An example, in the United States, and other Eugenics countries, the cultural norm became "cousin fucking is the cause of all retardation". therefore the debate centered around should cousins be allowed to fuck because the society accepted a norm and tradition that was not real, but was cultural.

The same with the criminalization of drugs, a product of norm and tradition

Or marriage, or protection of certain types of commodities as exceptions to rules

Are irish the niggers of the britistan kaliphate?

i mean i would say that a lot of drug laws seem to be moreso the product of capitalism, manifested in a top-down manner

What are your opinions on an independent Acadian state in northern New Brunswick and coastal Quebec?

"tradition that was not real, but was cultural"
i don't know what this means

they were a product of bottom up outrage, expectations, projecting and ignorance born in the inherent norms and cultures of society.

Take. This. To. DMs.

I don't do DM

ew i'm not gonna dm a guy do you think i'm gay or somethin

^^^^

You’re straight as fuck

Faggot

i mean it seems odd that marijuana for example didn't start to become illegal until the 20th century

Yes, because people were seeing the rapid advance of civil liberties, counter culture and free thought and needed something to blame, targeting the new generation of free thinkers

ooof https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1166751458668232704?s=20

It was all well and good as long as you could turn a blind eye to it an believe that tradition was safe

You don't get it
When Epstein fucked the sacrificial virgin, he crossed the line
He upset the Baal and clintons had no choice

in any case what is the distinction between "real" and "cultural"?

real is empirically provable and reproducible

cultural is traditional thought with no foundation

so by real you just mean science

"it is as it is because it is so" vs "this is why it is, and you can test this to see it too"

One is a descriptor opposite of "fictional", "imaginary", "made up"
And the other is a signifier of the thing belonging to a culture

A thing can be both at the same time, neither, or any combination of those

i don't think that unscientific knowledge is necessarily without foundation

I think it should be questioned and not blindly followed

Same with science

it should be tested retested and challenged

Yall are already in a cult of Sargon

Yall are fucked

but it is much more trust worthy since it is actually tested

but there's a big difference between not blindly following something and dismissing it outright

But can we trust the testers?

Testers are but mere humans

like the black guy that deradicalized KKK guys, they believed blacks were the problem, then met a black and through the experiment stopped their culture/tradition/norm

the problem with science is that most of the important decisions we make don't have scientific answers

because they never challenged the thought

because culture is the cancer of society, it is just the common thought that we do not question, the lies to children we accept

i mean it's obviously not something that isn't questioned as culture has been in a state of change since the dawn of history