Message from @ETBrooD
Discord ID: 603828151805804553
“Racism must be fought against”
You’re on the “it’s the objective path” route again
Sigh. No, I'm not. But that's two things in one.
First of all I didn't say that I personally believe racism should be fought against. Lost in translation I guess, what I was trying to say is that racism can only be fought against consciously. Could've worded that better.
Secondly, "xyz must happen" is not an "objective path". There's nothing objective about that. If someone believes that "xyz must happen" then that can be entirely subjective.
That's why I hate when people bring up "objective/subjective", it just devolves the argument into a farce, because everyone has different ideas what those words mean.
@☩ ✠ Valka ✠ ☩
When you use wiki and it says (bint alarm) means it's been written by someone who isn't correct.
@ETBrooD I do recall that's not what I said and I will repeat myself because, I am one cautious person:
```Rational fear, is the thing that creates the opposing views of how we can discuss. However when we turn that into something else it becomes - discrimination.```
You can't irrationally come to a solution. You need to be calm and rational about it. And that's the thing - you rant and rant about shit - and your shit is not getting resolved. You need to be rational about your fears to fucking face them. And when it comes to that discrimination pathway of covert discrimination. When you become rational about it.
I never asked you to bathe your nextdoor neighbour in pigs blood did I ? Being rational - comes out with solutions . Again look at China.
@ETBrooD objectivity
``` OBJECTIVITY
the fact of being based on facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:
Surely true objectivity in a critic is impossible?
We should not lose our objectivity as we respond to the attack.
2: the state or quality of being objective and fair:
The newspaper has a reputation for objectivity and fairness.
3: the quality of being able to make adecision or judgment in a fair way that is not influenced by personal feelings orbeliefs:
He questioned his manager's objectivity.
An auditor must always give the appearance of objectivity and impartiality.```
Cambridge dictionary
@ETBrooD
```SUBJECTIVITY
1: the influence of personal beliefs or feelings, rather than facts:
There's always an element of subjectivity in decision-making.
Accountants hate the subjectivity involved in long term forecasting.
To avoid bias, the agency eliminated subjectivity from performance evaluations.
They take a lot of the emotion and subjectivity out of the investment process.
Hilton is a commentator who delights in his subjectivity ```
I told you I don't care about the subjective/objective distinction, I wanna leave it out of the debate entirely.
If it's not possible for us to debate without using those terms then I'm not interested
As to what you said about coming to a solution (ir)rationally. You can in fact some to solutions irrationally, it's just that you're more likely to mess up. The likelihood to mess up increases with increasing irrationality, and decreases with increasing rationality.
So I agree partially with you on that, but not entirely.
To your second point, I didn't talk about resolving racial discrimination because that's not the question I was asking to have my mind changed about. My argument is that racial discrimination is natural and evolutionarily beneficial. The specific wording is important. I didn't say it's ideal, I think there are better ways, but for the evolution of man it has a purpose. The fear of the foreign protects societies, e.g. from foreign diseases, conquest, etc. It is not entirely rational, and that's because it's an evolved (inherited) trait, not a learned system of thought (e.g. math).
No but I am objectifying my argument and being irrational, is not going to work.
You cannot have these "fears" override the possibilities of cultures being able to control their own environment.
And by the way - if someone- intermarrys: 2 nd cousin, 3rd cousins, or even 1st cousin . That's a sign of them, trying to control their environment. Its just their way of dealing with their own fears because their culture means , they aren't able to be anything but DISCRIMINATE towards others.
```INTERMARRIAGE:
1: marriage between people who are from different social groups, races, orreligions:
Have ethnic tensions in the area been reduced by intermarriage?
2: marriage between people who are from the same family:
Intermarriage between close relatives is
prohibited in most societies.```
So, don't get this mixed up because, I am taking it from the Cambridge dictionary, which , I grew up on. And if they are irrational about it, then, they will attack you!!! That's overt discrimination. They are covert by excluding you. That's the way the rationale spectrum goes . You got a stone ... And you want to throw it in a pool and count the ripples - is objectivity. Which is a rational way of saying; they still don't belong, because their gene pool is diluted.
So you think culture is not under evolutionary pressure?
I just prefer people to be a little more -truthfull about - the fact that behaviour can be extensively known to make sure ; you the outsider of that group , whom doesn't belong ; gets punished. They may punish you in a number of wshd but , they do it covertly and overtly. Believe me, they have been very clear , about their environmental decisions. Even though , they have genetic defects from pursuing their ideology.
I don't think we know that at all.
You're making a very bold claim saying evolution doesn't cause culture.
No, it's not able to evolve . It can be created , but , it can't evolve if you have the same gene pool and genetic mutations and defects , that harm the population. It means you won't be able to evolve. @ETBrooD
I don't say culture evolvs, I say evolution causes culture.
That culture evolves is out of question I think
No, because if you can't advance past a certain point then , it's going to regress. This is the point - every so often - there has been a culture change in Europe . Especially, when the Berlin wall came down. All those Eastern Europeans , have been able to get married to a different set of gene pools. Now, they are able to make - genetic disorders or defects a thing of their past.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1389431
I will show you the effects in say for example Czech republic.
Evolution doesn't always progress, that's understood
And I am saying during the iron curtain that these birth defects were studied and now after one generation , it's disappeared.
You're arguing something that isn't part of my question
I know that there are non-evolutionary pressures that are beneficial, that's not revolutionary and it's not what I'm interested in
These people in Hungary went through abnormalities and still borns for 80% of their birth rate defects . That's like a whole generation of people not being born . So, if you're born into a world where nothing is revolutionised , genetic mutations, disorders , will set you back 20 odd years. And we are talking about countries that are post communism.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cga.12025
There is only one way for them to evolve and that's through mixing the gene pool or getting rid of the defects - so they did just that and had a bloke called slobadan milosovich do , the deed.
@ETBrooD I know it's not what you're interested in hearing - but, it's what is objective and I am being scientific.
I don't get it, if you like talking past me then why are you addressing me?
You can present your argument about a different subject matter, but that's just you then. Maybe people will respond to your ideas, but it's a different matter.
The way they wanted to do it was overt discriminating against the bad gene pool which created the mass genocide. Then, Europe's answer to that is by giving them the pick of some other bad gene pool. They are bound to be pissed off with, Europe.
@ETBrooD I am now addressing you because you don't seem to get what the revolution is and evolution is to do with genes. Revolution is the technological advancements. I am talking about evolution. Its science.
You can't get to the revolution without the evolution and the gene pool, being exposed to different things. Unless you're talking about a company . A company is able to adapt at a different speed and has different variables, in which it has to adjust then if it doesn't do that it liquidates. That's a totally different thing to the way people are about their territory.
It happens to every country or set of cultures where they need to stop the genetic defects because they won't evolve.
I'm not interested in revolution
I'm interested in the question if racial discrimination is 1) natural, and 2) evolutionarily beneficial.
It's not that I don't care about follow-up questions, it's that if you want to delve into that, it'd be an entirely separate discussion
You can start such a discussion, but then please don't address me, because it doesn't concern me
Basically you do you, I don't wanna stop you