Train as much as you have time for

I’m not saying there will be a civil war

Just putting the idea out there as a possibility

america probably wont go out with a bang its just going to fizzle away

That’s the worst kind of death

Sad but that is probably how it will go

<:really:640412966008913940>

not at this rate

https://www.unz.com/jthompson/experts-intelligence-race/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101406

Abstract
Experts (N max = 102 answering) on intelligence completed a survey about IQ research, controversies, and the media. The survey was conducted in 2013 and 2014 using the Internet-based Expert Questionnaire on Cognitive Ability (EQCA). In the current study, we examined the background of the experts (e.g., nationality, gender, religion, and political orientation) and their positions on intelligence research, controversial issues, and the media. Most experts were male (83%) and from Western countries (90%). Political affiliations ranged from the left (liberal, 54%) to the right (conservative, 24%), with more extreme responses within the left-liberal spectrum. Experts rated the media and public debates as far below adequate. Experts with a left (liberal, progressive) political orientation were more likely to have positive views of the media (around r= |.30|). In contrast, compared to female and left (liberal) experts, male and right (conservative) experts were more likely to endorse the validity of IQ testing (correlations with gender, politics: r= .55, .41), the g factor theory of intelligence (r= .18, .34), and the impact of genes on US Black-White differences (r= .50, .48). The paper compares the results to those of prior expert surveys and discusses the role of experts’ backgrounds, with a focus on political orientation and gender. An underrepresentation of viewpoints associated with experts’ background characteristics (i.e., political views, gender) may distort research findings and should be addressed in higher education policy.

https://twitter.com/sakkoira/status/1194882396157546496

Yes, the generational thing is retarded, completely fake and gay and invented by the media

OK Boomer

I think generations can be useful to talk about with respect to things like tech/tele-communications---e.g. for the US
Boomer: Employed pre-Internet
Gen X: possibly employed at time of first dotcom boom
Millennial: Experienced both non-internet life and internet life
Zoomers: Only know life with tablets and smartphones

This ^

The generational dialogue has been disintegrating since forever

On the other hand, you might meet a 30 year old 3rd worlder who is more like a zoomer because they grew up only with FB=Internet and stuff

or you might meet a super tech literate boomer who is more like gen x'er

WE no longer get knowledge passed from gen to gen. Kids are becoming Tabula Rasa and that lets (((someone else))) fill their heads with fake history

Tabula Apple Firmware with Gov't Backdoors 😦

there is this guy known for a lot of Linux/computer stuff -> https://lukesmith.xyz/
...he makes a lot of boomer references (e.g. "unaboomer") and does stuff like goes out into the middle of nowhere to live disconnected from the Internet

one of the big messages there is that the Boomer pre-Internet experience has some sort of wisdom in it that is lost to Millennial and beyond

^^^
this is a roundabout say that the generational talk in terms of technology is useful for experiencing how education/raising kids/values/etc got outsourced away from the family to big companies, advertisers, etc. "Boomer" or "millennial" describes some very real social phenomena... but those labels can of course be applied in chaotic, nonsensical ways

^ agreed, name-calling and snarky retorts are not constructive or helpful

lol I guess it is just armchair social science; it is useful to have terms to point to things

I try to at least offer one sort of definition (i.e. defining generation with respect to technologies) to put some substance on those labels, which people will continue to use for at least a while

IRL they have been well received; maybe more than anything we should seek for *intergenerational communication*, regardless of the lexicon used to do so

Ok boomers

Yeah the differences are real, I'm not denying that. And it's useful to understand them as well as possible. I'm merely commenting on the negative aspects of it, which I think OP is referring to. Like the way boomers shit on millennials and the media and talking heads amplify the divide, and the whole thing becomes normalized. I wish that could be avoided. @alanlw

yes once the MSM decides to amplify a particular signal, you know what's up
conversely, if the MSM avoids something it may be worth looking into 🤔

We talk about a lot of different things about how to improve the world
Teach your children this, teach your children that. Educating a child, or even an adult, can be difficult for some.
I think there is room to have collabrative lesson plans to help with red pilling

https://twitter.com/TOOEdit/status/1195166500174233602

I dont think optics are determined by your enemy unless you are trying to appeal to them
there are different optics for different groups of ppl
in fact every single person has a different optics threshold
pretending that one set of optics applies to everybody is inaccurate at best and misleading at worst
does ANTIFA have good optics?
for many it does and for many it does not
the optics of the groypers are not something that can be objectively measured or standardized, i would say the same for any political movement
some ppl will like your optics and some wont
whoever likes our optics joins you, whoever does not will fuck off anyway
that being said those 21 points should be researched carefully now it the time to sit back and reflect on our failures

optics are determined by your enemies because your enemies are in power

if you are a dissident

revolutionary change in thinking is going to have to color outside the lines. At times

in fact, your enemy will demand different standards of optics onto you. standards they won't hold themselves to. rules for thee, not for me.

we were not really targeting our enemies, but their followers

i think some of the followers are not completely drunk on their optics requirement

we just wanted to chip away those ppl

true or false: TPUSA has better optics than AF