[Conscript]

If the links are already there, then it should be no problem for you to copy them here, and quote the appropriate text.

No, I want you to catch up and continue the short conversation because it got into the right level of detail and breadth that you otherwise will repeat unnecessarily. I'm not retracing steps with you of all people, generally try to win through attrition rather than fact.

You are not valid. Blacks are not naturally inferior. You have a continent with millions upon millions of people in it with extreme diversity within any given ethnic group. So much so that it is meaningless to think that that huge pool of people are 'generally inferior'. That is BULLSHIT and unscientific. Genes vary and are mutable. Mutable realities within groups is something that exists across the board.

I never said anyone was inferior, that's a value judgement. I also never said things are cut and dry now, I'm just saying looking at the evidence your leftist views are pretty bullshit and lead into rent-seeking territory to correct for disparities of outcome in a meritocracy.

Also, this is Lewontin's fallacy. The idea that variation with cars makes certain cars more related to trucks is a fallacy.

The lies continue with the natural inferior and superior crap that doesn't deal with huge swathes of individuals with variations that are so difficult to measure and predict that it is impossible. You got very intelligent people in all ethnic groups. To think that blacks dilute the intelligence is falling into some false science.

Nobody spoke in absolutes, we have bell curves.

I don't care about IQ tests. Any standardized tests are going to have flaws. ALL OF THEM.

It's not just a standardized test. Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example, is free of cultural bias because of how it's based on pattern recognition. These tests are more g-loaded, they measure 'fluid intelligence' more than 'crystallized intelligence', which is trained. They are also the most heritable and have the largest and most persistent gaps in results.

It basically says our brains have plasticity and are malleable.

Yes, and IQ becomes more genetically influenced with age.

So are race theories of subspecies of shit. Humans adapt. That is what we do. If we adapt? Where does evolution of our species take place? In groups. Individuals don't evolve. But groups do. So far? Have the Africans evolved successfully into this world and into their own environments? Yes. So all these value judgments are placed there by people full of shit theories. Your theories are not valid.

My 'theories' are

1) that IQ is a better explanation of class differentiation than left wing narratives about systemic oppression which can't be quantified or given an endpoint. It just is.

2) genetic distance factors heavily into assimilability thanks to correlation to similar phenotypes and culture

That's not nearly as controversial as you make it out to be, and seems pretty straightforward

Basically how it works is this. You throw 10,000 Swedes into an African desert or hot place. The survivors over 100,000 years will be dark skinned. End of controversy. They were once Swedes. You change their environment and the ones who survived the initial shocks of adaptation survive. The ones who don't. Don't.

So basically, they're no longer Swedes and just descendants of them. You're almost there.

Read this book. Then if you still think Conscript in some pyramid of any single characteristics as universal?

Never claimed race wasn't clinal and your links don't actually debunk me. They just argue, such as in the second one, that FST distances are not high enough to warrant subspecies-like classification and that conventional racial categories aren't flexible enough. I disagree with the former (which it grants is an arbitrary distinction, one I'd add is political as well) and the latter is a matter of 6 or 600 races, not abolition of the category altogether. You still have ethnic in-groups that will make the core foundation of nation-states and their genetic clusters correlate with typical ideas of races.

Race and genomics, and all this effort in trying to scientifically say that en entire somatic or ethnic group fall neatly into the 'smart ones' and the 'dumb ones' and the best ones, and the bad ones, is the stuff of lying people with no science of any true worth.

And yet it really helps explain the postcolonial racialized class hierarchy as well as the uneven development of capitalism and civilization. IQ and its effects on cultural valuing of family and education are pretty important.

That is what you should deal with Conscript and not some conservative racially charged simple theories of why some political and economic system uses to justify class categories.

It does deal with it. There is some reason to believe evolution accelerated after the end of the ice age and the development of civilization and agriculture. This helps explains when and where agriculture or more complex art developed, and itself ultimately speaks to the uneven development of capitalism and liberalism.

I think where you go wrong is justifying a natural variation in nature and equating that with a justification for social and economic exploitation or predation of one socioeconomic group over another.

I've done no such thing. I'm using it as an argument for demographic balance to preserve a culture and set of values, as well as social cohesion.

You are essentially trying to say that an egalitarian society is not possible and an impossibility because there are people who are born and will be born naturally 'inferior'.[/qupte]

I'm saying there is variation in nature that renders equality of outcome impossible and this variation also happens to be clustered thanks to geography, and this clustering also reflects on assimilability and social cohesion which is important for a liberal-democracy.

[quite]Otherwise if all your arguments are going to be about justifying not dealing with injustice and dealing with economic material conditions within capitalism?

I'm saying there is no injustice or it is exaggerated, and these material conditions cannot go without genetic and cultural explanations.

Another thing Conscript. You are being very weak in argumentation in the sense that language is something both biological and socially learned but it is not about inherited culture.

If language development is heritable, which it appears to be:
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/karin-research ... h-genetics
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sc ... 64-6613(02)01900-9

Then it reflects on culture since both gene expression and culture is conditioned by the environment. That doesn't mean a Swede growing up in Arabia is going to pull the language out of his butt, but overall he's going to assimilate into a Scandinavian society easier than an Arab, especially if it's traditional (which to say, functional).

Do you understand what I am saying. Politics are learned. So is language. Think of every little thing you speak....like English, like your nationality, like your education, regional environment, etc and how much of it is social learning and not endemic to your body and its genes? It is massive.

Political values are heritable too
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

So are social conservative attitudes
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessi ... curdir.pdf

It's interesting how whether it's IQ or political values, they all become more genetically influenced with age

Most people in the past were illiterate and did not know how to read or write. How did that change? Someone manipulated their genes and gave them the natural ability? The brain in humans are open to language acquisition. But it has a window of time and then closes if they don't get the right environment for it. And they learn at paces that have to do with biology in the sense that a child will learn a foreign language like a native well but only up to a certain age. Then that 'battery' no longer is as flexible. Social learning is similar. Environmental influence in culture? Is massive and powerful. How much is biological? How people look superficially. It might not be good in other ways. If you are German but never dealt with speaking German your entire life? Some Chinese looking guy who did grow up in Germany in a German cultural environment is going to be a lot better at fluently speaking German than the supposed genetic German person will. Why? Figure it out.

I don't understand how this doesn't mean on a macro level culture is genetically influenced and the mass immigration of genetically distant populations will fundamentally alter this culture as well as render liberal-democracy in turmoil with an influx of incompatible values and people who will not be accepted, by and large, thanks to human in-group preference

[SpecialOlympian]

As far as I can tell, white identity is just a trap for losers with pale skin to fall into so that more clever pale guys can take advantage of them.

Also the people championing a white identity are never the kind of folk you would want to spend any amount of your free time with. And if you follow what they say you might end up at a Marriot conference hall shouting "Heil Trump!" and tbqh none of that looks fun at all. It actually looks as boring as what you would imagine a generic, mixed breed white identity would be.

Personally, I hope one of the more fun non-white ethnicities like the Italians or the Irish are able to claim the mantle of whiteness. It's up for grabs anyway.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, I want you to catch up and continue the short conversation because it got into the right level of detail and breadth that you otherwise will repeat unnecessarily. I'm not retracing steps with you of all people, generally try to win through attrition rather than fact.

I do not care what you want.

If you cannot be bothered to provide evidence for your claims, then your arguments will be dismissed due to a lack of support.

Let us start with the first claim: the genetic distance between human races is the same as for subspecies.

Please provide evidence or minimally a link to a previous post of yours that has said evidence.

[Tainari88]

No, I want you to catch up and continue the short conversation because it got into the right level of detail and breadth that you otherwise will repeat unnecessarily. I'm not retracing steps with you of all people, generally try to win through attrition rather than fact.



I never said anyone was inferior, that's a value judgement. I also never said things are cut and dry now, I'm just saying looking at the evidence your leftist views are pretty bullshit and lead into rent-seeking territory to correct for disparities of outcome in a meritocracy.

Also, this is Lewontin's fallacy. The idea that variation with cars makes certain cars more related to trucks is a fallacy.



Nobody spoke in absolutes, we have bell curves.



It's not just a standardized test. Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example, is free of cultural bias because of how it's based on pattern recognition. These tests are more g-loaded, they measure 'fluid intelligence' more than 'crystallized intelligence', which is trained. They are also the most heritable and have the largest and most persistent gaps in results.



Yes, and IQ becomes more genetically influenced with age.



My 'theories' are

1) that IQ is a better explanation of class differentiation than left wing narratives about systemic oppression which can't be quantified or given an endpoint. It just is.

2) genetic distance factors heavily into assimilability thanks to correlation to similar phenotypes and culture

That's not nearly as controversial as you make it out to be, and seems pretty straightforward



So basically, they're no longer Swedes and just descendants of them. You're almost there.



Never claimed race wasn't clinal and your links don't actually debunk me. They just argue, such as in the second one, that FST distances are not high enough to warrant subspecies-like classification and that conventional racial categories aren't flexible enough. I disagree with the former (which it grants is an arbitrary distinction, one I'd add is political as well) and the latter is a matter of 6 or 600 races, not abolition of the category altogether. You still have ethnic in-groups that will make the core foundation of nation-states and their genetic clusters correlate with typical ideas of races.



And yet it really helps explain the postcolonial racialized class hierarchy as well as the uneven development of capitalism and civilization. IQ and its effects on cultural valuing of family and education are pretty important.



It does deal with it. There is some reason to believe evolution accelerated after the end of the ice age and the development of civilization and agriculture. This helps explains when and where agriculture or more complex art developed, and itself ultimately speaks to the uneven development of capitalism and liberalism.



I've done no such thing. I'm using it as an argument for demographic balance to preserve a culture and set of values, as well as social cohesion.



I'm saying there is no injustice or it is exaggerated, and these material conditions cannot go without genetic and cultural explanations.



If language development is heritable, which it appears to be:
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/karin-research ... h-genetics
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sc ... 64-6613(02)01900-9

Then it reflects on culture since both gene expression and culture is conditioned by the environment. That doesn't mean a Swede growing up in Arabia is going to pull the language out of his butt, but overall he's going to assimilate into a Scandinavian society easier than an Arab, especially if it's traditional (which to say, functional).



Political values are heritable too
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

So are social conservative attitudes
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessi ... curdir.pdf

It's interesting how whether it's IQ or political values, they all become more genetically influenced with age



I don't understand how this doesn't mean on a macro level culture is genetically influenced and the mass immigration of genetically distant populations will fundamentally alter this culture as well as render liberal-democracy in turmoil with an influx of incompatible values and people who will not be accepted, by and large, thanks to human in-group preference

All these answers of yours don't really jibe with science Conscript. I found the two links I gave you very detailed and complete. They are not complete books on the subject. I am a cultural anthropologist trained in specific analysis of ethnic groups and their histories. That is my specialty Conscript. I also keep up with the latest scientific discoveries in that field. Don't mix politics with genetic studies of alleles and genetic drift and adaptation for nature and natural law with liberal democracies and meritocracy and a lot of very subjective political theory that is about bias and trying to get people to believe in an agenda that is skewed based on bad science.

Science is science and politics are politics. I don't deal in ideas of color coded perfection of humanity where English British people marry blond and blue eyed English people of the same genes and background for all time for thousands of years. Because people prefer that 'in' group over others. Human history is way too difficult and messy for that kind of neat grouping of a damn thing. You see it in people's genetic DNA studies. That Branson guy is from the British ruling and capitalist classes, the owner of "Virgin" airlines. He did not know he had a very close relative. A grandparent from India. Genetically Southeast Asian ancestry. Never told that. Found out when he did a study on his genes. A British grandparent had been sent to India to 'rule' over the Empire's ambitions there and wound up having a relationship that was serious and had children. Committed relationship. But since the society at the time frowned upon 'racial' mixing. They covered it up and did not speak of it. To avoid social censure. Indians from India were not the British ruling class' social equals. But if you throw people together and have them socialize over time? They wind up having children together and forming new families. It is present in the USA massively that trend. Most people you pick off a street in the USA and send to a lab for genetic testing?

They wind up having more than just one ethnic group or DNA group present in their biological makeup. If the 'in' preference was so prevalent? Then the majority of people in the New World would not be mixtures of a bunch of different ethnic groups. And the reality is they are mixtures Conscript. Mexico has large population. About 120+ million people. Most of the Mexicans at least 6 out of 10 are MIXED people. Not genetically the same genetic mix. Most had Spanish fathers and Indian mothers. And the fathers were complex as well, they had some Arab, some European, some Celtic, some Phoenician, some Syrian, etc. Why? It reflects Spanish history. Complexity. A big cauldron of groups over thousands of years running in and out of Spain for centuries and having offspring. They then encounter Indian groups who vary. The Aztec were more Northern Indians, and the Mayans the more Southern ones. They vary in genes among each other and among differing Indian groups. Mexico also had African slaves coming in to the port of Veracruz and other places. They also mixed with the Indians and the Spanish and other European groups that live and worked and ran around Mexican territory. It gets complicated to start trying to say in any way, 'these people only like and prefer their own'. That is not historically true in a vast majority of the New World nations. Or Europeans ones, or African ones or even some Asian nations either.

If you read that first link Conscript? It says that paleontologists and forensic anthropologists tackled the tasks of trying to categorize people and groups. Through just bones and genes. They identified patterns of 'gradation' that correlated with geographic regions of the world. Times have changed Conscript. In 1549 or so to get from France to Mexico was a very long, dangerous and difficult journey on a boat or ship. That is why most Indians died of European diseases more than war. The mixing of groups was rare. Now? With modern aviation, cars, trucks, trains, etc and mobility of trade under modern capitalism? You got enormous amounts of varying groups mixing among each other non stop. The opportunity to pro create in even greater variation of subspecies is enormous. Lol. It has to do with the realities of technology, how capitalism works among nations, and neighborhoods being about many factors that are no longer strictly about it is all white neighborhood, black neighborhood, etc. More like who can afford to live there and who can't.

It gets complicated. Read the articles. I read a lot of entire books on the subject. I thought I would make it easy for you to read a lot shorter explanations. If you can't be bothered to do that Conscript? I won't put in any efforts on educating you. You want to be right without the work. I don't go for that either. Waste of time.

[Conscript]

Here are the relevant posts, PoD. We covered most important things

viewtopic.php?p=14883216#p14883216
viewtopic.php?p=14883358#p14883358

All these answers of yours don't really jibe with science Conscript. I found the two links I gave you very detailed and complete.

They weren't complete, that's the problem I stated. They were open-ended and didn't really debunk my point. They are standard opinions about race not reflecting variation enough (e.g. consensus on clines, saying the 19th century conception is too inflexible, but this is an argument of 6 or 600 races, not abolition of the concept) and arguing FST distances are insufficient to warrant subdivision. Because of the nature of subspecies being rather fuzzy and sometimes arbitrarily defined, you can disagree and leave it at that.

I am a cultural anthropologist trained in specific analysis of ethnic groups and their histories. That is my specialty Conscript. I also keep up with the latest scientific discoveries in that field.

I don't find that as significant as you do. From what I've already researched and stated to Kirilov in that linked debate
1) Anthropology is more likely to take ideological positions on things like race likely out of spite for its own intellectual history, leading to different survey results than biologists
2) Cultural anthropology is more likely than physical anthropology to do this
3) Both biologists and anthropologists outside of the West are more likely to believe in race, and according to surveys I've seen the majority believe public debates are more ideological than scientific

Don't mix politics with genetic studies of alleles and genetic drift and adaptation for nature and natural law with liberal democracies and meritocracy

You can't separate them when discussing immigration policy and assimilation or class hierarchy in a postcolonial society, or the propensity for democracy to devolve into a zero-sum game of tribalism

I don't deal in ideas of color coded perfection of humanity where English British people marry blond and blue eyed English people of the same genes and background for all time for thousands of years.

I don't either though

Because people prefer that 'in' group over others. Human history is way too difficult and messy for that kind of neat grouping of a damn thing.

That's why I propose a social fabric of strong, integral, traditional families as they have a natural filtering effect for genetic distance, cultural likeness, and other measures of palatable-ness that foster a cohesive and probably a racially homogeneous society, which underscores its own significance. I think this is critically important in a fast-paced capitalist world that is constantly revolutionizing things and making people question what they take for granted their children will have. Culture and social capital are inseparable from genetic reality as far as I can tell, which is to be expected given the conditions we evolved in before modernity.

But if you throw people together and have them socialize over time? They wind up having children together and forming new families. It is present in the USA massively that trend. Most people you pick off a street in the USA and send to a lab for genetic testing?They wind up having more than just one ethnic group or DNA group present in their biological makeup. If the 'in' preference was so prevalent? Then the majority of people in the New World would not be mixtures of a bunch of different ethnic groups.

Your claim is overblown. Thanks to 23&Me, we know European-Americans are 98.6% white.

And the reality is they are mixtures Conscript.

That's not an argument for abolition of present categories or making a value judgement that such is progress, it's likely to result in social dysfunction. You can expect a diminishing return in terms of enriched culture and some sort of genetic health compared to loss of social capital.

It gets complicated to start trying to say in any way, 'these people only like and prefer their own'.

And yet Mexican immigration law for a long time up until recently regulated immigration to preserve "the equilibrium of the national demographics" and Mexicans in the US vote rather homogeneously. Some are even Chicano nationalists.

People like and prefer their own, I think this is pretty obvious. Nationalities and races can be composites of ethnicities, but the idea that change in this composite does not alter the nationality or will not be met with significant resistance is flawed. Once you have social capital on the basis of an accepted shared ancestry and identity, it should be carefully preserved rather than undergo the total liberalization you propose because supposedly history has this totally liberalized gene flow. It really doesn't, and it's also incomparable because this is from a time without rule of law. Our Neanderthal DNA was not acquired without injustice, of course.

If you read that first link Conscript? It says that paleontologists and forensic anthropologists tackled the tasks of trying to categorize people and groups. Through just bones and genes. They identified patterns of 'gradation' that correlated with geographic regions of the world.

Yes, and part of a clinal distribution is some people are more related to each other than others. If you look at genetic clustering, there is a significant overlap with conventional ideas of race.

The opportunity to pro create in even greater variation of subspecies is enormous. Lol. It has to do with the realities of technology, how capitalism works among nations, and neighborhoods being about many factors that are no longer strictly about it is all white neighborhood, black neighborhood, etc. More like who can afford to live there and who can't.

You're overblowing it.
https://www.vox.com/2017/1/18/14296126/ ... od-cartoon
https://psmag.com/social-justice/averag ... lack-90279
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ans ... 5064fffd17

I wish people on the left would decide if we're heading towards convergence or that racism is a bigger issue than ever.

[SpecialOlympian]

I can't wait until the white race dies. I unironically shout "Rahowa!" on a daily basis because I can not wait for white people to initiate and lose the racial holy war. The world will be a better place once they are gone.

[Suntzu]

I can't wait until the white race dies. I unironically shout "Rahowa!" on a daily basis because I can not wait for white people to initiate and lose the racial holy war. The world will be a better place once they are gone.

Yep, when the Whites die the Blacks will starve. It is never a good idea to kill the host.

[SpecialOlympian]

I think you forgot your history. It was the black people working the fields, the whites would have starved without them.

[Suntzu]

The vast majority of folks in the U.S. owned no slaves. My ancestors in South Carolina owned eight slaves in 1790. My ancestors might have owned you ancestors.

[SpecialOlympian]

Very few people owned slaves but even someone who shared Suntzu's unfortunate DNA could afford one? I'm seeing a contradiction here.

[Albert]

SO is actually white. Non proud white that is.

Why ye not proud of your beautiful radiating white skin, SO?

[Patrickov]

I can't wait until the white race dies. I unironically shout "Rahowa!" on a daily basis because I can not wait for white people to initiate and lose the racial holy war. The world will be a better place once they are gone.

The white administer better than Chinese, Russian and Indians (in India, that is).

[Albert]

Russians are the pinnacle of human race, I would know. Ask anyone on this forum they will tell your truly that is the case, especially Rei, who has unfortunately left us.

Russians are just having a set back, that is all recently, thanks to the jealous Anglos. Who are trying to sabotage the Russians.

[Patrickov]

Russians are the pinnacle of human race, I would know. Ask anyone on this forum they will tell your truly that is the case, especially Rei, who has unfortunately left us.

Russians are just having a set back, that is all recently, thanks to the jealous Anglos. Who are trying to sabotage the Russians.

Russians corrupted China (and in an extended sense, the East). I find it hard to agree this point.

[SpecialOlympian]

I can't follow the previous four posts. Why did the guy from the Bic pens post four times in a row?

[Albert]

Why are you not proud of your radiating white beautiful skin? Did you have a grandma like Pelosi who made you embarrassed of your features?

[Tainari88]

No, I want you to catch up and continue the short conversation because it got into the right level of detail and breadth that you otherwise will repeat unnecessarily. I'm not retracing steps with you of all people, generally try to win through attrition rather than fact.



I never said anyone was inferior, that's a value judgement. I also never said things are cut and dry now, I'm just saying looking at the evidence your leftist views are pretty bullshit and lead into rent-seeking territory to correct for disparities of outcome in a meritocracy.

Also, this is Lewontin's fallacy. The idea that variation with cars makes certain cars more related to trucks is a fallacy.



Nobody spoke in absolutes, we have bell curves.



It's not just a standardized test. Raven's Progressive Matrices, for example, is free of cultural bias because of how it's based on pattern recognition. These tests are more g-loaded, they measure 'fluid intelligence' more than 'crystallized intelligence', which is trained. They are also the most heritable and have the largest and most persistent gaps in results.



Yes, and IQ becomes more genetically influenced with age.



My 'theories' are

1) that IQ is a better explanation of class differentiation than left wing narratives about systemic oppression which can't be quantified or given an endpoint. It just is.

2) genetic distance factors heavily into assimilability thanks to correlation to similar phenotypes and culture

That's not nearly as controversial as you make it out to be, and seems pretty straightforward



So basically, they're no longer Swedes and just descendants of them. You're almost there.



Never claimed race wasn't clinal and your links don't actually debunk me. They just argue, such as in the second one, that FST distances are not high enough to warrant subspecies-like classification and that conventional racial categories aren't flexible enough. I disagree with the former (which it grants is an arbitrary distinction, one I'd add is political as well) and the latter is a matter of 6 or 600 races, not abolition of the category altogether. You still have ethnic in-groups that will make the core foundation of nation-states and their genetic clusters correlate with typical ideas of races.



And yet it really helps explain the postcolonial racialized class hierarchy as well as the uneven development of capitalism and civilization. IQ and its effects on cultural valuing of family and education are pretty important.



It does deal with it. There is some reason to believe evolution accelerated after the end of the ice age and the development of civilization and agriculture. This helps explains when and where agriculture or more complex art developed, and itself ultimately speaks to the uneven development of capitalism and liberalism.



I've done no such thing. I'm using it as an argument for demographic balance to preserve a culture and set of values, as well as social cohesion.



I'm saying there is no injustice or it is exaggerated, and these material conditions cannot go without genetic and cultural explanations.



If language development is heritable, which it appears to be:
http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/karin-research ... h-genetics
http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sc ... 64-6613(02)01900-9

Then it reflects on culture since both gene expression and culture is conditioned by the environment. That doesn't mean a Swede growing up in Arabia is going to pull the language out of his butt, but overall he's going to assimilate into a Scandinavian society easier than an Arab, especially if it's traditional (which to say, functional).



Political values are heritable too
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

So are social conservative attitudes
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessi ... curdir.pdf

It's interesting how whether it's IQ or political values, they all become more genetically influenced with age



I don't understand how this doesn't mean on a macro level culture is genetically influenced and the mass immigration of genetically distant populations will fundamentally alter this culture as well as render liberal-democracy in turmoil with an influx of incompatible values and people who will not be accepted, by and large, thanks to human in-group preference

Well, I am going to make this short and sweet Conscript. Because after reading your answers it is patently obvious my point of view will never have respect for yours and vice-versa. I will make it extremely plain why.

I don't think there is a meritocracy. That is a fucking myth. People who have to live within unfair conditions within a class structured society and from the time of birth on, are going to be discriminated against, denied equal access to health, educational opportunities, resources and development of their internal potentials because the system they live under is discriminatory and actively trying to keep them in those positions---is not a meritocracy. Even with Adam Smith styles of everyone on level playing fields in capitalism is a myth. That is the reason laws against monopolies in banking, technology and markets exists because larger entities dwarf smaller and less powerful ones. For you to believe in bullshit like everyone comes out on top due to fair and equal circumstances. No, that doesn't exist. Especially in capitalism. So if that is true? Meritocracy is a myth. Which it is.

For you to state that the power structure is the way it is because the 'better' or 'smarter' ones are there due to their intelligent and powerful superior genes? Is laughable. How many people do you know are intellectually superior to Donald Trump or even to this or that person? Many. They might not be as rich at some others are.....but being wealthy or having mundane power doesn't equate to being a natural superiority system. The reality is you got billions of people. The vast majority have never been tested, most have not been educated, many aren't even able to get adequate diets, clean water and electricity, and they suffer extreme condtions that are about unfair shit. In general. I don't waste my time worrying about trying to find reasons that I might have better genes that billions of humans fucked for life by a system that doesn't even meet their basic needs. I don't hate my fellow humans to that degree to worry more about justifying bullshit meritocracy than putting in energy trying to get the many vast majority basic needs done. You waste time on intellectualizing on justifying shit that is about being prejudiced and discriminatory, and I will be productive helping out the folks that are labelled "born to lose from birth". Lol. Our values are diametrically opposite. No time for people who are haters of most of the 'losers' of the bell curve. No time for assholes sorry.

All your arguments are flimsy, Conscript. You just hate justice and you hate the idea of the status quo changing. It has nothing to do with science and who is better on a genetic level.

My conclusion, you are a hater who is fighting the tide of a bunch of mixing going on and are terrified of a bunch of European extraction people becoming ethnic minorities due to some liberal scheme that you associate with a generalized 'left' that probably has zero to do with me.

You attack shit you invent in your own mind about me. So? You can go and attack the supposed Left ruining your system in your own mind. I have no patience for that crap, the older I get the less appealing it becomes to argue with men and women who love discrimination and look for anything to justify what is just plain fear, hate and discrimination all because they are comfortable and find a bunch of 'dark' people scary. No time for that anymore Conscript. Sick to death of foolish people allowing their fears to overcome logic and human connection. It bores me. And I find the people behind that philosophy selfish, small and boring. Sorry. I have to throw you in that category.

You are a person with narrow and prejudiced views. Nothing to do with valid science.

I really have no patience with people who just want to place a label on someone and say, "This person is naturally inferior. The system is the way it is because it is about merit. I earned it." And shit of that nature? I really don't care about that stuff Conscript.

For me? You got climate change. Hurricanes, tornadoes, storms, mega storms, species going extinct, many nations with large groups of people being gassed with Zorin in Syria, internal wars, violence, people fighting over access to clean water, being used as slave labor, human trafficking and people working their asses off for $2 dollar a day pay and living with inadequate diets, death, and hopeless conditions where they could become deadly killers because of it. They are losing hope. I don't have time for argument with people who are true believers in IQ tests. The ones who believe and are honest say things like "Asians are the most intelligent. Not the Europeans." I then say? Become slaves of the Asians. Be slaves because that is the Bell Curve for those. Somehow slavery for their own doesn't appeal to them. I have zero compassion for people into pursuing Master Race theories. Diversity exists. Variation exists. I don't question imperfection in human lives. That is our natural state for now. Who knows what AI technology will bring? Replace even the 'genius' level humans. You can be a genius and be a immoral monster too. WWII and the Third Reich were filled with such men and women. I have no real trust of anything really about some Pyramid Class System where conveniently the ones pushing such a paradigm come from the top of the pyramid. I think you are one of those types too. Lol.

That is the problem.

Bye.

[Hindsite]

Ah hell Hindsite! Finally you wrote something I agree with 100%. Really.


It took a while but you wrote something I think is absolutely true!

When I was young, I was told to mark Caucasian or White as my race. However, my skin is not really white, because I know of people that have whiter looking skin than mine. I consider my skin to be a flesh color that gets tanned in the summer sun and becomes a light brown. I know that my ancestors to America came from England and Ireland, so that apparently makes my race Caucasian or White, according to popular opinion.

[Tainari88]

When I was young, I was told to mark Caucasian or White as my race. However, my skin is not really white, because I know of people that have whiter looking skin than mine. I consider my skin to be a flesh color that gets tanned in the summer sun and becomes a light brown. I know that my ancestors to America came from England and Ireland, so that apparently makes my race Caucasian or White, according to popular opinion.

I just agreed that what you said about Nancy Pelosi is right. For me she is a rich hypocrite playing at liberal crap that is total idiocy in my opinion.

I love Irish culture. I always have. It is not about skin color for me Hindsite. For me? It has to do with justice, about humans all having their humanity and their having to suffer and go through a lot in this world. Every color, creed, nationality and of every sort. All people.

I love people. But I think part of the issue will always be people who are taught to think they are somehow different. Better or worse or not worthy or worthy or entitled or not entitled. Superficial barriers.

When people decide they are going to go in the same direction and they have very similar desires and hearts and minds that yearn for very similar and the same things in life? Maybe they can get beyond their egos about 'who has more power. Who is the one with money and this or that. And concentrate on love, and justice and being honest and working on themselves enough to see their own reflections in all people. All people.'

Maybe then there won't be a need to be imperialists, to be oppressive, to be prejudiced and to be small minded and petty.

I don't think we are born for selfishness and evil only. I think our natures are for love and forgiveness and transcendence. But we get lost on the way. Maybe that is what the passion of Christ is supposed to be about Hindsite. Seeing God even in the most Satanic among us. After all he was Lucifer. The Light filled fallen Angel....who because of ego....lost paradise and his place in Heaven. The purpose of his existence in the human world was to test the Divine in us. He is Divine, but chose not to want to subject his ego to God. There is metaphor in that. There is what I call a classic archetype in that.

It says something about us--the classic archetypes.

Buenas noches.

[Hindsite]

I just agreed that what you said about Nancy Pelosi is right. For me she is a rich hypocrite playing at liberal crap that is total idiocy in my opinion.

I love Irish culture. I always have. It is not about skin color for me Hindsite. For me? It has to do with justice, about humans all having their humanity and their having to suffer and go through a lot in this world. Every color, creed, nationality and of every sort. All people.

I love people. But I think part of the issue will always be people who are taught to think they are somehow different. Better or worse or not worthy or worthy or entitled or not entitled. Superficial barriers.

When people decide they are going to go in the same direction and they have very similar desires and hearts and minds that yearn for very similar and the same things in life? Maybe they can get beyond their egos about 'who has more power. Who is the one with money and this or that. And concentrate on love, and justice and being honest and working on themselves enough to see their own reflections in all people. All people.'

Maybe then there won't be a need to be imperialists, to be oppressive, to be prejudiced and to be small minded and petty.

I don't think we are born for selfishness and evil only. I think our natures are for love and forgiveness and transcendence. But we get lost on the way. Maybe that is what the passion of Christ is supposed to be about Hindsite. Seeing God even in the most Satanic among us. After all he was Lucifer. The Light filled fallen Angel....who because of ego....lost paradise and his place in Heaven. The purpose of his existence in the human world was to test the Divine in us. He is Divine, but chose not to want to subject his ego to God. There is metaphor in that. There is what I call a classic archetype in that.

It says something about us--the classic archetypes.

Buenas noches.