Miniature Menace

Discord ID: 142496869270945792


6,693 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev | Page 7/67 | Next

nm, that's party ID with leaners

it's flipped for those who are party members

What's up with his lips?

is the media photoshopping shit again, or does he just have a weird face?

well, so far the pattern seems to be the democrats spinning out of control, as they embrace more and more radically progressive, anti-white, tribalist positions, and the republicans failing to leverage the democrats failures, because they secretly are invested in certain progressive agendas remaining relatively unchallenged

the republicans will not be that single party in its current form, because the only reason they can get away with their current betrayal of their constituency is because they can point to the democrats as being even worse

they have no interest in the dems disappearing, they need them

you'd basically have to uproot the entire republican party, and replace it with new outsiders for something like that to occur

the majority of the US is actually more conservative than the political elites, funny enough

last I checked, it was the dems who get the media to pounce on some new controversy every time one of their politicians does an oopsie

"Sure, soandso said this controversial thing about being in favor of all kinds of weird abortion stuff, but why don't we revisit the Michael Jackson thing? I mean, wasn't he weird? He probably raped kids, right"

@Jym Yeah, many minorities often lean less democrat on specific issues, but they vote as a block due to strategy and tribal affiliation. One of the points of strategy being, whites are perceived as the biggest competitor when it comes to power, so banding in coalition seems essential to challenging that power. Meanwhile, whites tend to be more inclined to issue voting, because most don't operate under the same kind of threat narrative. It's a complacency which is likely to erode the less of a majority whites are, and they begin to recognize their vulnerability to predatory coalitions. The irony being that the less of a majority whites become, the less imperative it is for these coalitions to *maintain coalition.* The less of an obstacle whites are perceived to be, the more minorities will begin jockeying for factional power, rather than coalition power. There are already signs of this with Muslim representatives, challenging Israel with offhand remarks. The Jewish faction of the coalition is often very swift in course correcting such dissidents, and putting them back on mission, "Stop infighting, the real obstacle is white men!"

Make no mistake, most people in general are extremely low information voters.

More often than not, people will operate in a tribal fashion. But when comparing demographics, whites are more split between parties over issues other than over race. Or at least, that has been the case until more recently. It's being forced into being a priority issue, where for at least a few decades, interest in that dimension of politics among whites had been declining considerably.

And there seem to be two primary factors. Proximity to a dramatic demographic shift, and antagonism from the media. The secondary factor, chan culture and whatnot, is more a consequence than a cause.

โœก

<:hyperthink:462282519883284480>

"they do not must"

Yes, they have been pushing this narrative for a while, and it's generally either worked, or been ignored. Pretty much no one has been attacking the legitimacy of the moral premise being presented. That people preferring their own is inherently wicked, and uniquely so for whites, more than for any other group.

Of all the truly wicked conceptions of the 20th century, few are as wicked as the assertion that love for brothers in the other races of mankind can only come at the cost of despising their own.

Or of apathy for their nature, their history, their values, their family.

Apathy or antipathy for their legacy.

diarrhea is more of a problem than gun violence, tbh

if we're going from the ratio of deaths

to be fair though, diarrhea is probably not too huge a leading cause of death in the first world, though

just globally

big oof if true

>when talk about not triggering people, but accidentally say "Trump"

>and trigger *yourself*

iirc, he was boiling in semen

but it might just have been generally excrement

giraffes whose heads exploded before they could reproduce wouldn't pass on their shitty head exploding genes, tho

>couldn't have

it would usually be the product of proportional differences in reproductive rates, combined with the reproductive isolation of populations where new traits are expressed and selected for

doesn't mean for giraffes to exist, it would have needed to be lethal to not have a long neck, it just means that the population of giraffe ancestors which didn't select for long necks didn't become giraffes

and judging from the population of giraffes compared to most organisms, which don't have this adaptation, it is an extremely novel one

through intermediary forms

it's not exactly common for complex changes to an organism to occur in a single step

its transitional

well, apparently they weren't, because giraffes exist

and other than giraffes, we actually have examples of organisms where we can link certain adaptations to gene replication errors

such as in frogs

and even in humans

we have evidence which demonstrates a link between *other* complex traits and evolutionary mutational processes, it's not difficult to infer that this is probably the same with giraffes as well

what's funny, is that at first I thought you were trolling

maybe investigate Ring Species

they're an example of these processes in action, resulting in the gradual speciation of organisms

there's also evidence of this in dog breeds, as well as in fruit flies

where the reproductive isolation necessary for speciation can be shown to occur gradually

they have made fruit flies which experience reproductive isolation from other fruit flies, which descended from common ancestors, while still being able to breed with other fruit flies along their selective strain

which is a factor in speciation

perhaps one of the most important factors

and some dogs breed notoriously poorly with other specific breeds

there's examples of this in nature, with the aforementioned Ring Species

without the involvement of human experimentation

Basically, if an organism from a common ancestor experiences a long enough period of reproductive isolation from other strains, it can eventually become reproductively incompatible

Hell, lions and tigers have a graduated interfertility with one another. But are recognized as different species.

Well, evolution is ultimately about reproduction.

What traits are transmitted, and what traits are isolated.

What gets extinguished.

The change in cardiovascular system would need to correspond with changes in the physiological demands of it, yes.

Dismissing the possibility because these changes are necessary, and that seems too dramatic, ignores how often subtle and gradual these changes really are, and really need to be.

An Okapi wouldn't give birth to a giraffe, but an transitional organism between an Okapi and a giraffe, very much more resembling an Okapi, and being likely reproductively compatible with other Okapi, with which it would reproduce

The comparative rate of reproduction, and the familial isolation of these new characteristics would result in gradual change, and an eventual phenotypical and genetic departure from the root species

because these intermediate forms aren't static, nor are they impervious to extinction

This was literally posted already

That's a false equivalency

You're basically arguing the opposite of "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" both arguments are stupid, evolution necessitates that there isn't a uniform reproduction of all organisms and traits

some will go extinct

choke to death while drinking, and then argue with me that all the parts of an organism just *happen* to function together

no organism is perfect

it just survived

basically, if it was flawed in some way, it wasn't flawed to a degree that it couldn't reproduce

you can be pretty flawed, and still reproduce

you know how many people with glandular, mental, and metabolic issues still breed?

The transitional okapi wouldn't need a giraffe sized heart, it would just need one effective enough to support whatever transitional elongation of its neck had occurred that generation

we're not talking a doubling of size in a single generation, but probably changes as little as a percent or less over a single generation

it doesn't half to be a half giraffe

considering this can occur over tens or hundreds of thousands, even millions of years

it could just be 0.00067% more giraffe than its parents

Not to mention Giraffes, particularly Bull Giraffes, have other survival advantages. Such as being extremely dangerous to Lions.

What about a Great Dane out of a Dire Wolf?

Aurochs, the organism from which modern european stock cows are descended, was fucking *bigger than Buffalo*

There's a pretty substantial range of diversity feasible in an organism without having those changes necessarily be complimentary

I mean, imagine thinking that if a man has a son who is 3 inches taller than him, that son will die before he reproduces because of the risk that his heart isn't perfectly optimized to that difference in stature.

reality is often disappointing

Guess it's back to the old method, of shoot shovel and shut up.

6,693 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev | Page 7/67 | Next