@CronoSaturn _"Im ok with that so long as its the person's choice to undergo that process."_

What if a zygothe gets modified?

_"Im not really ok with this and I think that the problem here isnt so much transhuman per se but simply human. Elitism and tribalism will likely carry on as humans progress and even be exacerbated as there is a very real risk this opens up the opportunity for the gap between haves and have nots to become effectively become a difference in kind..."_

I am not sure how what are you saying is related to what I wrote. You can design a slave that will be more effective at the work it is doing and be more happy and loyal to the employer. As such you won't have to pay him as much as a normal worker. Wait... you mean that you want to mitigate the income gap between the owners of the slaves and the unemployed unmodified?

_"I believe though that in terms of it being implemented where it shouldn't there'll be no shortage of watchdogs monitoring that kind of thing in the way that we already have similar watchdogs monitoring the way states treat ethnic minorities or curtail the freedom of populations. I believe if anything the bar to attempt to force social conformity will be raised significantly by the technical challenges alone rather than lowered."_

So you want goverments to put a muzzle on such proceder or not? If you want to then what sort of proceder do you want to exactly be delegalized?

_" I would view a "person" as almost an algorithm of sorts or an intelligence. A set of relationships between concepts that is adaptable and has a certain kind of signature."_

That won't do... an algorithm is a mathematical concept. It doesn't exists in the way a .... for a example in a way a brick does. Intelligence is merely an ability of the subject as such it is not a subject itself. Finally the last sentence is an abstraction that conveys no information.

_"For example, we've had a few discussions and while i've never met you in person and I'll need you to buy me dinner before we have any talk about you seeing my body I think its fair to say we both accept eachother as people and recognize a broad pattern of behavior."_

I recognize you as a person because it is natural for me to do so and interact in a way that is natural to me. I don't know anything about patterns of bahaviour that constitute you as a person.

_"I think that using genes as a defining characteristic of personhood fails to capture things which we might potentially want to include morally as "people" and which act in line with what we would want of that but dont use the same genes in order to do so."_

That is intended on my part... regardless if you think you can make a better definition that satisfies your requirements and doesn't use abstraction then I would like to hear it.

_"I differentiate that from being "human" deliberately as we might wish to retain your definition when talking about the species as we know it but in terms of moral recognition I see personhood as being a set of software, genes just the hardware. You need a certain spec of hardware to run the software, but that achieved it really doesnt matter."_

Softwere doesn't exists in a material sense. It is just a concept.

Also... will you tell me what you think is supposed to leave the "cradle"?

Tldr

lul same

@CronoSaturn soooo, if we are talking about trans-humanism, how do you get around the whole, "you can't transfer someones consciousness problem"? and how could you tell if you managed it? Anyway, i think a more interesting conversation to have is about the action of copying someones brain to begin with. imagine having a digital copy of Albert Eisenstein you could talk to

you wouldn't have to write a book to have your ideas move forward in time without you anymore

So basically create an AI that has a thought process similar to yours so when you die it will live on and people can engage with it and get a response that you would've said if you were there? @Scipio Americanus

Moral is totally linked with logics, the problem is that its hard to find the X and the Y of an equation if you dont have any values to start with, and this is why cultures are different.

@snakeeater ya basically. Can you imagine what this would do to culture? The morality debates would be horrible too, is this just a program? or should we consider it [the program] like a person? If the person is still alive, is it really a copy of the person? Or a new individual entirely? the amount of questions this prompts is quite extensive.

if you delete this program, is it murder?

what if you copy and paste it?

Reminds me of the plot of a Metal Gear video game, Peace Walker

@Scipio Americanus well, it doesn't have to be "a real person" as long as it can react to what people say in a way that mimics how the original person would react to things

yes, but what do we consider a person?

thats what the question revolves around

Indeed, and even if you consider the copycat to be a real person, are they the SAME person as the original?

hmmm, you know what, i would actually say no

the second you turn on the program, it just received a different experience

and is therefore, similar, but not quite the same

Well, in that video game I mentioned, the protagonist wrestles with that question, because the AI is a copy of his former ally who died, so from his perspective that person lives on via the AI

oh wow, and who said video games weren't art

He knows its an AI that was programmed to act like his ally, but he can't help but feel like its the same person

we can talk in the chat text channel if slow mode is making it hard for you to reply

thats kinda the beauty of it from a practical standpoint. However, now that you mention it, there is one thing i think that should be withheld: The AI should be forced to wait until loved ones are either gone or can handle it

uh no tbh

that's even more surreal, what if they made an AI to copy YOU while you're still alive, and the AI views you as a copy

Maybe the AI is a better friend to your friends then you are, like you snap at them or forget their birthday, but the AI is nicer, and your friends prefer it

thats messed up

@Aki
```what if a zygote gets modified```
I think beyond solving understood genetic defects, such as downs syndrome or xyy syndrome we should approach changing the germline until these processes are better understood. There are already frameworks available to tackle how regulating this space should work however and its unlikely this would be very different to how we approve pharmaceuticals for use.

Your quoting the spiel i wrote about predisposing people to hatred and disdain to those not sharing their lifestyle so thats likely why you feel it has little to do with the question you asked about influencing people to work harder for less money. Re that: the problem is aki that you can influence people without making them a slave, even in a mutually beneficial way. So for example alot of workplaces will offer their employees free tea and coffee which people obviously appreciate, thats considered a bit of a perk. At the same time though it allows people to work harder, longer and be happy about it and this is often explicitly the business case presented. For a given unit of work they are not paying as much as they otherwise might have to. I dont think anyone has an issue with this and we actually like workplaces that make that effort, alot of people will even take a lower salary to work at these places. Thats not a problem. Again the windfall / insurance thing was more to answer the other question but yes it would serve to tie people in who are unmodified to retain their interest in the success of society as a whole. The key thing aki is so long as these procedures are voluntary and people understand what they're signing up for i dont see slavery as being a thing and automation provides a strictly better means of doing so for those who'd be interested in that kind of economic model

```do you think the govt should put a muzzle on it or not?```
for zygotes before the technology is fully mature and we have a chance to fully explore the implications of that? Yes. This should be heavily regulated. For individuals choosing for themselves how they want to be modified? There should be significant oversight and auditing to ensure what is claimed is actually whats delivered but I dont feel I should stand in the way of what someone else wants to do with their body so i dont think there should be a massive regulatory wall there. For mandated modification this should be something we should be extremely hesitant of and only resort to where there is extreme consensus not only in the field but among the public and those who would be effected that this would be a beneficial thing.

```that won't do, an algorithm is a mathematical concept... it doesn't exist in the same way a brick does```
not to get into the weeds but we describe bricks in a similar way but i think a house illustrates the point better. You can build a house out of concrete, out of glass, out of bricks, out of plastic, out of combinations of all the above and other shit as well. A house doesnt have to have a set layout or only have a certain amount of rooms to be a house and it shares many features with an office, even has significant overlap and dual use but there are a set of activities and patterns that would still show that a building is an office, a house or both. Similarly we have a pretty solid conception of a bullet as a thing but without understanding that a bullet is intended to be fired from a gun at velocity in order to strike something a bullet doesnt really exist. That a bullet being fired and striking something at velocity is a relationship between things doesn't make it less real to me and I'd say the same is true of intelligence.

```I recognize you as a person... and interact in a way that is natural to me```
So when I say 'patterns of 'behavior' this is what I mean. theres a clear back and forth between us that you wouldnt have with say, a human who is comatose. You assume I'm human based on context and the rest of it and your right but it wouldnt make a difference to you most likely if this was all coming from a chatbot whereas despite knowing there are people with a physical body and human genes etc etc etc you also know that you cant have this discussion with a vegetable in the hospital. You treat me as a person despite the potential ambiguity yet despite knowing a human in a vegetative state is human you would not treat them as a person really unless they recovered.

```software doesnt exist in the material sense. It is just a concept.```
again thats untrue aki. the software is a pattern that be it encoded using magnetic material on a tape, grooves on a record, pits in silica or diode states amounts to the same interactions occurring. How your seeing the genome of the human species is functionally no different here as your not defining it as exactly the same sequence of chemicals in isolation. You dont recognize or give a shit about a skin cell in and of itself despite sharing your genes and you dont care and even prefer that your gf doesnt have the same exact sequence as you. If in this case we are to dismiss software, music, patterns etc as not being real how can you say that humans are any more real given this?

```what is supposed to leave the cradle```
the "algorithm" in this case.

@Scipio Americanus
```how do we get around the you cant transfer conciousness problem```
im not sold that you cant. way i see it we do anyway as braincells are replaced, lost, developed and we maintain a coherent whole. We already see the brains of those whove lost a limb and then who are given a prosthetic, especially if theres an electronic element to the functioning of that prosthetic to the peripheral nervous system in that neurons begin to as I've heard put, "fire and wire together" with the circuitry. thats not an immediate process but as you get those wetware links and the conscious mind starts to fully incorporate the extended system i dont see how the circuitry would be substantially different from how we feel about our neurons now. In such an extended system I think that the death of the biological brain would kinda be seen as partial brainloss however with the upside that its now not a permanent loss to your capability. How could you tell you've managed it? the same way that we can tell that people have accepted their prosthetics. they use it first like its something foreign, then a tool, an extension, and finally just as an ordinary part of them.

I am more hesitant as to how that would work as an interrupted process, say someone dies and you want to transfer their consciousness. It's a tricky question but I think pragmatically it should be accepted as a thing. I dont see a functional difference here in being knocked out or being asleep and while i have some nitpicks with this view we all pretty much see ourselves as the same person after these events. I dont know if its enough for me to step into the teleporter or put a bullet in my brain prior to being uploaded but if i got hit by a truck and my fam wanted to call the resultant upload me I'd have no problems

copying I think is kinda like a fork as you address later in that at the moment of copying you are "the same person twice" but after that moment you are different, but highly similar people. My view is this is pretty similar to how we go through life anyway as the same point could be raised about you and the "you" one moment ago and you can kinda understand the iterations of yourself as more of a "family" per se than a single distinct thing unchanging. I understand that its not functionally very different in practice however and its a pretty wild train of thought so its not the version ive been using in the discussion, though it does inform it and stay consistent more or less.

for me i would consider the program a person and copies as distinct, though related people. The conversation gets real tricky if you want to start going down the road of things like distributed services and syncing that are conventional in IT world but completely alien to how we think about thought currently.
deleting the program would be murder.
copy and pasting im gonna say no because its retained in memory. speculation but I'd think it would likely be seen as being knocked out
obviously i dont think we're at the level yet where even the most sophisticated programs would be considered people but i think we will reach that point

@snakeeater funny thing is after you set up the engine people in the field don't talk about "programming" an AI or machine learning engine, they talk about training it and the internal function of these kinds of programs is not like a script in that its fairly easy to unpack and go line by line and see what its doing and how its accomplishing their function. Neural nets as their name implies function remarkably similar to the human brain in doing things in terms of relations. @Just a weirdo makes a pertinent observation when it comes to how most people understand maths but AI leans heavily on some interesting ideas coming from maths which try to formally examine how to solve equations where the values can be tested but aren't initially known

@CronoSaturn _"Your quoting the spiel i wrote about predisposing people to hatred and disdain to those not sharing their lifestyle so thats likely why you feel it has little to do with the question you asked about influencing people to work harder for less money."­­­­­­_

Ohhh... I see there was a misunderstanding here. I was trying to describe the situation when they show hatered and distain for other workers in the office that do not share their dedication... as a way of creating a peer pressure that enforces the genetic predispositions... and you thought that the hatered and disdain was suposed to be aimed at the non-workers.

Regardless... I think this strain of the conversation is at its end. You don't seem to find anything wrong with the proceder itself (you only have qualms about how it is supposed to be implemented) and I do. In other words we differ on a moral level... and I can't really persuade you in this case.

_"not to get into the weeds but we describe bricks in a similar way but i think a house illustrates the point better. You can build a house out of concrete, out of glass, out of bricks, out of plastic, out of combinations of all the above and other shit as well. A house doesnt have to have a set layout or only have a certain amount of rooms to be a house and it shares many features with an office, even has significant overlap and dual use but there are a set of activities and patterns that would still show that a building is an office, a house or both....."_

_"So when I say 'patterns of 'behavior' this is what I mean. theres a clear back and forth between us that you wouldnt have with say, a human who is comatose... "_

In other words you view things threw their usage. That however only matters in a social context and is irrelevant when we try to ascertain a nature of things. You only describe a usage but not the object itself.

_"again thats untrue aki. the software is a pattern that be it encoded using magnetic material on a tape, grooves on a record, pits in silica or diode states amounts to the same interactions occurring."_

That is very true. Magnetic material on a tape surely exists, groves on record exist and so do pits in silica... but those things do not constitute a softwere. Softwere is a concept that allows humans to understand what is happening with material objects but it in itself doesn't consitute an object. It is an abstract my dear crono. It can not be separated from the material object it resides on.

_" How your seeing the genome of the human species is functionally no different here as your not defining it as exactly the same sequence of chemicals in isolation. You dont recognize or give a shit about a skin cell in and of itself despite sharing your genes and you dont care and even prefer that your gf doesnt have the same exact sequence as you. "_

Hmmm.. ok I will give you that my definitions describes more of a procedure to obtain human then the human itself. Regardless at the end we still obtain a human as an object. It is not an equivalent to what you are trying to do here~

_"If in this case we are to dismiss software, music, patterns etc as not being real how can you say that humans are any more real given this?"_

Well good question... how can you? I define humans as an object with certain properties. How about you?

_"the "algorithm" in this case."­_

The algorithm can not be separated from the objects it resides on. It can only be copied. However a copy is just another structure of atoms that is arranged in the equivalent way.

_"im not sold that you cant. way i see it we do anyway as braincells are replaced, lost, developed and we maintain a coherent whole. We already see the brains of those whove lost a limb and then who are given a prosthetic, especially if theres an electronic element to the functioning of that prosthetic to the peripheral nervous system in that neurons begin to as I've heard put, "fire and wire together" with the circuitry. thats not an immediate process but as you get those wetware links and the conscious mind starts to fully incorporate the extended system i dont see how the circuitry would be substantially different from how we feel about our neurons now. In such an extended system I think that the death of the biological brain would kinda be seen as partial brainloss however with the upside that its now not a permanent loss to your capability. How could you tell you've managed it? the same way that we can tell that people have accepted their prosthetics. they use it first like its something foreign, then a tool, an extension, and finally just as an ordinary part of them. "_

What if the brain was a connection between two different neural networks it was interacting with. Would you then say that the person has multipled or that two different people were created?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dwsYWF7TXI

Really intresting 6 min of Jordan Peterson talking about Hitler and Nazi Germany

J u d e n P e t e r s t e i n

People still care about Jordan Peterson? Huh

Ethan Klein said some based stuff regarding Dresden

Got his numbers wrong, but still

Le based anti-zionist jew

@V-NAF_Aardist Dresden? What about one justified bombing out of many? (in the Machiavellian sense anyway)

@V-NAF_Aardist Link

Dresden deserved to be hit harder

@Honey Beanger so it deserved to not get bombed 🤣 ya, let the soviets do take the city

That will go over *real* well

What's harder then creating cesspools of melted human in the meagre bunkers the citizens barely could scurry into as their world became a furnace-like hellscape that was so powerful that high winds fueling the whole show were reported from as far as 20 miles away?

@Honey Beanger

“The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into practice. They sowed the wind, ***now they will reap the whirlwind***”
-Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris

^ autism

@Hirden

>posts arthur harris quote

only autistic retards unironically support the bombing of dresden

the bombing of dresden wasnt really that bad

beyond any other bombings

there's a lot of myths surrounding it

i just instantly think someone is a retard when they gloat about what happened in Dresden

there's a lot of neo-nazi propaganda

dresden wasn't especially different to any other bombings

well all i can say is that no nationalist would ever quote bomber harris in a positive light

Quality rebuttal. And yet Dresden was a high value military target, the impact was highly inflated and german civilians were undoubtably complicit in allowing and approving the bombing of civilians in higher numbers. War is horrific and the Germans revelled in that fact when it came to their prosecution of the war on others. That this came home to roost should be of no surprise and simple justice.

the whole war was started when the largest imperial power sperged out at Germany retaking past german territory

dresden was a major railway line for transporting war resources to the front

plus transporting jews & others to work and death camps

So you mean other nations objected to Germany’s expansion into their allies territory? So you mean germany started the war?

the largest estimated number of deaths in dresden was 25,000. while 25,000 lives is not to be scoffed at, its not a huge number when we compare it to other cities

that territory belonged to Germany. and Britain, who conquered half of the world already declared on a nation that wanted a retarded treaty like Versailles to be reversed.

revisionists would have you believe the death toll was 300,000 which is just plain ridiculous... thats more than both atomic bombs combined

right but that conquering wasnt really just..

let alone reconquering it lol

danzig had been german territory for the longest time

And now it was polish. Germany was unable to project power in a capacity to reclaim the Danzig, hence it wasnt german.

tbf the people of danzig were mostly german, but thats hardly justification to invade and conquer poland

Poland should have just given back land that was mostly German

im a bit concerned that ur being an apologist for nazi german actions tho

i mean Hitler was a good leader

Objectively no.

@neztharion unfortunately its endemic in this server

he wanted the treaty of versailles (which was extremely unfair) to be reversed and germany returned to it's past and rightful glory

and Britain who controlled half the fucking world started shitting bricks

what past and rightful glory

Wonderful. Great blue sky thinking. Actual implementation wasnt so great though was it? Any kid can dream, it actually takes something more to make that a reality. Pissing off power houses as time shows is a bold strategy but generally a poor one.

this supposed utopian ethnostate that never existed

the territory of Germany before 1919

Let’s actually examine that as well. You criticise the british empire and yet somehow seem fully on board with the german empire, an empire who itself was unabashed in attaining its expansion through military actions with Austria, Bavaria, france, Denmark, and a slew of other smaller german states. Here bismark presented a policy of real politik with a solid grasp of the European dynamic to achieve german sovereignty not through right, but by blood and iron.

What “right” does germany have to these areas?

what right did Britain have to conquer half of the world, murder 10s of millions of people, introduce concentration camps and have them be used on Boers?

they did everything that Germany did and then some more

what-about-ism isnt a defence

Areas many of which had been considered german barely 50 years, germany itself being an infant on the world stage?

it's showing the hypocrisy of Britain

the british empire was pretty horrid. but a broken clock is right once a day - germany unjustly invaded their allies

reuniting germany was unjust?

reuniting germany is a very dishonest way of putting it

they invaded and conquered sovereign nations

they were trying to unify all Germans

oh so kinda like the British? 😂

again, whataboutism isnt rly an a good argument

my point right now is that the British are the biggest hypocrites in world history

broken clock is right twice* a day not once lol

okay but thats not really a good defence of germany

the Greater German Reich was meant to expand it's borders to include all ethnic Germans

whilst simultaneously conquering non german peoples and exterminating people deemed 'lesser'

that's what the Anchluss, Sudetenland, etc. was for

yeah very defensible

>non german peoples and exterminating people deemed 'lesser'
what people were exterminated for being lesser?

jews, gypsies, lgbt ppl, political opponents etc

Let’s address those too, the british “concentration camps” in the boer war had a lower death toll then many areas of the uk and are clearly nothing like equivalent to the death camps created by germany. I’d be happy in condemning it but raising a moral equivalence is absurd. It’s difficult to see where you get this arbitrary “10s of millions” from and much of british expansion was not facilitated by conquest, but trade and colonies.
Again, its difficult to justify “reuniting germany” when germany itself was the result of the conquest of a number of states in itself. What is “Ethnically german” is also hard to see when nearly universally a century prior they were all considered, and considered themselves, seperate people

>jews, gypsies, lgbt ppl, political opponents etc
jews, gypsies, faggots and traitors all deserved it

yeah you're

absolutely bonkers

if you're a subversive element in a society, then expect to be eliminated

conspiracy theories

you should know damn well why jews were persecuted in Germany

are not justifications

Would you consider yourself in line with contemporary western society, @Hirden ? Do you not consider it hypocritical calling for the extermination of others when you yourself are a subversive element?

>Would you consider yourself in line with contemporary western society
no.
>Do you not consider it hypocritical calling for the extermination of others when you yourself are a subversive element?
the state apparatus is a subversive element upon the people

that's not what endemic means

@neztharion jews have been proven to be behind communism and the degeneracy of weimar germany

Endemic: regularly found in a certain area. I dont think its a stretch to say nazi apologia is regularly found on this server @Augustus

they are not "Conspiracy theories" if they've been proven to be true

i'm not apologizing for anything the nazis did lmao

the thing is that they havent been proven to be true

yes they have

you've listened to a few debunked crackpot theories that are rejected by all credible scholars

most of the leadership of the bavarian soviet republic was jewish

RikshirdenToday at 9:00 PM
>jews, gypsies, lgbt ppl, political opponents etc
jews, gypsies, faggots and traitors all deserved it
^ ur a nazi apologist

i'm not an apologist, i have nothing to apologize for

If they were proven to be true that might also be a valid point. What practicing jews were involved with communism i have no idea and I dont see the “degeneracy” of the Weimar. The definition of “jew” by nazi apologists seems to be very unclear and amount to “everyone I dont like”

apologist
/əˈpɒlədʒɪst/Submit
noun
a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial.

you are an apologist

there's nothing wrong with killing traitors, subversive elements and sexual deviants

So youd understand were we to take the same stance with you

the thing is that they are only traitors, subversives and deviants because of ur subjective view on morality - irregardless of science or credible historical analysis

@CronoSaturn hmmm?

ur like an evangelical

basically

evangelical, what?

with your skewed view on reality

>skewed view of reality
idk man i can actually back up everything i'm saying about jews in germany during that time

@Hirden Your beliefs are clearly subversive and betray any nation you might form part of. It then follows that you can have no complaint if the actions you would do unto others are done unto you.

give me an example and ill debunk it

@CronoSaturn so be it

historical consensus disagrees with u

but i bet thats another jewish plot or something, lol

The leader of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Eugen Levine was born into a jewish merchant family from St. Petersburg

ok?

Rosa Luxembourg, one of the leading members of the BSR, was also jewish

It’s hard to justify how a communist might still be considered jewish considering the tensions that exist between Marxist and religious thought.

yes, jewish people exist

but where is the evidence of a conspiracy or plot

or some form of social control that was carried out

by 'jews' as a people

and ya, marxist thought is antithetical to religious thought

there's a huge correlation between jews who usually make up a small minority of a population yet are vastly overrepresented in Communist movements

and? most jews are secular anyway

they're atheistic yet still hold on to their jewish identity

where do you get this blazen idea that there is/was an ethnic jewish conspiracy

The Jewish Socialist bund was one of the first radical left wing movements in Europe which can be attributed to the popularity of communism amongst Jews

there are a multitude of factors that go into disproportionate representation, and its usually not some grand plot, take off your tinfoil hat

9 out of 15 leaders of the Bavarian Socialist Republic were jewish

it's not a tin foil hat conspiracy when the facts are right in your face

Can you demonstrate this? So far I’ve seen some handpicked names only, nothing more. As neztharion points out, even were you to demonstrate that jews were overrepresented, unsurprising given the few rights given to jews of the time in many nations, what co-ordination exists to make this a “jewish plot” rather than a plot which includes some jews?

exactly

This is akin to feminists “patriarchy”

the facts arent right in our face

you've inferred from a specific example of overrepresentation that there must be a sinister conspiracy

you've made illogical assumptions

baseless assumptions

well i just pointed out that communism has been a heavily jewish phenomenon is germany

there's a good reason no1 takes these conspiracy theories seriously

ya it was also heavily german

no it wasn't

yes it was lmfao

over half of the leadership were jews

what were the other half

again over representation doesnt equate to a grand conspiracy

the other 2/5ths of the communist leaders were german in a country where jews were 1% or less

the soviet union was the same exact shit

the co founder of the spd was a german, ethnically

co-founder

ya but how does your massive brain leap from over-representation to a coordinated jewish conspiracy

in the soviet union there was a large overrepresentation of jews in the communist party leadership also

again how does your

giant brain make that leap

Especially when communist agitation was supported and co-ordinated with the Soviet Union in the weimar and the russian revolution resulting in communism was due in no small part to imperial germany sending lenin back to russia during ww1 with the explicit purpose of destabilising the tsar

In some ways then its more accurate to understand communism as an imperial german conspiracy

is the only cause of over-representation in your mind a coordinated ethnic plot?

is that how simple your view of the world is

idk man i keep seeing jewish names pop up in all of these movements

i bet you're always seeing jewish names. lmao

To reiterate a discussion I had on the topic of Bolshevik Jews in the Russian Revolution,
1. There is only a slight overrepresentation, and other minorities were overrepresented as well. Perhaps Germany didn't have much in terms of other minorities, which caused said overrepresentation.
2. The socialist jews are ethnic, not religious Jews, most of them were despised by the other jews.
3. Communists and socialists combatted certain unfair regulations/laws against ethnic minorities. Jews wanting equal rights does not a conspiracy make.
4. They are still citizens of the country, I see no reason to lambast a citizen for joining a party.
That's kind of the gist of it.

^

doesn't matter, if there were no jews in the first place, then there would be no communist revolts

hence why hitler getting rid of them was a good thing

and seeing Christians of all people defending jews is mind boggling

Are you sure this is serious-only?

i'm pretty sure

what i don't get is how Christians of all people are defending jews

if it wasnt jews it would've been a different boogeyman. fascists and their scapegoats, lmao

well there would have been no communism if there were no jews

Your words correlate with your profile pic mmore so than they do with the nature of the channel.
And I don't exactly see why "defending" your fellow citizens is a bad thing.

"fellow citizens"

I guess you can call me a "nationalist" or something.

well no communism isnt rly a good thing

jews are not my fellow citizens

communism was amazing for russia. obviously a highly flawed regime, im no tankie, but it was better than what came before

they're children of the devil because they do his work

see you're like an evangelical with ur irrational beliefs

Given jews are your fellow citizens as recognised by your nation, yes, yes they are

i don't care what the state says

the state can go to hell for all i care

Also yeah, have to say that communism isn't a "good" thing, but it is a result of the flawed policies of the previous regime. And the stoking of ethnic tensions is one of these problems.

a nation is created by the people, not an oligarchy that runs it

do you believe in racial purity

i believe in maintaining unity and brotherhood within an ethnic group of people

I agree. Your nation is also in part created by jewish people, its their nation too

hence why i want my nation to be destroyed

death to america

Some fellas (like Christians, those bints) prefer creating unions and bonds based on ideas and ideology rather than the colour of your skin or some gay gene.

what if i told you that genetic diversity is healthier, and racial purity is basically a large scale version of "better have kids with my sister to preserve our genes"

bonds based on ethnos, culture, language, tradition and faith

@neztharion then i'd think that you're a complete retard

let me guess, are you Catholic?

but what im saying is kind of true

well, absolutely true

The south does things different

no it isn't lmao, all race-mixing does is destroy nations and turns any sort of country into an economic unit

diverse genetics are less likely to create gene pairings which means the child is less likely to have a genetic defect, be born with an illness or disorder and so on

then why do race-mixed babies have a higher chance of having disorders?

racial 'purity' is another way of saying gene stagnation

lmao WHAT

you didn't know that?

dear lord

i know there's a myth, well

i shouldnt be surprised you bought into that. no, thats not true

>race-mixing is good
any actual nationalist server would've kicked you after saying that

are you catholic?

race mixing is morally neutral

im not

Any actual nationalist server would boot you after you said you don't care about the state.

then you haven't been in any nationalist server