+giveme consent

@Skip Yes... Yes I am 😄

Warhammer 40K eh? Was a really long time ago since I painted anything.

President Trump themesong:

https://youtu.be/nXgTPAr5_Lw

Quite based for being Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/07/16/democrats-say-no-one-is-above-law-except-illegal-immigrants/?fbclid=IwAR3P69xB43rzTDiyP6nbej9aFpoqMgLxrWvp0v9ICefhURQWJ3mK75689BY&utm_term=.90624e0e648b

LOL! XD

http://maganewsnet.com/journalist-travels-to-ilhan-omars-homeland-to-prove-somalia-is-beautiful-gets-killed-by-terrorists/?fbclid=IwAR1h2d4kaIV9p4F3d3BQ1CUd1kRK5mRhSgYblV4Sn8-FfIRfz-GeJ3EPBWo

What is this? A tory doing the ye olde backpedal? I could never have imagined! :O

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1159866/Brexit-news-Boris-Johnson-latest-no-deal-transition-customs-union-single-market

Looks like the latest video about Owen Jones got gulaged on youtube. :(

The left has their own mass shooter now. :)

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/4/connor-betts-ohio-gunman-was-elizabeth-warren-supp/

Maybe deepfakes proliferation is a good thing. Maybe it's better if the world develops into one where nobody can trust statements made- or video footage from electronic mediums.

Maybe our societies have been too overreliant on audio and video mediums in order to shape the citizens perceptions of reality.

Maybe then people will be forced to go out and observe things for themselves and come to their own concluscions rather than just "watch a video" and base their whole world view around it.

What real diversity sounds like:

https://youtu.be/2yI5DfFM3Tw

Question from a foreigner: isn't banning potato peelers kind of racist against the Irish?

Songlyrics that always remind me of lefty SJW college students for some reason...

https://youtu.be/S-O7FowQssk

If I put CO2 gas into my citrus fruit beverage. Does that mean that i'm gassing the juice?

Beto needs to be taught the age old lesson that there is no arguing with the barrel of a gun

Is there such a thing as a woke german? This guy fits the bill. :O

https://youtu.be/5i-Ipy0Vb-c

That makes me moist

Self professed "Thinkers" formulate ideologies. Yet they rarely bother to formulate goals for them.
And what's worse is that they create these ideological equivalents of mind castles and praise their virtues constantly, even though the ideologies in question can rarely survive contact with actual humans and human behaviour.

My view is: if your ideology is demonstrably incompatible with humanity, then your ideology is a waste of time and should be discarded.

If you constantly have to excuse your ideology with the words "If only people would..." then that's a surefire symptom of your ideology being fundamentally flawed.

@Weez Pretty much yes. And to prove my point further, you could actually use the same statements but replace "capitalism" with "communism" as well.

After all, when socialist states like Venezuela fails because the wealthy people take their money and leave before the communist dictator in power decides to simply steal their belongings and money, the socialists and communists all drone one about how "greedy" those wealthy people are, and that their greed is "sabotaging" the socialist project.

That makes the ideology a fantasy, because as we all know: people don't conform to your ideology, regardless of what ideology that is.

You will always have specimens who think your ideology is shit. And thus your ideology will fail by default.

Liberalism/libertarianism gets close to a certain degree, in the way that they both recognize the concept of rational self-interest being one of the primary motivations for all human behaviour.

But what they both fail at is realizing is that pursuit of rational self interests will lead to conflicts between people. Conflicts that do not stay civil or peaceful.

"Can" is not the same as "they will".

Just because you offer people the opportunity to conform to your ideology, it doesn't mean they will

Sorry, doesn't work either. They might just decide to shoot you first before you can make your threat a reality

And we've got a long list of failed authoritarian states

No you don't

The ones currently operating are hardly "successful".

China is not successful. It's a bloated economy based purely on an export bubble

They're hurting like hell due to the economic sanctions imposed on them by the U:S

The U.S could kill china with one single trading embargo

They haven't because China is mostly a nuisance at the moment. Not an actual threat.

I see that you don't really have the insight of what the Chinese economy is built upon.

Influence backed by the American economy, because the Chinese are still allowed to hawk their cheap crap to american customers. Therein lies their problem

You can't pose a threat to the U.S if you're indirectly dependant on the U.S customer base

No it isn't. As the recent trade war has clearly shown where the Chinese yuan is dropping in value much faster than the U.S dollar is.

If China was "overtaking" the U.S economy, it would've been the other way around.

"They're moving away". I don't care. They haven't moved away yet. Their economy is still grossly dependant on cheap mass exports. Whatever cute plans the chinese might have will not help them TODAY.

Yeah and their projects necessary to make this economic shift will take decades.

It will happen if China were to actually pose a threat to the U.S. Which they're not.

No I'm just saying what the current situation looks like.

Clearly more than you do 🙂

Yes I was. What I said was that I don't care what their plans are, because they do not change the current situation.

It's like saying that you "don't have a housing crisis" because you "will build more houses IN THE FUTURE".

YOur future plans does not change the problems of today

Yes I know what it is. It's just irrelevant to my point.

Anyhow, you clearly don't have anything more interesting to add here. Too much of a China fanboy

Do you even know what the term "trading embargo" means?

@B[] What shapes culture, ideology, experience etc?

Going back to prehistoric times, the logical conclusion is that culture, ideology and experiences were shaped by the efforts of survival in the local climate of different human tribes.

In some areas, human tribes were forced to contend with freezing winters, whereas in others, humans had to contend with drought and securing sources of drinking water. In some, fruit could be picked right off trees, in others you had to hunt wild game to find something to eat.

Some areas suffered natural disasters (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, tornadoes etc.) Others were almost spared entirely.

All of these things must logically have influenced how local tribes of humans think and feel about different topics. And the specimens that were the best adapted to the very specific circumstances and context of their habitat were the ones that got to breed and pass along their genes, ensuring that the values, ideas and methods of communication they formed got passed on, partly from teaching but also partly from genetics.

This went on for generations and so will ultimately be responsible for racial differences exhibited between human populations today.

It is completely illogical to simply dismiss the racial differences and the rational self-interest in having allegiance to ones own race, when the prehistoric isolation between human groups have clearly had such an huge impact on the genetic psyche of them.

@whiic Err no, the Cuck is the new husband who invariably gets suckered into sacrificing his time and resources to provide and care for a child that isn't his own biological offspring.

The "old husband" is not the cuck in that scenario because he already got to breed with the woman and produced offspring which he himself does not have to invest much time or effort in caring for, since his former wife and her new partner cares for his child. Basically, the old husband has achieved success in the biological competition between the sexes since his genes are not only passed along, but have their chances of survival increased on account of effectively having THREE adults caring for and nurturing his offspring (most children will have to settle for two adults at the most).

Sexual dimporphism in humans create this sexual competition between men and women. Men can produce millions of sperm cells every day, and they can do this up to very old age. Therefore their biological imperative is to impregnate as many women as possible, in order to ensure the survival of their own genes by a kind of "shotgun approach" (impregnate many women, and some offspring might die, but the chances increase that some of the offspring survives to adulthood and manage to breed on their own)

Women on the other hand have almost directly opposite circumstances and biological goals. A woman can only produce a finite amount of eggs during her lifetime, and the period in which she's fertile is much shorter on average than that of the average man. Therefore the woman has a biological imperative to be much more selective of the man being allowed to fertilize her eggs. And since children are very weak and defenseless for a long period of time right after birth, and the woman herself is in a physically fragile state while pregnant, the woman has an imperative to both find a man with good genes, likely to produce strong offspring, but also a man capable of caring for her and protecting her and their mutual child during pregnancy and the early childhood of their offspring.

That offers the womans genes the best chances of survival. But seeing as how male specimens who are both possessing good genes AND behave as loyal caregivers are quite rare on the meatmarket, many women settle for being impregnated by an attractive man with good genes in order to create strong offspring, but they ensnare a more desperate, less attractive man exhibiting more loyal characteristics to be the caregiver of her and her offspring.

It's a behavioural adaptation of promiscuity to solve a problem which the sexual competition and sexual dimorphism cause for women.

@B[] Unless you've got the genome completely mapped out, you can't say for certain that the differences would only be "some small changes in appearance related DNA". Also, it doesn't make much sense that only appearance would've been affected since there is really only one enviromental factor in prehistoric times leading up to today where appearance might've granted a survival edge, and that would be the relative sunlight exposure (black skin protects better against high sun exposure, white skin allows for more absorption of sunlight in places that have fewer hours of sunlight of the year).

But there were so many more factors to take into account which has influenced the survival strategies and ways of thinking with prehistoric tribes than just sunlight.

The fact that we can interbreed "without issue" (disputed claim, but I'll go with it for the moment) doesn't prove anything, since humans could interbreed with far more removed variants of hominids, like the fact that white people are a result of hybridization between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis, while black people have no genetic trace markers from homo neanderthalensis at all.

Neanderthals where further genetically removed from homo sapiens, in pre historic times than white people are today from black people, yet they could still interbreed.

Recent research also suggest that behaviour and even memories are inherited https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ancestors-genetic-memories-passed-on-14-generations/

"This particular study looked at C. elegans nematodes, types of roundworms with very short lifespans. The researchers genetically engineered them to carry a glowing gene, a protein that fluoresced, so they could track it under UV light.

They then placed the worms in a cold environment and watched as the gene glowed, but dimly. Moving them to a warm environment, they saw the gene glow far more brightly. When they were moved back to the cold room, the gene continued to glow, which suggested the “memory” of the warm environment was maintained.

Incredibly, when these worms reproduced, this memory, via this glowing gene, was passed on through an unprecedented 14 generations, no matter whether they received it via eggs or sperm. This means that their offspring would be “aware” of the warm environment even without having experienced it themselves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Global_variation_of_IQ_scores

@OneTrueGod Of course it is. But it has to be put in there if someone argues that the only differences between races are "appearance based".

Now while the exact cause of IQ differences is yet to be pinned down, the fact that differences do exist also makes it impossible to claim that the only differences between races are appearance related.

@B[] I'm not regering to any social issues either. I'm refering to the possibility of various genetic diseases and syndromes that might result from interbreeding between races that do not occur in monoracial breeding.

Don't start strawmanning me, because I haven't done it to you.

As to the other argument, you're kind of moving the goalposts. The capability of interbreeding does not prove "sameness" or dismiss racial differences as irrelevant.

@B[] No I quote the study which IFLS brings up. It's not IFLS making the claims, it's the people behind the study.

If you've got tangible arguments against the study, then I'll hear them. But I won't accept any shooting of messengers based simply on who they are.

@B[] IQ is not about education. IQ is a measurement of logical reasoning, which even completely educated people are capable of.

@B[] The elephant in the room here is where you believe that culture comes from. You seem to (I stress SEEM) to treat culture as something entirely separate from biology. As if it is something that just springs from the ether, rather than being a phenomenon produced by the thought process of living human brains.

I argue that culture is downriver of biology, not the other way around

Without the physical brain, there can be no culture etc.

@B[] The cannibalism argument was not mine though. I was refering to the inherited memories of hot and cold enviroments and the behviours exhibited in the worms when exposed to them.

@B[] And you don't admit that biology influence social behaviour?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy

@B[] Yes it does matter, because this research suggest that behaviours might just be stored in DNA. We don't know exactly what DNA governs. The genome is not fully mapped out.

@B[] No but it proves that altering your biology will also alter your social behaviour.

@B[] And DNA most definitely play a part in governing the formation of neural connections in the brain, like controlling the number of neural connections made in the prefrontal cortex and other parts of the brain anatomy.

WHich is why some people are born as geniuses, while others are born hopelessly dumb, even when brought up in virtually identical cultural and nurtritional enviroments.

@B[] The "amount" of intelligence cannot be quantified. You can't say that "very little intelligence is involved" in the worms. Enough intelligence is involved to prove that their actions are behavioural.

@B[] Yes but that isn't relevant to the issue. The fact that you can solve more complex logical problems than the worm, doesn't make your BEHAVIOUR inherently different or uncomparable to the behaviour of the worm.

They're both behaviours, influenced by your respective brains, memories etc.

@Jym Exactly. Cultural changes are, based on the available evidence, nothing but symptoms of an intelligent species trying out different strategies in order to survive and dominate their enviroment.

The fact that cultures change rapidly only shows that the species in question is intelligent (meaning: it doesn't bang it's head with a hammer a million times before realizing that it's going to hurt, but settle for doing it two or three times before concluding that enough is enough), it doesn't prove that culture is completely separate from it's biologically determined behaviour.

@B[] IQ tests are not based on predictiv capabilities of the world around you. They are purposefully designed to use abstract patterns of symbols and drawings in order to move the test subjects mind away from expectations and experiences regarding the surrounding world.

I.e the test subject is focused entirely on abstract symbols and drawings which they have never and will never encounter in the world outside

@B[] I have already done so, by highlighting racial IQ differences

@B[] But you could use other examples, like general physiology and racial performance in things like sports. The NBA is not exactly dominated by white people. And the runners in the olympics are almost always africans.

If there can be such significant physiological differences in terms of stature, aerobic and anaerobic ability, it makes little logical sense to argue "but our brains are all exactly the same"

@B[] Unknown at the moment, since the neurobiologists do not fully understand how the entire brain anatomy works

@B[] Yes we are, because you're presenting a somewhat preposterous argument that you concede that people of different races can have vast genetic differences in terms of physical ability which grants benefits and drawbacks in things like sports. But for some reason you also oppose the idea that such differences might exist within the brains of different races.

Can't you see how illogical this assumption is?

What is it about the human brain, in your view, that makes it so special and "separate" form everything else about the human body and how it develops and how it is influenced by race?

And I say, you can't quantify the difference. I can't either. I'll be honest about that.

But the fact that there are certain measurable differences should provide ample incentive for further study AND dismiss the premature assumption that there are no differences whatsoever between the biological brains, and thus the manifested behaviours of people from different races.

We need to know more, and should know more before reaching any such conclusions.

@Jym Well can you name me any other place in the world where you'd find native red heads?

@B[] Erm, that was never your argument to begin with. You've presented it just now. And I've never once claimed that a person from one race is fundamentally incapable of learning a cultural or ideological behaviour from another

@B[] Quote me. Where did I make an argyment against having races breed with one another.

I know you find my opposition to your arguments frustrating, but I would ask that you tone down the projection and the strawmanning please

@Jym So, do you argue that my statement that the fastest runners are african to be a false statement? Are they not african?

@Jym Feels a bit like you're just being nitpicky about how specified I was, more than having an actual disagreement

@B[] Fair enough.

If you want me to give my own views though, then I'll do so. I think that for the most part, racial loyalty is only natural and mostly beneficial for the individual for psychological reasons.

People are limited by the confines of their own psychology and behaviour at the end of the day, and one such limitation is the fact that people of the same race have an easier time identifying with and empathizing with eachother than they have of people of different races. And this is scientifically proven in several studies.

The more harmonious and peaceful societies tend to be monoracial, whereas societies exhibiting the most instability and cultural strife tend to be multi-racial and multi-ethnic. Either by accident or by design.

So IN GENERAL, it's best to keep races and ethnicities separate, because the idea of trying to "promote" interbreeding will never work on a large scale. It is more likely to cause backlash and entrenched positions than promoting pro-social behaviour across racial and ethnic borders.

The middle east is very multi racial and multi ethnic. We can "thank" Islam for that.

No I didn't mean to suggest you were promoting it. It was just a general caution against it.

I'm not arguing that it should be outright forbidden. However I do argue against having things like open borders and letting massed amounts of foreigners enter other countries unobstructed and being given full access to the host societies.

I also argue for keeping some tabs on the few biracial relationships that do happen to check for signs of strife or discord.

If you're a white man marrying a black woman from another country and all she really wants is to integrate in the native white society, conforming to their norms, laws and culture then that's all fine and dandy.

But if she's planning to introduce her idea of "Blackness" to society and act like some political firebrand, then there should be laws permitting her extradition even if it means breaking up the marriage.

@B[] Yes but with vetting i'm not just suggesting vetting against potential criminals and such. The vetting should also prevent people with drastically different views and norms to the host country.

Even if I may live in a democracy with freedom of speech, I will not really benefit from inviting people of other races, raised through generations with views and opinions that basically seek to destroy or take away freedom of speech.

It's likely the will then only use such liberties to tribalize themselves against the wider host society.

Japan seems to be doing a pretty good job with this

Very restrictive with citizenships. The society is clearly monocultured. You will have a very hard time if you deviate from their norms or refuse to speak the language etc.

I wonder if english people think this has aged well. Especially Londoners. 🤔

https://youtu.be/EZnEpaSOFwk

Anyone here who thinks that UBI or minimum wage actually solves anything? Just curious.

Ok, so there are some supporters. I'd like to ask you a question with one example in mind. Let's take DVD amd Blu ray sales. Or heck, why not video games.

Did you ever stop to consider why a particular film or game region locked so it will only play on devices in countries like Bangladesh cost almost three to four times less than the same game or movie region locked to Europe or the U.S?

@Death in June Bingo. And the people who sell them knows it's a pooree country.

You see pricing is not solely decided on factors of costs involving manufacture alone. Another key component to pricing is median and average income as a baseline.

When you mass produce something (like video games or DVD movies) you're not targeting a niche clientel. You want to mass produce for the purpose of mass consumerism.

Basically you want to both sell your product as expensively as possible (in the sense that you want to make as much profit from it as you can), while at the same time selling as cheaply as possible (so as not to lose out sales to competition, or due to the fact that the average consumer simply won't be able to afford to buy what you're selling)

And therein lies the problem with both UBI and minimum wage. When you establish these things through law, then you establish a baseline. Which makes it very easy for corporations to raise and lower their prices accordingly. Just enough so the average consumer can afford it, but still keeping it high enough that you effctively get away with as much profit as possible (and indirectly hampering the purchasing power of the average consumer)

@Redxl That may be so. But my point is that neither UBI nor increased minimum wage will ever solve that particular issue. Introduce UBI and the capitalists will just raise the prices to "fit" the UBI, leaving the average consumer with pretty much the same purchasing power as before (salaries will also probably be adjusted accordingly). Raise the minimum wage, and they'll do the same thing.

And i'm not just talking about the companies selling DVD's, this will happen with ALL of them.

Both UBI and increases to minimum wage are basically just political red herrings. It's a talking point for ambitious politicians who want to make it seem like they're gonna make things better "for the little guy", but in the end all it does is maintaining the status quo for the little guy and his purchasing power.

@Death in June Not 1:1, but it is definitely a variable in the equation. other factors do influence pricing of course (logistical issues, capital etc.)

In any case, i'm not here to persuade you about it. I'm just saying, if you are a proponent of UBI or minimum wage, then you have to keep these factors in mind. How income baselines actually help the capitalist class reduce the purchasing power of the average consumer, while politicians think (or at least tries to make you think) that it will increase the purchasing power of the average consumer.

In my country, this is one of the reasons why the labour unions push employers into collective contracts where there's always a minimum salary increase for all employees in any given business, which correponds nearly 1:1 with the inflation goals of the central bank.