How come it hit the front page?
Is there anything I am missing?
Reddit is full woke brainwashed as far as I can tell but this hit the front page and I can see upvoted comments about how Biden carpetbombed Syria and no media outlet or twitter trend cares because it is not Trump.
Also people calling bullshit on stats saying white men are the main demographic of mass shooting.
Every now and then a post "breaks containment" and you get a sampling of the suppressed viewpoint before all the bots and shills can overwhelm the system with the "approved" one.
The last one I remember was the last Bill Nye AMA where all his answers were heavily downvoted despite generally providing standard redditor answers to all of his questions. One of his answers questioned the existence of the Deep State and called it a "conspiracy theory", and he got a lot of push-back on that.
Denial of the deep state is the dumbest blue pill position that can possibly exist.
The military industrial complex and banks have control over the government, and elected officials may change out of office, but their appointments and bureaucrats may stay in power between administations... but those exact same forces would never be able to allow their own former employees to stay and support them regardless of the administration that was elected.
If you are Left-wing and believe that the deep state isn't real, but the military industrial complex is, then you're a useful idiot for the establishment.
If you are Left-wing and believe that the deep state isn't real, but the military industrial complex is, then you're a useful idiot for the establishment.
When I think mass shooting I think Columbine or Virginia Tech. They changed the definition of it to be any crime involving 2-3+ people being shot, which lumps almost all petty violent crime into the mix if it involves a gun. You know we don’t have a shitton of mass shootings because if we did they’d all be in the news because they’d love to be able to use that for narrative purposes. All you get is the occasional one with people lying about it. Technically most Arabs are ‘white’, but by that count so are the Spanish and ‘Latinos’.
Apparently black people are the most prolific mass shooters and need to be stopped by their definitions. I’ve chosen to identify as black, and feel offended by my own comment and demand reparations as well as ammunition. It’s getting harder to find as everyone worries me and my fellow joggers are going to pay them a visit.
There are very few Spanish people in America, but plenty of Spanish speaking. All the Spanish speaking are brown, so eventually you just associate Spanish language with brown. The same way Arab and Muslim are basically synonymous to most people.
For America its like a 95% success rate, so its hard to say its a problem. Its not like Spain is relevant in almost any discussions in the modern era.
There are absolute tons of Spanish people in the Americas (I'm not sure if the "America" you meant USA or the Americas). But they don't illegally immigrate so as americans we see them less. But pretty much every famous hispanic is of spanish descent. Shakira, white. Demi Lavato, white. Selena Gomez, white. AOC, whiiiiiiiiite. Ted Cruz, white. Marc Antony, white, Pitbull, white. It's funny that the spanish were far more brutal than the british but their descendants get a free pass.
I know there are. My mother's side is descended entirely from one Spanish idiot (that's family canon) who found himself in Louisiana and bought a bunch of unsettlable swamp land no one wanted.
But we aren't speaking Spanish, so like the rest of America we are just "white." America has very few recent Spain immigrants to have a concept of them and their place in the common consciousness. Most of them are likely clustered on the East Coast (aka New York City) like the rest of the European immigrants meaning the rest of the country never sees a single one, much like Asians outside the West Coast.
So when you say "Spanish" the first thing people think of is the language, not the people. And when you think of a Spanish-speaker its a brown Latino, not some Iberian immigrant. And for most of the country that's a 99% accurate assumption, because nobody really cares what flavor of white we are.
We don't have many direct from Spain, but there are tons of in the Americas from the Americas who are descended from Spanish people that didn't interbreed with Indians. Puerto Ricans are mostly white. Cubans are mostly white. Brazil's pretty white. Mexicans and Columbians with higher social status are mostly white.
I was mostly going off USA America instead of the full double continent. I should have clarified that part.
The rest of the double continent has a bit of a different story considering they are all Spanish colonies. If there is anything not Spanish there its an oddity, like the Japanese in Brazil.
So it would be nations of just Spanish brancos and Spanish pardos, with a small amount of indigenous/black left.
Arab Caliphates with Berber subordinates/troops ruled Spain to one degree or another for 800 years, till they were gradually subsumed by the native population.
I am not sure about the specifics of the numbers you refer to. But would be confident that the Iberian peninsula has the largest amount of Negroid contributions. Just like a supposition that the Ural area would have the largest mix of Caucasoid/Mongoloid followed by the Baltic's (might be close).
All in all, your probably right that its a small amount, but definite is still kind of an iffy qualifier.
I thought that virtually everyone (even the Spanish) considered the Basques to be not worth it. The people considered violent, rebellious and clannish; and the land hard to work/get to. Basically attacked but never conquered.
They did leave. Boabdil and some other Moors already left in 1493, because they could not bear to live under the infidel. Between 1499 and 1525, several edicts were enacted expelling Muslims who had not been converted. But most of them pretended to convert, while still practicing their religion of peace. And between 1610 and 1614, all Moriscos (converted Moors) were expelled - of whom some were unfortunately sincere Christians.
You're right the Moors as a group varied in their numbers throughout the 800ish years of what is considered their rule of Spain.
Historically, both the Arab muslims and Berbers were never particularly known for their stable, expansive empires. So, those that did stay after the conquest of Spain/Portugal, had to make do virtually on their own. Those that couldn't left.
But considering 800 years, average lifespan of 35ish, that is 23 generations of interbreeding...
Also this is during the end of the Middle ages, and I have no idea as to the efficacy of efforts to expel a people (I know this was about the time of the Reconquista but that would just add to the chaos).
You're right the Moors as a group varied in their numbers throughout the 800ish years of what is considered their rule of Spain.
They 'ruled' for about 500 years at best. Their power was broken after 1212. Even before that, the Christian powers had been the dominant powers in the Iberian peninsula since the death of Al-Mansur in the early 1000s.
Historically, both the Arab muslims and Berbers were never particularly known for their stable, expansive empires
What does this mean? The Arab Muslims imposed their savagery from Spain to the Indus.
But considering 800 years, average lifespan of 35ish, that is 23 generations of interbreeding...
Whoever interbred with the Muslims, had descendants who were part of the Muslims. Some of the Martyrs of Cordoba were products of Muslim-Christian marriages who became Christian.
The descendants of these converts to Islam were later all expelled.
Also this is during the end of the Middle ages, and I have no idea as to the efficacy of efforts to expel a people (I know this was about the time of the Reconquista but that would just add to the chaos).
Probably not as effective as it would be today. But as for the end of the Middle Ages, the Moriscos were a separate population. They were both geographically separate and they lived separately as a community. No doubt there was some intermingling, but not as much as you think.
From the 1100's on it was a 300 year back and forth between individual caliphates and a mini-crusade. With every major city swapping sides multiple times. And with almost all the major cities of the peninsula starting out in various caliphates hands.
It was a nonsense filler to point out that the muslims in Spain were not unified. Between each other and the wider muslim world. If a spanish caliphate was failing those people would leave or attack somewhere else. The Berbers would leave at random, mostly to attack and pillage somewhere else.
Too your other two points, to a greater or lesser degree, you agree the moors and their descendants are still there (and I agree that it is probably the latter).
Also, because you made me look some of this up, counter point: Oran fatwa (Taqiyya but specific to Spain, issued in the 1500's). And apparently, almost 5.5 million muslims at their "height", out of 7 million inhabitants.
edit: last part is more of a interesting statistic then a counter point.
They changed the definition of it to be any crime involving 2-3+ people being shot, which lumps almost all petty violent crime into the mix if it involves a gun.
Likewise someone an heroing in their car near enough to a school will be counted as a "school shooting" despite only one person involved.
It's the inner city culture that is born from welfare policies that incentivizes single mother homes.
You wanna know what the biggest indicator of someone growing up to be a shitty person, criminal, murderer?
No father.
We gotta quit playing the race game. The left says all white people are privileged and have it easy, we laugh at that. Then folks like you do the same thing about crime. You need to have principles and self awareness.
If a commie doimg something is retarded, doing something similar makes you retarded
You wanna know what the biggest indicator of someone growing up to be a shitty person, criminal, murderer? No father.
You are vastly underestimating the effects IQ have. Something that is highly inherited and we have an unfortunate amount of data about the average IQs in certain races, ethnic groups, and areas.
We can't also play the Left game where we ignore all data and science because we don't like it and it makes us uncomfortable.
You could probably argue that a lot of the no father problem stems from low IQ related issues, like inability to delay gratification, poor long term planning, and need for government assistance to survive.
You could probably argue that a lot of the no father problem stems from low IQ related issues, like inability to delay gratification, poor long term planning, and need for government assistance to survive.
Blacks had more intact families before the 1960s. So I don't think whatever effect IQ does have, necessarily has an impact on that.
That's why I didn't say conclusively, I merely said it could be argued. I'd need to assemble more data to correlate the two.
But based on prior knowledge, everyone had more intact families then. Meaning social and cultural pressure to preserve your family were higher and that kept even the lowest of IQs together a little stronger. Many cultural changes since those days have deteriorated the institution of marriage and its strength, so it stands to reason the failsafes that kept them afloat for those struggling would no longer operate.
But again, that's just an argument to relate his point back into my counter.
It's the inner city culture that is born from welfare policies that incentivizes single mother homes.
It's both. It's a combination of individual behaviors and population statistics.
The difference between 'us' and 'them' is that we still judge individuals as individuals, while the left demands that we "not see race" and judge everybody based on their immutable characteristics.
Denying genetic makeup for intelligence is just as stupid as judging an individual based off of their genetics over their actions. We all know that black people on average have lower iq scores, just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age. What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age.
The time of the Islamic Golden Age (falsely called Islamic in my view) was also the Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon culture, so this was very much unmerited. But there is one Islamic commentator who said that the more north you go in Europe, the paler they get, and also the dumber they get.
What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
Let us hope so, because if racial inequalities are permanent, then almost every Western country is going to be in a state of perpetual racial strife and civil war.
There is a slight difference though between people in tribal societies being stupid and today. Of course, if a people lives in condition of pure savagery, then the intellectual achievements are not going to be impressive. But when you have all the opportunities in the world, and still score so low, then that becomes more troubling.
But by that same point, you've identified why using race to correlate to IQ generally through genetic markers makes no sense. If there was an innate racial-genetic causal relationship to IQ, you wouldn't see IQ changes in races. Instead you see different IQ groups within races all the time, and related to behavioral factors.
Sure, the Islamic nations probably had a very high IQ... before they started inbreeding. I bet you that incest probably has an impact on IQ.
Germans have a high IQ too, until the IQ of East Germans collapsed under socialism.
What's the best way to blunt a kid's IQ for the rest of his life? Malnutrition at a young age. That, in and of itself, answers a lot of questions about Socialism.
On the other end of the spectrum, Jewish IQ in the use significantly rose since the dawn of the century. Much of the early Progressive arguments about IQ included the arguments that Jews were too intellectually underdeveloped to adapt to western societies.
Think about this point:
smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
And what are those better practices? Culture. What happens when their subsection replaces all the others? We should see a rise in IQ because of culture.
Even more than that, IQ is not a single genetic marker, but a measurement of someone's ability to work with abstraction. That ability to manage abstract analysis also correlates to your success within a western society. Your success in a western society, is something that is going to act women. Women who are sex selecting based on successful males.
Women would be, effectively, sex-selecting higher IQ. Which would cause a significant change in the population as low IQ males aren't mated. By definition, we should see the population's IQ increase overtime in a western society. That suggests, again, this not some static genetic factor, but related to beneficial behaviors.
If you pressure that population with starvation and perpetual threats and stress, where the behaviors of high IQ people are disincentivized (anti-meritocracy, equitable distributions of wealth and property, totalitarian paranoia), you remove Abstract thinking / IQ as useful survival mechanism in favor of others, like brute strength. Meaning that women won't sex select for it, driving down the IQ of a population over time.
Culture clearly has a massive impact on IQ since IQ is more of a measurement related to some genetic characteristics, that populations are selecting for. Rather than it being a static genetic element of race.
Which is a given, cultural practices and environment affect the genes you pass down, the same as bodies being able to tolerate different foods, antibodies from diseases, etc. This makes ethnicity more important to track over race because those markers show success and changes from two similar genetic makeups.
Sure, but that's still leaning heavy on slow genetic changes in populations, but we don't see small, slow, genetic populations over 5-10-50 generations. We see jumps in 1, 2, and 3. That's why the East German example is so dramatic. It's 1 maybe 2 generations, and you're talking about a 1 SD fall in IQ in only a couple decades, and you have, effectively, a control group in West Germany.
Starve the people, disincentiveize the people, and tyrannize the people, and their IQ collapses. That's not genetic even predominantly genetic.
I should say I'm not surprised by the number of deleted comments but I am just a little. While browsing that page looking for a comment that wasn't deleted I noticed the exact same thing we always see from the SJW's. It's not their fault, it's someone elses because reasons...
From the comments:
Minorities on average commit more crime then they should statistically, instead of pretending this isn't true we should be educating people on why this is the case.
Years of systemic racism....
It's not their fault, it's everyone elses that this is what they do!
You retorted that man lives not by bread alone, but are you aware that in the name of that same earthly bread the Earth Spirit will rise up against you and fight with you and vanquish you, and everyone will follow it, crying: 'Who is like unto this beast, he has given us fire from heaven!' Are you aware that centuries will pass, and mankind will proclaim with the lips of its wisdom and science that there is no crime and consequently no sin either, but only the hungry. 'Feed them, and then ask virtue of them!' —that is what will be inscribed upon the banner they will raise against you and before which your temple
will come crashing down. In the place of your temple there will be erected a new edifice, once
again a terrible Tower of Babel will be erected, and even though this one will no more be completed than was the previous one, but even so you would be able to avoid that new Tower and abbreviate the sufferings of the human beings by a thousand years, for after all, it is to us that they will come, when they have suffered for a thousand years with their Tower!
Did anyone else notice the auto mod banning for pedophilic content?
Hi hoarduck. Based on your previous pedophilic content in your comment history, we've determined your behavior to be problematic and have removed your comment.
Scrolling down the many banned comments there are so many under the same topic, reckon they'll try to redefine pedophilic so their staff won't get harassed?
Think they’ve just decided to make it the default after they had the whole tranny pedo who definitely helped their dad rape and torture a child on staff incident.
We also offer to Reverse Bans for the 24 hour and 72 hour versions. If a user decides they don't want to wait the time, they can purchase one of these to negate their ban***.
All of the websites like it are basically just specialized archive websites. I suspect reddit has some kind of way to fudge it since they're so censorious.
If the comment is removed automatically, then it does not have a chance to archive the comments. It also misses some of the other comments, particularly those that are threaded, for some unknown reason.
How come it hit the front page? Is there anything I am missing?
Reddit is full woke brainwashed as far as I can tell but this hit the front page and I can see upvoted comments about how Biden carpetbombed Syria and no media outlet or twitter trend cares because it is not Trump.
Also people calling bullshit on stats saying white men are the main demographic of mass shooting.
Every now and then a post "breaks containment" and you get a sampling of the suppressed viewpoint before all the bots and shills can overwhelm the system with the "approved" one.
The last one I remember was the last Bill Nye AMA where all his answers were heavily downvoted despite generally providing standard redditor answers to all of his questions. One of his answers questioned the existence of the Deep State and called it a "conspiracy theory", and he got a lot of push-back on that.
Denial of the deep state is the dumbest blue pill position that can possibly exist.
The military industrial complex and banks have control over the government, and elected officials may change out of office, but their appointments and bureaucrats may stay in power between administations... but those exact same forces would never be able to allow their own former employees to stay and support them regardless of the administration that was elected.
If you are Left-wing and believe that the deep state isn't real, but the military industrial complex is, then you're a useful idiot for the establishment.
If you are Left-wing
and believe that the deep state isn't real, but the military industrial complex is,then you're a useful idiot for the establishment.When I think mass shooting I think Columbine or Virginia Tech. They changed the definition of it to be any crime involving 2-3+ people being shot, which lumps almost all petty violent crime into the mix if it involves a gun. You know we don’t have a shitton of mass shootings because if we did they’d all be in the news because they’d love to be able to use that for narrative purposes. All you get is the occasional one with people lying about it. Technically most Arabs are ‘white’, but by that count so are the Spanish and ‘Latinos’.
Apparently black people are the most prolific mass shooters and need to be stopped by their definitions. I’ve chosen to identify as black, and feel offended by my own comment and demand reparations as well as ammunition. It’s getting harder to find as everyone worries me and my fellow joggers are going to pay them a visit.
There are very few Spanish people in America, but plenty of Spanish speaking. All the Spanish speaking are brown, so eventually you just associate Spanish language with brown. The same way Arab and Muslim are basically synonymous to most people.
For America its like a 95% success rate, so its hard to say its a problem. Its not like Spain is relevant in almost any discussions in the modern era.
There are absolute tons of Spanish people in the Americas (I'm not sure if the "America" you meant USA or the Americas). But they don't illegally immigrate so as americans we see them less. But pretty much every famous hispanic is of spanish descent. Shakira, white. Demi Lavato, white. Selena Gomez, white. AOC, whiiiiiiiiite. Ted Cruz, white. Marc Antony, white, Pitbull, white. It's funny that the spanish were far more brutal than the british but their descendants get a free pass.
I know there are. My mother's side is descended entirely from one Spanish idiot (that's family canon) who found himself in Louisiana and bought a bunch of unsettlable swamp land no one wanted.
But we aren't speaking Spanish, so like the rest of America we are just "white." America has very few recent Spain immigrants to have a concept of them and their place in the common consciousness. Most of them are likely clustered on the East Coast (aka New York City) like the rest of the European immigrants meaning the rest of the country never sees a single one, much like Asians outside the West Coast.
So when you say "Spanish" the first thing people think of is the language, not the people. And when you think of a Spanish-speaker its a brown Latino, not some Iberian immigrant. And for most of the country that's a 99% accurate assumption, because nobody really cares what flavor of white we are.
We don't have many direct from Spain, but there are tons of in the Americas from the Americas who are descended from Spanish people that didn't interbreed with Indians. Puerto Ricans are mostly white. Cubans are mostly white. Brazil's pretty white. Mexicans and Columbians with higher social status are mostly white.
I was mostly going off USA America instead of the full double continent. I should have clarified that part.
The rest of the double continent has a bit of a different story considering they are all Spanish colonies. If there is anything not Spanish there its an oddity, like the Japanese in Brazil.
So it would be nations of just Spanish brancos and Spanish pardos, with a small amount of indigenous/black left.
Except for their absolute conquest by radical Leftists, particularly of the Femminist sort.
Spain was invaded in the 700's by Moors/Muslims, it was conquered all the way to the Pyrenees. They never really left...
Same sort of logic for a good portion of the Baltic's.
Arab Caliphates with Berber subordinates/troops ruled Spain to one degree or another for 800 years, till they were gradually subsumed by the native population.
I am not sure about the specifics of the numbers you refer to. But would be confident that the Iberian peninsula has the largest amount of Negroid contributions. Just like a supposition that the Ural area would have the largest mix of Caucasoid/Mongoloid followed by the Baltic's (might be close).
All in all, your probably right that its a small amount, but definite is still kind of an iffy qualifier.
Not sure what the O blood type has to do with it.
I thought that virtually everyone (even the Spanish) considered the Basques to be not worth it. The people considered violent, rebellious and clannish; and the land hard to work/get to. Basically attacked but never conquered.
Similar to Scottish Highlands/clans.
(Isn't Basque an independent zone right now?)
They did leave. Boabdil and some other Moors already left in 1493, because they could not bear to live under the infidel. Between 1499 and 1525, several edicts were enacted expelling Muslims who had not been converted. But most of them pretended to convert, while still practicing their religion of peace. And between 1610 and 1614, all Moriscos (converted Moors) were expelled - of whom some were unfortunately sincere Christians.
You're right the Moors as a group varied in their numbers throughout the 800ish years of what is considered their rule of Spain.
Historically, both the Arab muslims and Berbers were never particularly known for their stable, expansive empires. So, those that did stay after the conquest of Spain/Portugal, had to make do virtually on their own. Those that couldn't left.
But considering 800 years, average lifespan of 35ish, that is 23 generations of interbreeding...
Also this is during the end of the Middle ages, and I have no idea as to the efficacy of efforts to expel a people (I know this was about the time of the Reconquista but that would just add to the chaos).
edit: and later the Inquisition.
They 'ruled' for about 500 years at best. Their power was broken after 1212. Even before that, the Christian powers had been the dominant powers in the Iberian peninsula since the death of Al-Mansur in the early 1000s.
What does this mean? The Arab Muslims imposed their savagery from Spain to the Indus.
Whoever interbred with the Muslims, had descendants who were part of the Muslims. Some of the Martyrs of Cordoba were products of Muslim-Christian marriages who became Christian.
The descendants of these converts to Islam were later all expelled.
Probably not as effective as it would be today. But as for the end of the Middle Ages, the Moriscos were a separate population. They were both geographically separate and they lived separately as a community. No doubt there was some intermingling, but not as much as you think.
From the 1100's on it was a 300 year back and forth between individual caliphates and a mini-crusade. With every major city swapping sides multiple times. And with almost all the major cities of the peninsula starting out in various caliphates hands.
It was a nonsense filler to point out that the muslims in Spain were not unified. Between each other and the wider muslim world. If a spanish caliphate was failing those people would leave or attack somewhere else. The Berbers would leave at random, mostly to attack and pillage somewhere else.
Too your other two points, to a greater or lesser degree, you agree the moors and their descendants are still there (and I agree that it is probably the latter).
Also, because you made me look some of this up, counter point: Oran fatwa (Taqiyya but specific to Spain, issued in the 1500's). And apparently, almost 5.5 million muslims at their "height", out of 7 million inhabitants.
edit: last part is more of a interesting statistic then a counter point.
I identify as black too - because I need a new TV and the Chauvin acquittal riots are coming up.
Remember George Floyd!
Why buy a TV, when you can just peacefully protest?
Likewise someone an heroing in their car near enough to a school will be counted as a "school shooting" despite only one person involved.
'European Caucasians' would include the Ashkenazi Jews, but they are most hated by people who are with least cause most proud of being white.
It's not race.
It's the inner city culture that is born from welfare policies that incentivizes single mother homes.
You wanna know what the biggest indicator of someone growing up to be a shitty person, criminal, murderer?
No father.
We gotta quit playing the race game. The left says all white people are privileged and have it easy, we laugh at that. Then folks like you do the same thing about crime. You need to have principles and self awareness.
If a commie doimg something is retarded, doing something similar makes you retarded
You are vastly underestimating the effects IQ have. Something that is highly inherited and we have an unfortunate amount of data about the average IQs in certain races, ethnic groups, and areas.
We can't also play the Left game where we ignore all data and science because we don't like it and it makes us uncomfortable.
You could probably argue that a lot of the no father problem stems from low IQ related issues, like inability to delay gratification, poor long term planning, and need for government assistance to survive.
Blacks had more intact families before the 1960s. So I don't think whatever effect IQ does have, necessarily has an impact on that.
Everyone had more intact families then. Cultures change.
And so it does not follow from a low IQ that you are any less capable of forming a family than others.
That's why I didn't say conclusively, I merely said it could be argued. I'd need to assemble more data to correlate the two.
But based on prior knowledge, everyone had more intact families then. Meaning social and cultural pressure to preserve your family were higher and that kept even the lowest of IQs together a little stronger. Many cultural changes since those days have deteriorated the institution of marriage and its strength, so it stands to reason the failsafes that kept them afloat for those struggling would no longer operate.
But again, that's just an argument to relate his point back into my counter.
It's both. It's a combination of individual behaviors and population statistics.
The difference between 'us' and 'them' is that we still judge individuals as individuals, while the left demands that we "not see race" and judge everybody based on their immutable characteristics.
Denying genetic makeup for intelligence is just as stupid as judging an individual based off of their genetics over their actions. We all know that black people on average have lower iq scores, just as we know that Anglo-Saxon, Slavic and Germanic tribes were once considered to be the dumbest by the Islamic golden age. What this shows, however, is that no race is inherently superior consistently, or that even smaller subsections under race have vastly different results due to better practices over generations.
The time of the Islamic Golden Age (falsely called Islamic in my view) was also the Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon culture, so this was very much unmerited. But there is one Islamic commentator who said that the more north you go in Europe, the paler they get, and also the dumber they get.
Let us hope so, because if racial inequalities are permanent, then almost every Western country is going to be in a state of perpetual racial strife and civil war.
There is a slight difference though between people in tribal societies being stupid and today. Of course, if a people lives in condition of pure savagery, then the intellectual achievements are not going to be impressive. But when you have all the opportunities in the world, and still score so low, then that becomes more troubling.
But by that same point, you've identified why using race to correlate to IQ generally through genetic markers makes no sense. If there was an innate racial-genetic causal relationship to IQ, you wouldn't see IQ changes in races. Instead you see different IQ groups within races all the time, and related to behavioral factors.
Sure, the Islamic nations probably had a very high IQ... before they started inbreeding. I bet you that incest probably has an impact on IQ.
Germans have a high IQ too, until the IQ of East Germans collapsed under socialism.
What's the best way to blunt a kid's IQ for the rest of his life? Malnutrition at a young age. That, in and of itself, answers a lot of questions about Socialism.
On the other end of the spectrum, Jewish IQ in the use significantly rose since the dawn of the century. Much of the early Progressive arguments about IQ included the arguments that Jews were too intellectually underdeveloped to adapt to western societies.
Think about this point:
And what are those better practices? Culture. What happens when their subsection replaces all the others? We should see a rise in IQ because of culture.
Even more than that, IQ is not a single genetic marker, but a measurement of someone's ability to work with abstraction. That ability to manage abstract analysis also correlates to your success within a western society. Your success in a western society, is something that is going to act women. Women who are sex selecting based on successful males.
Women would be, effectively, sex-selecting higher IQ. Which would cause a significant change in the population as low IQ males aren't mated. By definition, we should see the population's IQ increase overtime in a western society. That suggests, again, this not some static genetic factor, but related to beneficial behaviors.
If you pressure that population with starvation and perpetual threats and stress, where the behaviors of high IQ people are disincentivized (anti-meritocracy, equitable distributions of wealth and property, totalitarian paranoia), you remove Abstract thinking / IQ as useful survival mechanism in favor of others, like brute strength. Meaning that women won't sex select for it, driving down the IQ of a population over time.
Culture clearly has a massive impact on IQ since IQ is more of a measurement related to some genetic characteristics, that populations are selecting for. Rather than it being a static genetic element of race.
Which is a given, cultural practices and environment affect the genes you pass down, the same as bodies being able to tolerate different foods, antibodies from diseases, etc. This makes ethnicity more important to track over race because those markers show success and changes from two similar genetic makeups.
Sure, but that's still leaning heavy on slow genetic changes in populations, but we don't see small, slow, genetic populations over 5-10-50 generations. We see jumps in 1, 2, and 3. That's why the East German example is so dramatic. It's 1 maybe 2 generations, and you're talking about a 1 SD fall in IQ in only a couple decades, and you have, effectively, a control group in West Germany.
Starve the people, disincentiveize the people, and tyrannize the people, and their IQ collapses. That's not genetic even predominantly genetic.
I should say I'm not surprised by the number of deleted comments but I am just a little. While browsing that page looking for a comment that wasn't deleted I noticed the exact same thing we always see from the SJW's. It's not their fault, it's someone elses because reasons...
From the comments:
It's not their fault, it's everyone elses that this is what they do!
-Dostoyevsky, The Grand Inquisitor
Did anyone else notice the auto mod banning for pedophilic content?
Scrolling down the many banned comments there are so many under the same topic, reckon they'll try to redefine pedophilic so their staff won't get harassed?
Think they’ve just decided to make it the default after they had the whole tranny pedo who definitely helped their dad rape and torture a child on staff incident.
It trades off between problematic comments and pedophilic content. I'm still wondering what the fuck is going on there.
Welcome to the dystopian future. Where you can break the rules all the time so long as you can pay the fee.
...Actually no, that's just how things have worked all along, they just made it more obvious.
What the fuck?
u/TheImpossible1 . lol, ur banned. pay me monez
People will surely just make alts. I cannot imagine this working.
sure, do you take Dogecoin?
I am 99% sure this is a joke. I think their moderators are just edgelords.
Like that time when people were angry that some sub allegedly banned criticism of BLM. When one of the mods was named: 'NiggersLoveKFC'
But I wouldn't be surprised at being wrong either.
I'm surprised they haven't just blanket-banned usernames like that. Or force the person to change the username.
Why does Removeddit only capture a tiny fraction of the removed comments?
All of the websites like it are basically just specialized archive websites. I suspect reddit has some kind of way to fudge it since they're so censorious.
If the comment is removed automatically, then it does not have a chance to archive the comments. It also misses some of the other comments, particularly those that are threaded, for some unknown reason.