On the epidemic of truth inversion - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15311280
A consistent theme I observe whenever I look at social media or forums on the internet is that the vast majority of people strongly believe in things that I know are not merely false...they are the radical OPPOSITE of the truth. Something about that phenomenon is mysterious to me and intuitively I can sense some design to it but I am unable to entirely explain it. One would expect that among ignorant and poorly informed people many opinions would be reductionist, lack nuance, be in the ballpark of the truth but somewhat off or exageratted...that sort of thing. But when people strongly hold beliefs which are directly antipodal to the truth...that simply cannot be a coincidence...because it is such a specific way to be wrong and when it is a constantly repeated pattern something just feel unnatural about it. Natural incorrectness should be more chaotic.

It reminds me of something like Satanism. Satan is an entity that only exists within Christian mythology...so if you believe Satan exists then you must to some degree believe Christian mythology. But according to the source material, Satan is the bad guy. So how could any internally consistent person worship him? The only rational way to not worship Jesus would be to reject the truth of all that source material...meaning you wouldn't even believe the Satan entity exists.

Perhaps more apropos, it reminds me of what goebbles termed the 'big lie'. 'The great masses of the people will more easily believe a big lie than a small one'. This is because the masses have a difficult time believing that anyone would be so brazen that they would not merely tell a lie, they would tell a lie so radical that it becomes the polar opposite of the truth. For example, that jesus was actually the bad guy in the gospels and now he is boiling in excrement in hell...rather than the more plausible dispassionate rejection of the entire mythology. That such behavior is even possible strains the imagination of the common man. In jewish culture this behavior is labeled 'chutzpah'.

But hope is not really lost for people capable of basic reasoning...because being so extremely wrong naturally produces bizarre contradictions. A person with decent abstract reasoning skills, who can work out that 2+2=4, is able to work out that certain narratives simply cannot be true because of the absurd contradictions that arise from them...and thus reason can lead them out of the underworld like Hecate weilded her torch for Persephone.

As a simple example, I would like to take the commonly held belief that racial nationalism (historically known as nationalism) is intolerant and leads to genocide. The truth could not be more opposite.

If a person decides they are loyal to an entire race, then of course this will include the strongest and most beautiful of that race as well as the weakest and most ugly. No sane person could have ever believed that every member of their race is a wonderful and admirable human, because that would be completely absurd. Insane people do exist, for sure...but the closest I have ever seen someone seriously suggest that no members of their race are dissapointing (after many years of listening to every sort of radical...from nazis to 'foundational black americans' to militant islamists etc) are radical zionists who genuinely believe they are 'chosen by God' (an attitude they seem to enjoy projecting upon their enemies). But even so...the jews in general are not usually quite that extreme as we can observe by the 'lamentations of Jeremiah', a book of the Torah which suggested that God officially 'unchose' the jews because they were being so terrible.

So if a person is willing to state that they are loyal to a race...based on what dna they were born with which nobody is able to choose for themselves, it means logically they are accepting both the best and the worst members of their race. It CANNOT logically mean they only identify with the best because that would NOT be racial nationalism, it eould be something else. Simple mathematical logic proves that. Thus we can settle the extreme stupidity of the strawman argument of Jordan Peterson types who want to pretend that a 'white nationalist' simply wants to pretend they personally invented thr steam engine. The truth is the complete opposite...if a person only respect the smartest people then they would be something like an iq nationalist, not a racial nationalist.

Meanwhile, if a person believes their identity is rooted in something voluntary...like a belief (Christian, communist, etc)...then they may feel justified in deciding that the 'outgroup' of their tribe is not merely a different people with a different way of life, but that they are actually a sort of cosmic evil who only believes the 'wrong' thing because they are evil. Thus, conflict becomes a conflict between good and evil where genocide is perfectly justified. Therefore the 'allies' in ww2 did not much care about nuking or foreboding cities, calculated to kill massive numbers of civilians, because their enemy was not simply different...they were evil.

Indeed, I think it is easy to observe that the people most opposed to nationalism tend to be the least tolerant and most hostile people. Usually, ironically, they pretend to have ideals when their revealed motivations are just deep seated racial hatred.

In contrast, racial nationalists of different races seem reasonably able to cooperate. George Lincoln Rockwell with the nation of Islam, Germany with Japan, Otto Remer with the Palestinians, etc.

Anyway...enough on that I suppose. Once again this ought to be a very simple concept and very clear. But it just won't be. The reaction to this very innocent and obvious observation will be confusion, hatred, and random subterfuge.
#15311281
FiveOfSwords wrote:t reminds me of something like Satanism. Satan is an entity that only exists within Christian mythology...so if you believe Satan exists then you must to some degree believe Christian mythology. But according to the source material, Satan is the bad guy. So how could any internally consistent person worship him? The only rational way to not worship Jesus would be to reject the truth of all that source material...meaning you wouldn't even believe the Satan entity exists.


Satanic Temple wrote:No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.


a race...based on what dna they were born with which nobody is able to choose for themselves


There is more genetic variation within races than between them.
#15311282
Fasces wrote:There is more genetic variation within races than between them.


That actually is not true. I am of course aware of this meme and have seen people repeat this myth a lot. It comes from a paricular study where a select few number of SNP were compared...and in the very study it was proven that as you increase the number of SNP the variation between races becomes greater. Once again, literal inversion of the truth.

Of course it would have to be so. If it were notbthen I could not send my dna to ancestry.com and be told what my ancestry was. Logically that would be impossible if what you suggested is true. But it is possible.
#15311284
Fasces wrote:So, what are the races of the world?


Uh...this is actually a poorly formed question. The number is actually somewhat arbitrary. Based on the way genetic clusters in life forms work, it would be easier to approach from the opposite direction...i.e. if there are x number of races then what are they? For example if you said there are 2, i could tell you that the 2 races are sub saharan africans and everyone else. That particular genetic science niche is the primary study of a guy named Noah Rosenberg, if you want to study that material.
#15311286
FiveofSwords wrote:I could not send my dna to ancestry.com and be told what my ancestry was

Why do you think ancestry.com tells you what your ancestry is?

In all cases, accuracy is strongly affected by the choice of reference populations and the selection and number of SNVs, all of which vary among ancestry testing companies. Consequently, it is not unusual for different companies to report somewhat different ancestral profiles for the same DNA sample. Furthermore, many human populations have migrated considerably during their history; therefore, modern-day samples represent a static and potentially inaccurate portrayal of a region's inhabitants in the past. Even the term ancestry is subject to a variety of interpretations and can be based on geographic, historical, cultural, or religious definitions. For these reasons, there is considerable room for error or ambiguity in inferring and interpreting a person's genetic ancestry.


:lol:
Last edited by ingliz on 09 Apr 2024 09:25, edited 1 time in total.
#15311287
Fasces wrote::lol:

So why are you so committed to using a term you yourself recognize is arbitrary and unscientific, such as 'race'?

Why not use ethnicity like anyone else?


Uh...being arbitrary does not imply unscientific.

The number of ethnicities is also arbitrary.

Are we going to just say scottish? Or will we distinguish between lowland and highland scots? Maybe each distinct clan is it's own ethnicity?

I personally do not understand why the philosophical issues around taxonomy seems so difficult for people to understand. Sorry but categorizing life forms wi always involve some arbitrary feature because life is intrinsically clinal, because diversity is the product of evolution over time.

Anyway no...'ethnicity is not inherently some better label than 'race'
#15311288
ingliz wrote:Why do you think ancestry.com tells you what your ancestry is?

In all cases, accuracy is strongly affected by the choice of reference populations and the selection and number of SNVs, all of which vary among ancestry testing companies. Consequently, it is not unusual for different companies to report somewhat different ancestral profiles for the same DNA sample. Furthermore, many human populations have migrated considerably during their history; therefore, modern-day samples represent a static and potentially inaccurate portrayal of a region's inhabitants in the past. Even the term ancestry is subject to a variety of interpretations and can be based on geographic, historical, cultural, or religious definitions. For these reasons, there is considerable room for error or ambiguity in inferring and interpreting a person's genetic ancestry.


:lol:


And yet ancestry.com can tell me my ancestry and it is probably relatively accurate. You are just pointing to various issues that will always exist when dealing with biological life, and it reminds me of my arguments with Christian creationists. At what exact moment did an ape become human? Lol...to ask the question is to reveal ignorance about the nature of evolution.

For sure, you could show 100 people a picture of Taylor swift and offer to reward them if they guess correctly whether her ancestors came from Europe or from the congo. Most people will say Europe. Their brain is processing information related to the physical features of her face and deciding she looks more European than congolese...and furthermore they would be correct. So clearly some sort of measurable thing is possible and is somewhat predictive.
#15311289
@FiveofSwords

What would you do if ancestry.com sent you your profile and you were an Untermensch only passing white?


:lol:
#15311291
ingliz wrote:@FiveofSwords

What would you do if ancestry.com sent you your profile and you were an Untermensch only passing white?


:lol:


The word untermensch refers to a people who lack their own distinct culture. They don't have an independent legacy separated from other people. For example, the slavs are untermensch which does not imply that they are somehow inferior, but because as far back as their history seems to go they have always had foreign rulers. That is a circumstance that they are basically so used to that it has become part of them. Jews are untermensch because like slavs they too have always dwelled among other people...but as a niche minority rather than as subjects of foreign rule. Mulattos are untermensch because there has never been a Mulatto civilization...they are just a new brand of human produced by mixture of races.

The cannibals of Papua new Guinea would not properly be called untermensch but the average 'nazi' would probably regard them as very undesirable to live around...thanks to their savagery and lack of high culture.

Anyway to answer your question, it would bother me but it would have no impact on my general philosophy. I do not decide what is true or false based on what is better for me...
#15311293
Image

Quick, are these people from the Andes or Mekong Delta?

Image

Is she Australian, Melanesian, Malagasy, or Congolese?

Image

Uygher or Irish?

:roll:

There are ethnic markers in DNA that are associated with certain regions due population isolated - but they don't correspond to phenotypical features and certain groups are put together that have no business being put together because of arbitrary phenotype.
#15311297
Fasces wrote:Image

Quick, are these people from the Andes or Mekong Delta?

Image

Is she Australian, Melanesian, Malagasy, or Congolese?

Image

Uygher or Irish?

:roll:

There are ethnic markers in DNA that are associated with certain regions due population isolated - but they don't correspond to phenotypical features and certain groups are put together that have no business being put together because of arbitrary phenotype.


I am fully aware that there exist people whose race would be difficult to identify, especially if I just don't much care about them lol. I know immediately that the African you showed is probably not melanesian because the melanisians are a genetically interesting population and tend to have reddish tint in their hair. The boy is probably not Irish because something looks 'off' about him and being an anglo myself I am highly tuned to populations near me.

None of this matters. What is significant is not whether there exist people who are difficult to identify but whether there are people easy to identify. And if my personal experience doesn't tell me much a dna analysis will...so there is actual physical measurable stuff that can tell you such things.

I don't know if it makes you sad or something that humans do not all have the exact same dna. I don't see why that should be tragic. But the fact is that they don't and you are going to have to accept this in order to deal with reality.
#15311299
FiveofSwords wrote:A consistent theme I observe whenever I look at social media or forums on the internet is that the vast majority of people strongly believe in things that I know are not merely false...they are the radical OPPOSITE of the truth.

:eek: Yes I had heard a rumour that someone on the internet was wrong, that was bad enough. but for some time now we've been hearing darker rumours, that lots of people on the internet are wrong.

I'm going to have to be honest here. Actually for quite a a while now I have to come to believe that a lot of the people on the internet are wrong. I could go even further and say that I've come to believe that overwhelming majority of the people on the internet are wrong in some significant way. But you know then I had the strangest thought. Perhaps these wrong thinking people, think that I'm wrong. Perhaps these wrong thinking people also believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong. Perhaps the vast majority of people on the internet believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong, but for all sorts of different reasons.

If this were correct, it would have an interesting corollary, if you believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong but for all sorts of different reasons, you may well be correct, but statistically speaking, you have to accept that you're probably one of the wrong people.

Last edited by Rich on 09 Apr 2024 11:06, edited 1 time in total.
#15311301
Rich wrote::eek: Yes I had heard a rumour that someone on the internet was wrong, that was bad enough. but for some time now we've been hearing darker rumours, that lots of people on the internet on the wrong.

I'm going to have to be honest here. Actually for quite a a while now I have to come to believe that a lot of the people on the internet are wrong. I could go even further and say that I've come to believe that overwhelming majority of the people on the internet are wrong in some significant way. But you know then I had the strangest thought. Perhaps these wrong thinking people, think that I'm wrong. Perhaps these wrong thinking people also believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong. Perhaps the vast majority of people on the internet believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong, but for all sorts of different reasons.

If this were correct, it would have an interesting corollary, if you believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong but for all sorts of different reasons, you may well be correct, but statistically speaking, you have to accept that you're probably one of the wrong people.



You seem confused. If I said electricity doesn't exist then that would simply be wrong. If I said like charges attract that would be inversion. See the difference?
#15311303
FiveofSwords wrote:[Ask] whether her ancestors came from Europe or from the congo. Most people will say Europe.

And most people would be wrong.

Paleoanthropologists and geneticists point to Africa as the origin of our species.


:lol:
#15311304
Rich wrote::eek: Yes I had heard a rumour that someone on the internet was wrong, that was bad enough. but for some time now we've been hearing darker rumours, that lots of people on the internet on the wrong.

I'm going to have to be honest here. Actually for quite a a while now I have to come to believe that a lot of the people on the internet are wrong. I could go even further and say that I've come to believe that overwhelming majority of the people on the internet are wrong in some significant way. But you know then I had the strangest thought. Perhaps these wrong thinking people, think that I'm wrong. Perhaps these wrong thinking people also believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong. Perhaps the vast majority of people on the internet believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong, but for all sorts of different reasons.

If this were correct, it would have an interesting corollary, if you believe that the vast majority of people on the internet are wrong but for all sorts of different reasons, you may well be correct, but statistically speaking, you have to accept that you're probably one of the wrong people.



This made me laugh so hard.

Thank you Rich.

The problem that we are going to have are worrying about if we are debating or arguing with humans or nonhumans. AI bots or real live humans. We will read and worry? Am I arguing with a flesh-and-blood human being or is it a program generating some shitty misinformation to influence some algorithms or something?
#15311305
@Tainari88

He could be a bot, he's stupid enough.

But then he says he's American so it's a toss-up.


:)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 17

The British people have been eating shit for almo[…]

Fewer white males are going to college

If someone made a post about Black people or wome[…]

Taiwan-China crysis.

I say war happens. China gets its way. If China[…]

Her weird ass crossfit exercises get circulated on[…]