because biased technocrats are biased

thats what i figured

youtube algos are just shit too

but leaving that out is purely because they chose not to assign a value to BBC not due to being incompetent

oh britain, the incompetent totalitarians

exactly, they have yet to really become ingsoc. then they become *competent* totalitarians. and shit gets wack.

RT is russian propaganda - and i love it cause of it. It propagates Russian Point of View, thats what they themselves say. I dont get it when people are angry about this

Long live Mother Russia!

Because rt is considered by the russian govt as a strategic asset (https://web.archive.org/web/20081227071316/http://www.government.ru/content/governmentactivity/mainnews/33281de212bf49fdbf39d611cadbae95.doc). Margarita simonyan, the editor in chief has stated in interviews repeatedly that she sees the organisation as being parallel to defence (http://archive.is/RzLyk). The bbc has a huge framework of transparency and has shown that its fully willing to critique the british govt. RT does not demonstrate that and would, as current events seem to show, (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-media-restrictions-rt/russias-rt-america-registers-as-foreign-agent-in-u-s-idUSKBN1DD25B) prefer to register as a foriegn agent then apply a minimum standard of transparency.

BBC only criticizes the British government when it’s against what they want people to think

the bbc's adherence to an orthodox perspective of its own delineation is a separate conversation. Happy to have it but to even recognize that statement we have to first accept that the BBC and the government of the United Kingdom form their conception independently of one another. RT seems to take pride in being a mouthpiece for the kremlin and so to answer @Scipio Americanus original question, we say the bbc is a public broadcast because it's an independent organization which receives money from the public, whereas RT is held to a higher level of scrutiny as it seems to see itself as an extension of the russian state with, if similar projects are anything to go by, russian ministry members acting as tie-ins to executive roles

Also moving the discussion here as it seems more fitting but finally replying to something in normal chat earlier in the week...

@Aki
```significant intermarriage... is irrelevant to your original point```
I disagree. It shows that genetic differences between ‘whites’ and ‘jews’ are inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary. While not conclusive, in the absence of a set range of genome sequences which we are to call ‘jewish’ it shows strong reason to doubt why we would suspect ashkenazi jews higher earning rates as explainable by a genetic advantage where we would not expect the same of a highly similar group, ie mainland Europeans. In order to prove your assertion a specific gene set would need to be found and you would need to show that this gene set is characteristic of the ‘jewish’ range of genomes. As our conversation seems to be scoped around the US we would also need to collect earnings data based on genome, rather than self-identity, as the US currently collects racial data.

```IQ disparity... is not a sufficient explanation```
That is not my position. IQ disparity *would* be a sufficient explanation but it is not a *neccesary* cause of wealth disparity as I illustrated with the Paris Hilton example.

```Religion and work ethic```
In the wake of data ethnicity does not seem convincing. In terms of practice, adhering jews are the highest bracket by earnings. Non-religion in this case serves as a solid base mark here with atheists and agnostics also in the top 6 and the non-affiliated only just scraping below the national average. As the ethnicity is correlated with adherence to cultural sets with inflated earnings relative to a random basket of the american public is it any wonder that the ethnicity seems to prosper? This line is further reinforced by the differing outcomes of ethnically very similar groups of christians or the high ranking of hindu’s despite the crushing poverty of india. If ethnicity was a primary factor here this makes little sense while if other factors play a higher role, factors such as geography, culture, community, etc these seem highly intuitive. We can see that work ethic is not a bogus theory, but a vital prerequisite for success to be achieved. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/, http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/)

@CronoSaturn
_"I disagree. It shows that genetic differences between ‘whites’ and ‘jews’ are inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary. While not conclusive, in the absence of a set range of genome sequences which we are to call ‘jewish’ it shows strong reason to doubt why we would suspect ashkenazi jews higher earning rates as explainable by a genetic advantage where we would not expect the same of a highly similar group, ie mainland Europeans...."_

The current intermarriage rates are not representative of the past. In 1970 it was only 17% and yes, it grew from that to 58% in modern times, but that is still enough for the genetic distinctiveness to be present. Finally... Jewish pop in USA is distinct from the gentile pop on genetic distance graphs. So... your reasoning does not apply.

_"That is not my position. IQ disparity would be a sufficient explanation but it is not a neccesary cause of wealth disparity as I illustrated with the Paris Hilton example."_

No, no no... you said it yourself: "That IQ is correlated with wealth is not a proof that all wealth is a display of IQ disparities alone" That means that:
1. You accept that IQ plays a role.
2. You don't think it is the only factor.
Trying to go back on your own words without admitting to it in the open and explaining why you do it is an intellectually dishonest thing to do Crono.

_''In the wake of data ethnicity does not seem convincing. In terms of practice, adhering jews are the highest bracket by earnings. Non-religion in this case serves as a solid base mark here with atheists and agnostics also in the top 6 and the non-affiliated only just scraping below the national average.''_

Gee...I wonder why that is the case... ov vey.. I have an idea... maybe that is because you aren't comparing between religious and non religious jews but between Jews and Gentiles? Here is such comparitson... notabene taken from the very same site that you are using as your source:

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/jewish/income-distribution/#belief-in-god-trend
The difference is not significant, but if anything, it shows that less religious Jews are on average more wealthy than the more religious Jews.

_"This line is further reinforced by the differing outcomes of ethnically very similar groups of christians or the high ranking of hindu’s despite the crushing poverty of india. If ethnicity was a primary factor here this makes little sense while if other factors play a higher role, factors such as geography, culture, community, etc these seem highly intuitive. We can see that work ethic is not a bogus theory, but a vital prerequisite for success to be achieved."_

Even on the data that you show we can see that jews score the highest, followed by hindu (the IQ of Indians in the US is above average), followed by white churches , followed by mixed/black/latino churches.
Regardless there are other factors outside of IQ that play a role.. yes. However none of em seem to be this mysterious work ethic that you propose. How do you even measure that btw? Because you do measure it ... Right?
Looking at the discrepancies present among white churches... there is no reason to attribute it to any sort of "work ethic" present in the dogma... not when we cannot even quantify it in any meaningful way... so it seems that those "highly intuitive" factors are very highly intuitive sow to speak... huh ;D

@CronoSaturn type of IQ is worth keeping in mind, it might be the case that verbal IQ is more important to become rich than spatial IQ

Much like how Wozniak is poorer than steve jobs

bicameral parliament is best, change my mind

Its no technology itself that's gone too far, its dependence on technology to fulfill and replace natural human abilities, sensations and processes that has gone too far.

Those things inevitably comes with (high-)technology. Technology (the high-tech atleast) is more than just the collection of concrete pieces of tech and processes. It is a way of thinking and living that alienates humans from nature and in the end even themselves. Social media can be seen as sort of the end result of this process, people are having a harder time distingushing real life from the hyper inflated egos created on SM. Our own bodys and lives are being centered around a version of you that is completely alienated from your actual being and doing. We view our bodies as instruments to maximixe our pleasures, and that is the end result of technology, the instrumenalization of what is most sacred (and no, you do not need to be religious to agree that our bodies/minds are sacred because these are the most important things we have, a human is ultimately not more than what it is doing) and the notion that value is derived from utility. These are not things we can fix and then use technology in a "sensible" or "good" way, this is what (high-) technology is in its essence

No, I would disagree on one thing and that is that its technology to blame when it's actually the human vanity and cheap ego boosts that are desired. Take Snapchat filters for an example. This overly complex technology that serves no other purpose but to put a mask on someone's face or straight up improve an existing one. All of that because we didn't like the pixelated cameras of old. And this avatar that exists outside of you , this being is not technology but the manifestation of your own corrupted persona that keeps demanding that technology fixes the unintended problems previous technology had caused

Hasn't the monster of hedonism and narcissism always existed in humanity, and has only now been let out into the real world by the technological alienation described above? Our reliance on nature and our primitive physical duties might have been the only things keeping us from descending into degeneracy for millennia.

It is easy to blame the flaws in our world on human weakness, but the only successful ideologies are those that take humanity for what it is and build a structure around it that amplifies its strengths and mitigates its weaknesses.

I do not blame the technological alienation for unleashing the monster of hedonism and narcissism it is urbanization that is largely to blame as a man seeks comfort where ever he can find it. One forgets he is shaped by the hardships..
Technological alienation occurs when enough of these hedonists and narcissists have festered themselves for enough time and became reliant on said technology.
To me, what you're suggesting is a compromise, a way to accept the humanity with the human weakness and make a plan for a failure. A practical solution rather than an ideological one. However it might taint the idea of the ideal as we already have a plan for when a man regresses to it's hedonistic self.
My suggestion to all of this is that we ought to forgo fixing the problems caused by technology with more technology. The communication problem was solved with phones so why must we add imagery, video, call groups which in return caused their own problems as quality and bandwidth became an issue and in case of hedonists it's exponentially amplified as they demand better and more profound masks, a greater boost to self so they may stand out in their own mind and the minds of other hedonists.

You're right about urbanization, I was thinking about that as just a part of technoogical advance but it does warrant being mentioned specifically. It is amazing how fast urbanization breeds humanism and reliance on government and corporations, in contrast to the humility and self-reliance that rural life produces.

I fail to see how the examples you bring up contradicts anything I said in my post because of these reasons:
1, There is nothing that says that technology as a mindset/world-view is amplifying the worst of the human character. I will elaborate; we do not need to use the form of high technology to exemplify what I'm talking about instead consider mechanized traveling, in this case trains. Before the introduction of these, and similar alternatives, you could only travel by the means of your or an animals labour (this is the best word I can think of, english isn't my first language), this meant that the distance traveled and the effort put into it proportional and the world around you becomes shaped by your actions and *vice versa*. This makes your being-in-the-world and the fact that you are part of something vast and wonderful concrete and tangible, then mechanized traveling came and that started the alienation process (not only that of course). This is the plight of the modern era, the fact that it makes our being-in-the-world something abstract and we lose our connection to both soil, nature and authentic being. This is what is causing hedonism, nihilism and cynism often observed in urbanites (not only).

2, The urban living prevalent today would not be possible, or even something most people would have wanted, without the high-tech that became common around the industrial revolution and forward. without these most people would still be working the fields, blissfully unaware of things like "alienation" and "self-actualization", everything a low-tech farmer does and why he does it is right in front of him. Sure, cities and urban areas have existed in many times, but the Megapolises of the modern era are something the human race never have seen before. Also, this statement makes me wonder if you are urbanites with little experience of rural areas, they are not spared from the plight high-tech brings and this is because (1) is true.

The same thing could be said about language as it is an invention. As hedonists and degenerates use it on a daily basis to spread their rotten thoughts.
Major urban areas existed pre industrialization (mechanisation) and they were just as degenerate. The elite was incestous and hedonistic.

Language is hardly an invention since we have proofed that language, and its usage, is something that is something that is coded in our genetics and that we have a predisposition towards it. Your usage of the word "degenerate" is also proof that you do not view this on a objective level, sure, some of these areas contained large numbers of "degenerates" but there are examples of the opposite too. You fail in giving some reason for me to believe that technological as a mindset does not exist and that it is not the main reason for the behavior of the modern world

And we are not talking elites here, we are talking about society as a whole

a more profound syntax and language constructs. I'm not talking about ur vocal cords here. Or we would all be mumbiling and growling just like all dogs bark.
What I'm giving you is a better reason, where a man tosses his self-reliance in the search of comfort and he can find that in both technology and humans.

You are giving me shitty one-liners that are made to support your views and have zero explanatory value

You managing to drag on the silly point of "Language was not invented or developed" for 20 paragraphs does not make it any less silly.

Empirical proofs are not silly. Our genitic predisposition towards language abilities are more than us having vocal chords

It is not my fault that you lack what only can be described as pop-scientific- tier knowledge in the fields of linguistics

Just because humans are genetically predisposed to "language" doesn't negate the myriad of **inventions** and **discoveries** in this field, you silly goose.
It seems you are just a bit confused about the meaning of these two words in bold. Guess you are a genetic anomaly when it comes to learning language.

this is classical anprim rethoric, muh technology.
>You didn't provide concrete examples
neither have u

also I have already explained my self in the post before that one. cba to do it numerous times just for you to understand what I'm saying

Don't blame the tools, blame the tool-maker.

or rather the tool wielder

The only time international intervention is justified is when one nation is doing something that has a legitimate chance to threaten other nations or the entire world, e.g. irresponsible nuclear development. Other than that intervention has no reasonable justifications.