler caused the collapse of the economy his party kind of helped build, before taking the coward's way out and offing himself.

Franco was an appalling failure as a leader, a bumbling fucking idiot as a person, and a stain on Spain's history.

Mosley was the laughingstock of British politics until the day he died.

I'm a far-right agrarian fascist

I feel like I'm too ignorant to have an opinion about politics right now. I'm neutral/indifferent to politics right now.

>>3314367

This guy knows. All of your subjectivities are the products of decentralized discursive regimes of power. Seeing power as merely a matter of oppressor and oppressed is an infantile analysis of power structures.

Traditionalist. 'Modernity' is a monstrosity, 'liberals' are scum, and 'conservatives' are liberals.

>>3315331
Then what are you doing on the internet?

>>3315303
The only thing that guy knows is AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS AIDS

>>3315291
I'm not a fascist, but none of those are particularly compelling arguments against fascism as a system.

Mussolini was shot, btw.

>>3315291
>You really think fascism is a valid, workable form of government?

Yeah, that's pretty dumb of him. Almost as dumb as believing that orthodox Marxism or left-anarchism are valid and workable.

>>3315336

Riding the tiger.

>>3315337
He established a theoretical framework for the Will to AIDS

I don´t think any political ideals are at all permanent. There are no right or wrong forms of government. They emerge and fall naturally. The more rigid and authoritarian they are the sooner they will crumble. I´m petty much apolitical since I think it is a waste of time discussing the same shit over and over again with the same shitty arguments, which amount to nothing really. But this is possibly just because I´ve been living in a politically stable country all of my life.

>>3315339
None of them are even true. Only a Marxist would distort the truth in such fashion. You'll typically find posts like that on 420chan, where not a single person has read Roger Griffin let alone any primary literature. Yet they feel the need to educate us on the horrors of fascism, and use lies and incomplete truths to convince us of their cause. Fascism has only failed at the above-state level. At a state level it has provided us with several working concepts such as large-scale privatization, national syndicalism and the enforcement of positive liberties through negative policies. Fascism was a system of unprecedented syncretic pragmatism. It merits another look, at least.

>>3315346
You're the man.

>>3315369
>The more rigid and authoritarian they are the sooner they will crumble.

Nah, comparative politics isn't that simple.

>>3315383

You are probably right.

1. Kill all retards (capitalists, communists, liberals, conservatives, teenagers, old people etc)
2. The scientists work together to understand the universe (if you don't want to help, you will be shot for being a traitor to the human race)
3. ???
4. Enlightenment

That's my plan.

>implying one's political views reside in belief

get on my level

representative democratic capitalist reporting in

>>3315389

>le derpy scientism face

>>3315376
id be okay with fascism as long as it wasn't so tightly fused with nationalism and eugenics

we're halfway there anyway

>>3315398
I don't see why you would object to eugenics. I do think Social Darwinism in Germany was too negative: too centred on the destruction of bad, rather than the creation of good. Nonetheless, negative policies work in theory. Positive policies have multiple precedents in human history. Eugenics definitely should not be the taboo they are.

>>3315389
5. All the scientists are too beta/preoccupied with their work to ask out girls
6. The human race stops reproducing
7. Extinction

Great plan genius

>>3315398

But nationalism and eugenics are good things. Why wouldn't they be?

>>3315398
I guess it's possible if you can think of another means of quelling class conflict within a given area.

>>3315458

>implying they wouldn't form an übermensch willing to dominate over weaker beings

>>3315114
I've always been confused with anarcho-capitalism. Wouldn't a scenario like this inevitably unfold?

>Be a poor farmer
>Some guy wants my land
>Him and his large personal army come and take it by force
>There is no state, so there is no public police force
>I'm poor so I can't afford a personal army
>No more private property for me

Can someone clear this up?

Social democracy master race reporting in
>yfw Americans think we're liberals

I'm a bell curve liberal.

>>3315486
I'm jelly. Wish we had a social democrat party here.

>>3315419
eugenics is pointless

the last human evolution was lactose tolerance, approx 14 thousand years ago

you can't manipulate evolution on that same scale, and even if you could you run into all sorts of problems.

>>3315465
nah. nation doesn't make sense to me. it's this shitty model of social organization leftover from history. i'd prefer organizing either on a smaller scale (local, or state/province/etc) or on a larger scale (global, anglophone/language grouping). the smaller is better because you can actually have impact on politics. i can call my senator right now, but i'd be one of thousands of people calling him/her, and he/she will just follow the orders of those who bribe him/her rather than be accountable to thousands of clamouring constituents. these bribes occur either directly or indirectly via campaign fund-raising.

secondly, global/linguistic organization because that's the scale at which the economy is operating. i have a direct interest in overseas business, and others have a direct interest in the US as consumers. with nationalism you get things like speculative attacks or one country that benefits greatly at the expense of the other. if you scaled decision-making to a global level for economics, competition wouldn't be artificially propped up by, say for example, high minimum wages here or low minimum wages elsewhere.

secondly, a primary barrier to a more greatly integrated economy right now is that people cannot move as freely as money. the fact that people in arizona and TX get spooked by immigrants (muh nation!) is superstition at best. it's irrational.

>>3315419
Care to elaborate on why, you functioning retard?

>>3315483
Not exactly an ancap, but I think it is worth noting that there isn't really anything stopping this from happening even in the US. If one guy has enough people willing to kill and die for him (a personal army) he can take over a city. He could even raze DC.

i support monarchy, though in art and literature i am liberal.

>start out with your run-of-the-mill extreme whatever views
>progressively end up being milder in every respect
>I don't even know what would be best anymore
Oh well. Back to /pol/ kiddies

>>3315492
>the last human evolution was lactose tolerance, approx 14 thousand years ago
Oh please, don't start this. Punctuated equilibrium theory is a farce and unsupported by the most basic empiricism.

>>3315495
>Positive policies have multiple precedents in human history.
It's honestly getting old mentioning differences in intelligence on unaware boards over and over again. Ashkenazi Jews are the easiest group to examine.

I'm a non-conformist.

If a word exists for a political perspective, then I shall not adopt that perspective (obviously non-conformity is an exception to that rule).

>>3315570
The lengths racists go to to validate their bigotry never cease to surprise me.

I have to ask, if you're so convinced of the empirical accuracy of your beliefs, then why do you eve care if people believe otherwise?

>>3314472
>nigga
>racist
Yeah every single black kid in public school is a fucking Grand Dragon Wizard of the KKK because they say nigga a million times a minute.
You are such a fucking faggot, eat a dick

>>3315582
Why argue anything? The simple truth is that the punctuated equilibrium theory was put forward by a politically motivated individual notorious for his lack of scientific rigour. Now we have at least one person in this thread supporting that theory, even though it isn't true, even though it isn't plausible, even though it comes from an untrustworthy and even though much of the evidence points in another direction. Those are the problems I have here. Can you stop insulting me now?

>>3315601
>faggot
Wow, so edgy!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because being homophobic is like super cool and doesn't make you look like a shithead!

>>3315616
That's not even a political ideology. It'd be lovely if we lived in a post-scarcity society, but we don't.

Post-scarcity technocratic transhumanist

Come at me.

>>3314472
You realize "nigga" isn't the same as "nigger" right?

>>3315616
Yeah man, my political perspective is that I wish we were all wizards.

Come at me.

>>3314334
>Tfw going to school in a suburb of detroit
>detroit and its suburbs are two different places
>we threw all the negroes in the city and left back in the 60s
>tfw 2 black kids in my highschool of 1500
>1 fight a year between white trash
>no hard drugs only weed
>productive environment
>tfw, regardless, all i like to listen to is tribe and nas

I'm far-left industrial communist, faggot.

>>3314473
Being a PC faggot =/= liberal

>>3315483
anarcho-capitalism: rule by gangsters and petty regional warlords.

>>3315570
my post had nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium. i simply said that the last human evolution was lactose tolerance. my only mistake was that it was approx 10 thousand years ago, not 14.

it is not only pointless, but i would even say impossible to practice eugenics on such a scale. pointless because evolution is not progressive, nor teleological. this is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. second, there has been no human society that has been stable for 10 thousand years. even you COULD practice eugenics on a meaningful time scale (hundreds of thousands of years), there's simply no point.

if you take the premises of racists seriously, intelligence is not an evolutionary asset. if this was true, we should see countries with higher average intelligence having a higher fertility. fertility only declines in first world countries, while third world countries experience explosive growth in in population. on a simply population-biological measure of success, less intelligent people reproduce more often, and are thus evolutionarily "better" than intelligent people. i don't take the premise seriously though, there is no "better" or "worse" in biology. even if there was such a thing, humans would be far from being considered "most evolved". really, there are so many goddamn problems with race+IQ, evolution theory stuff it blows my mind. i can take the care to elaborate if you so desire.

>>3315764
The entire argument of racists is based on correlation equaling causation (i.e. black people cause crime because black people are genetically inferior)

The overwhelming consensus among the scientific community, especially among geneticists, is that:
a: differences in race are largely superficial physical variations that comes almost exclusively from of sexual selection (humans are actually unusual among the animal species for their low genetic variation, to the point where some experts conjecture a genetic bottleneck sometime in the remote past)
b: there is no single "intelligence gene", human intelligence is far, far too nuanced and variable for us to breed for it the way that we breed beefier livestock
c: Has no real practical implementation beyond telling people who they are and are not allowed to marry
d: They're just butthurt that people ridicule them for being drooling inbred hillbillies living in a skinhead compound just outside of Frogtits, Kentucky clinging to racial supremacy theories that have been utterly discredited by the scientific community for nearly a century

>>3315764
you say evolution in humans takes place, but you say it's not gradual and the last evolution was a definite bottleneck step. it that isn't punctuated equilibrium, I don't know what it is. it does not follow from the realities of our world or the observed facts, and is thus not a logical viewpoint.
>it is not only pointless, but i would even say impossible to practice eugenics on such a scale.
there is simply no truth to this. countless experiments have been undertaken on countless species. scale is not of any importance. a small change in a low amount of individuals still influences the population as a whole. if it is impractical, you sure shouldn't have a problem explaining racial and ethnic differences for me without eventually getting into infinite feedback loops.

:>>3315814
>that picture
first fallacy
>The overwhelming consensus among the scientific community, especially among geneticists, is that:
second fallacy
>differences in race are largely superficial physical variations
intelligence is an obvious difference, twinning rates, number of cortical neurons, race-specific hereditary diseases
>some experts conjecture a genetic bottleneck sometime in the remote past
meaning Gould again, what a coincidence
>b: there is no single "intelligence gene"
this is incredibly fallacious. as if the concept of intelligence could be defined this simply, and as if this means intelligence is invalid if there is more than one gene responsible for intelligence.
>human intelligence is far, far too nuanced and variable for us to breed for it the way that we breed beefier livestock
what makes humans more advanced than any other species biologically? why are we the only ones incapable of being changed by gradual Darwinistic processes? clearly you acknowledge the fact that we can breed specific traits into other animals. why not us?

>>3315814
>c: Has no real practical implementation beyond telling people who they are and are not allowed to marry
race has practical relevance in forensic profiling and clearly the concept of race is used by the politicians enforcing affirmative action and quotas.

>d: They're just butthurt that people ridicule them for being drooling inbred hillbillies living in a skinhead compound just outside of Frogtits, Kentucky clinging to racial supremacy theories
I count 4 fallacies now. I also like how you imply inbreeding leads to individuals inferior stock while denying gradual Darwinian change.

>that have been utterly discredited by the scientific community for nearly a century
who? Boas? Gould? Lewontin? the men armed not with evidence, but with fallacies and political motives?

>really, there are so many goddamn problems with race+IQ, evolution theory stuff it blows my mind. i can take the care to elaborate if you so desire.
feel free to do so. don't forget to make a post about it on /pol/ too so they can laugh as well

>>3315844
>first fallacy
What fallacy? That skin-heads are the shit-tier of white people?
>second fallacy
What fallacy? That I should trust some random asshole over the internet instead of an entire community of professionals who dedicate their careers to studying the subject and who insist that racism is junk science? (I'm sorry, is "race realist" politically correct enough for you?)
>clearly you acknowledge the fact that we can breed specific traits into other animals. why not us?
Because who's going to be in charge of it? You? You think it's as easy as just giving people an IQ test or something stupefyingly simple as that?
>meaning Gould again, what a coincidence
Google "Toba catastrophe theory" Jesus it's not that fucking hard to do your own research.
>race has practical relevance in forensic profiling and clearly the concept of race is used by the politicians enforcing affirmative action and quotas.
Way to miss my point, dipshit. I said that there can be no real practical implementation of racial supremacist policies that aren't intrinsically tyrannical and restrictive of human rights. Unless you think that you are somehow going to convince large swaths of the population to voluntarily sterilize themselves? And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
>this is incredibly fallacious.
You keep using that word because its an argument you don't agree with.
>who?
Not even worth bothering to respond. Go read a peer-reviewed journal of genetics and let us know how many articles on "race realism" you find. Oh wait, let me guess, the scientific establishment is run by jew liberals who stifle those forward-thinking "race realists" and that's reason enough for you to disregard it, right? Eat a dick

>>3315844
actually, saying that the last human evolution was 10k years ago would imply the gradualist position. this change has taken thousands of years to become the majority of the population, and will take longer still to be complete. many people are still lactose intolerant, and it will take thousands more years until there is no-one left in the world with lactose intolerance. even then, you can't be sure that will necessarily happen.

>experiments have been undertaken on countless species

you misunderstand me. i am not disputing that evolution takes place. what i am disputing is the artificial selection for certain traits via eugenics. in other words, i am saying that there is no reasonable answer to the question "why should we implement laws the reduce trait [x], or promote trait [y]?" any answer depends on a value judgment or subjective choice of goals.

further, if you take the gradualist interpretation, scale is of utmost importance. because you NEED A GRADUAL CHANGE. evolution happens gradually, as the theory says, not all at once. it will take tens of thousands of years, thousands of generations before evolutionary change takes place on a species-wide level.

>racial and ethnic differences

race is an outdated typology. the original theory was that there were three races, all of separate geographic origin (IE: instead of "single common ancestor", these people in the 1800s believed that there were "three ancestors" of modern humans). so in the first place, explaining racial difference is like me having to explain the mechanisms of phlogiston. it's an obsolete and meaningless premise. second, ethnicity is tied to language. look up any definition of ethnicity, its center is a matter of identity, which is undetermined by biology. if ethnicity had major and determinate roots in biology, perceived ethnic differences between irish, german, polish, slavic, and other european emigrants should persist. instead, all these populations received full citizenship.

>>3315916
I think you need to take a look at the simple English Wikipedia page on fallacies. you might learn a thing or two. the irony of it all is that I'm not even white.

>an entire community of professionals who dedicate their careers to studying the subject insist that racism is junk science
I'm just going to go ahead and assume you mean "the existence of race" by your buzzword "racism". simply not true. this can be disproven without even mentioning race realists. try Cavalli-Sforza, Dawkins, David Sloan Wilson, and a bunch of other names you've never even heard because you have no idea what you're talking about.

>Google "Toba catastrophe theory" Jesus it's not that fucking hard to do your own research.
no, never heard of it. typically one of the bottlenecks IS at 10k years ago, as presented by Gould and The 10,000 Year Explosion for example. 70k years ago seems awfully irrelevant if you believe that evolution continued on for 60k years after that.

>I said that there can be no real practical implementation of racial supremacist policies that aren't intrinsically tyrannical and restrictive of human rights
you write with invisible ink on 4chan? all I personally advocate is the abolition of quotas and affirmative action. I'm personally more concerned about gender than race. everything else is there is a strawman (look it up on that simple English Wikipedia, it's another fallacy!).

>You keep using that word because its an argument you don't agree with.
fallacies are fallacies and I'll continue pointing them out until you stop making them. that was not the entire extent of my argument though, yet you ignored the rest for your own convenience.

> Go read a peer-reviewed journal of genetics and let us know how many articles on "race realism" you find
go read a peer-reviewed journal of atlantic history and let us know how many articles on "abolitionism" you find. therefore, abolitionism is irrelevant, and therefore, slavery shouldn't be abolished. "Eat a dick".

>>3315916

Just stopping in to contribute an opinion from someone who's actually a human genomicist. Believe me, everyone knows what you're really talking about when you say "East Eurasians", "Sub-Saharan Africans", "West Eurasians", "Australasians", etc. All that bullshit about structured population clusters being *totally different* from physical-anthropological conceptions of race are just so much squid ink. tbh I'd prefer our self-appointed moral betters keep on thinking that genetics and evolutionary biology are just polemical bludgeons against hurrchristfags. If they realized it actually had concrete implications -- unsettling ones, at that -- for social engineering projects premised on the inherent interchangeability of human beings and populations, they'd do their damndest to make sure my domain of work became a new Pripyat.

People are terrified of being "Watsoned" and getting disconnected from dat tenuretracktime. So well-known personages at major institutes like talk openly about trying to keep themselves at arm's length from anything that would confirm what everyone's "lying eyes" already tell them about behavioral-cognitive differences. wtf were you expecting? Peer-reviewed studies titled "GWAS Correlates of Black Mental Inferiority" (just joking here ... it seems now that across-the-board depressed SSA outcomes on assays of intelligence might be more a matter of relatively greater genetic load...)? People aren't dumb, they know what's career-wrecking even -- especially -- if what you uncover is true (but good luck even getting the NSF to consider a grant proposal with even a diplomatic cock of the head in such a direction).

I expect left-creationists to change their tune dramatically and shamelessly if some kind of remediation becomes possible. Not sure what that would be ... some things are essentially intractable on political/human-lifespan timescales.

>>3315964
Not the guy you're responding to, but AA quotas were abolished in some USSC decision called like grotting v bollinger or something like that.

even after that, i'm not aware of any workplace or university that has quotas. secondly, since businesses are private enterprises, they can do whatever the fuck they want for quotas.

>>3315970

Name and position, please.

>>3315970
a hypothetical for the human genomicist: accepting >>3315916's suggestion that the scientific community generally agrees there aren't significant intellectual differences between races as truth, do you think that 1) a comparably small amount of dissenters and 2) the suggestion that scientists would be afraid to agree with them for personal reasons would be strong enough arguments to cast doubt on scientific consensus?

>>3315814
>drooling inbred hillbillies
lol

>>3315946
> in other words, i am saying that there is no reasonable answer to the question "why should we implement laws the reduce trait [x], or promote trait [y]?" any answer depends on a value judgment or subjective choice of goals.
the strict implications here are that there are no objective values we should value over others. earlier, you cited a lower birthrate as a less adaptive trait associated with high intelligence. I'd dispute that the two are biologically linked to begin with. for one, the demographic transition model in which phases 1 and 4 reproduce equally, even though phase 4 is presumably a more intelligent and advanced society their demographic model has the same net population growth while being far more stable. I don't think the belief that a society would be better off without Down's syndrome is very subjective. economic analyses could be quoted, psychologists dealing with the relatives of Downers could be quoted, but in the end you could dismiss all of it because the idea that Down's syndrome is inferior would strictly only be true if they reproduce less. we should take Darwinism out of the sphere of biology and into the sphere of sociology. apply it to political and economics systems or cultural entities and come to the more sound conclusion that civilisations are objectively better off without certain mental illnesses or genetic diseases, based on economic and political gains we get from eliminating them.

> it will take tens of thousands of years, thousands of generations before evolutionary change takes place on a species-wide level.
I just don't understand how you could say something like this. Jews didn't need thousands of generations to end up miles ahead of everyone else in verbal intelligence. we didn't need thousands of generations to domesticate animals. from everything I have read, no more than 30 generations of strict eugenics would be needed to alter a population visibly.

>>3315964
quotas don't matter bro

>>3316004

Cousin marriages are only marginally more likely to lead to birth defects than regular ones. The risk is about the same as when a 40 year-old woman gives birth

>that Southern feel when you researched your ancestry and found out you're the product of multiple consanguineous pairings

>>3314296

Mutualist.

>>3315987
I'm not American, but as far as I can tell AA is still an unofficial "backroom" policy. As in, a university misses out massive amounts of public funding if it decides not to follow the egalitarian policy. Black and Latino admission rates are still disproportionately high, and white and especially Asian individuals suffer greatly from it. Gender quotas are fairly common in Europe too. If not quotas, more subtly heavy encouragements and scholarships. None of it is admirable policy.

>>3316041
why? because your values are different? call the cops

>>3316041

Don't misunderstand. AA is still alive and well, but the quotas aspect was struck down some time ago.

lol

>>3316046
My values are definitely different, I would prefer a Korean or Japanese model as they eliminate racial tension and minimize social division. Still, I'm realistic enough to realize that will never happen and pragmatic enough to realize the best solution is for decisions to be made on the individual level every time. All egalitarianism does is entrench racial differences.

>>3316032
We all are if we go back long enough I'm sure but the long term effects of inbreeding are still bad actually. See the name in the right lower corner of that picture. He's done a lot of research you can seek out. But I'll just quote this from Wikipedia about British Pakistanis and you'll see.
>British Pakistanis are 13 times more likely to have children with recessive disorders than the general population.

This is the result of this practice and the same pattern is observed among other people who do the same. Downs syndrome for example is much more common among Arabs and Pakistanis in the West compared to native Europeans.

Apathetic

>>3316023
>a society would be better off

Yes, the very saying "better" or "worse" is a subjective analysis. Why is society better if there is no one with Downs?

Evolution does not say that one thing is better or worse than another. It only explains how change occurs.

>Jews didn't need thousands of generations
First, the predominance of certain ethnicities in a given cultural system is not a sign of evolution. Jews did not "evolve." Second, you do not have the data to show that changes in intelligence occurred in such a time (since their enslavement by the Egyptians, I take you to mean?). Third, I dispute that Jews constitute a meaningful biological group. The species demarcation is the only meaningful one in biology, since its definition is functional: the ability to reproduce fertile offspring. The only debates among biologists about species is that it is too specific rather than too vague. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/

>>3315291

>Mussolini was strung up by his feet and beaten to death by his own people.

Would that have happened had WW2 gone in the axis' favour? DO you not think it was because he entered a war that the country was not prepared for, rather than his policies?


>Hitler caused the collapse of the economy his party kind of helped build,

Collapsed the economy how? You mean as a result of the war? Germany was doing quite well until 1941.

>before taking the coward's way out and offing himself.

Russian soldiers who hate your guts and would happily burn you alive if they captured you are a stone's throw away. There is no hope of escape, is it really the 'coward's' way out to die with some dignity?

>Franco was an appalling failure as a leader, a bumbling fucking idiot as a person, and a stain on Spain's history.

What makes you think that? Spain was the second-fastest growing economy in the world (after Japan) in the 60s and 70s. Do you really think the Spanish people would have done better under some anarchist rabble?

>Mosley was the laughingstock of British politics until the day he died.

Admittedly I don't know much about Mosely, but he was a member of parliament and later a chancellor under Labour, so he must have known something about politics.

>>3316089
I forgot to add: how do you propose to control all humans for 30 generations to get the changes you desire. You alluded to "stability" as the factor in advanced societies. These societies are stable because they are not authoritarian.

Sure, okay, I will accept interpretations of western liberal democracy today that say it has aspects of fascism or authoritarianism, but no one is telling me what i can and can't do with my dick, or the fate of the children I have. No one would accept such severe curtailing of their liberty.

>>3314296
Codreanu pls go

>>3316058
i wonder why you never see marginalised groups advocating this

>>3314363
You don't consider race because your all niggers and spics there. Apples and.... apples. Both drug dealing trash.

My political views are those of whoever is trying to advance the cause of White Supremacy. So long as you fight the hordes of trash I am on your side.

>>3316089
>Yes, the very saying "better" or "worse" is a subjective analysis.
analysing the purely rational economic benefits: comparing several societies for example, a 0.1 rate, a 0.05 rate, a 0.01 rate, and lastly a 0 rate of individuals with Downs syndrome. assuming the population is otherwise perfectly distributed on a Gaussian curve with no other "malfunctions", you could create several games and analyse the benefits and optimize the rate of Downers through Social Darwinism. that sounds really fucking ridiculous. you can also just accept that they are on average too ill to be well-functioning members of society, that is they are individuals who unambiguously contribute less than they receive.

>Jews did not "evolve."
Ashkenazim did select for adaptive traits, and they seem to have been much more precise in this than any other ethnic group. it's not conventional "big adaptive alpha male fucks all the ladies and spreads his genes" evolution, no.

>Second, you do not have the data to show that changes in intelligence occurred in such a time
I do not. we can compare contemporary data, and we know that IQ has remained mostly stable over the last 50 years besides the Flynn effect. everything else is speculative.

>(since their enslavement by the Egyptians, I take you to mean?)
the hypothesis is that Jews in Europe were segregated into specific professions which required high verbal intelligence. this would have been the environment to bottleneck European Jews. bankers, lawyers and jewellers (to name some of the most obvious professions) mostly interacted with the upper layers of European society, which could have meant Jewish intermarriage was almost exclusively with highly intelligent Europeans. this explanation entirely defeats the environmentalist supposition that culture and environment form intelligence, as Ashkenazim are uniquely intelligent among the Jewish people. all other groups score below the European mean.

Anarcho-syndicalist.

>>3316134
>Ashkenazim did select for adaptive traits, and they seem to have been much more precise in this than any other ethnic group. it's not conventional "big adaptive alpha male fucks all the ladies and spreads his genes" evolution, no.


proof?

>>3316177
http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/ashkiq.webpub.pdf

>>3316197
it doesn't seem to be accepted

>>3316219
it's a hypothesis, not the absolute truth. all we know is that they are more intelligent, excelling in some fields more than others, and that they have a history of employment in fields that require high intelligence. we also know it is limited to Ashkenazi Jews only. do with the facts as you will.

socialist/depopulationist

I am free healthcare and free education for people as long as they get sterilized.

>>3316326

I am for*

>>3316326
Throw decent welfare on top of that and you've got yourself a deal, buddy.

KEEP SCROLLING. AN EDGY TEENAGER DESTROYED WHAT COULD'VE BEEN AN INTERESTING THREAD DURING A VIOLENT SERIES OF INTENSELY RETARDED CONVULSIONS.

Anti-authoritarian. Leftist.

>>3316134
I knew you would default to economics. This is just leap-frogging, you still have the same problem: why is economic efficiency good?

On a second point, economics is not totalizing. For example, the properties of carbon fiber make steel functionally obsolete. However, it is economically inefficient to produce carbon fiber, so we stay with steel. We could have a futuristic world constructed of better-performing materials, but economics impedes this outcome

Third, the combination of game theory with economics is self-defeating. Economics is not a zero sum game.

>select for adaptive traits
Adaptive to what? Are you sure you are not mistaking changes in political affairs for changes in biology? If you interpret political changes as reflecting some change in the occurrence of "traits," you a certain kind of automatic determinism for the state of politics today. EG: domestic surveillance laws are on the books because humans evolved so.

Overall, I am unconvinced by the singular obsession racialists have with intelligence. Further, they have failed to demonstrate the criteria which demarcates races; the burden is not only to produce such criteria for humans, but across all species. Otherwise, all you have is an arbitary self-description that is not meaningful in a biological sense.

>>3315265
>this can only happen in USA
>article clearly says it's in Great Britain

u wot m8