Funny, isn't it, that those demographics with the highest incidence of ... suboptimal ... behaviour are the ones granted freedom from any consequences.
By this standard, for instance, there would never be any investigation of the epidemiology of monkeypox, for instance, as that puts particular demographics the left will never criticise in the frame.
Ehh, I don't know about "blacks" ... if this was a matter of genetics, for instance, the Ghanaian community that my in-laws are part of would be a bunch of hoodlums. They're not. Not everywhere is America ;)
That said, African American culture seems crafted to create people who prize aggression and lawlessness, to the point that you suspect they're being trained that way quite consciously.
I might be mixing you up with another user, but didn’t you rage about “muh antishemites” on 50+ alt accounts? And now you’re a fan of race realism? Hmmm
Its cultural. Check out Thomas Sowell and what he has said about Black rednecks.
Though I have no doubt that the american variety has been bred to be more violent and antisocial. A few decades of selective propagation, via trashy single moms and deadbeat dads, and a culture that ensures the loudest most violent gets to spread more of his spgerms.
I think part of it is the initial necessity being required, and then once you have begun the inventing/innovating in order to overcome the necessity that it then starts to foster a culture of doing those things. Which in a way, creates a positive feedback loop of further invention and innovation.
Because the culture there is ancient anarchy. The smart ones immigrate. Like the Nigerian community that are the most educated, and not in gender degrees.
lol at Quilette talking about once-respected journals becoming ideological. years after their website went full cuckservative and claire lehmann went full vaxxtard.
Hey, I was assured by Claire Lehmann herself that she's pro-science and pro-Western-Civilization on Coleman Hughes' podcast just last week. She's not one of those science-denying Putin lovers.
Honestly it's always flirted with this kind of naked cliqueishness, since the days of aristocratic academies. But at some point we crossed to the wrong side of the threshold of enough men with the integrity to hold to their principles over following consensus, even if it meant taking a personal career hit.
Commercialization, big money, funding, university administration. Its all rooted at an obsession to money & influence rather than passion in your field.
Its why I can't stand "influencers" and the moment some interesting internet talking persona become famous, they turn bot. Hardly any worth listening to after they start hitting 10k-100k-1M follower milestones.
Even Rogan for that matter is only able to maintain his walking the line kinda stance because he is insulated by all his wealth. Like Musk. The rest of us idiots are in the trenches getting dowsed in feces and drug paraphernalia, that we are forced to call neu-meatloaf, with an order of insect on the side.
The scientific establishment has never had a good track record.
The eugenicists of the last century, the atrocities (human experimentation) committed by Japanese and German scientists during WW2, global warming alarm-ism, modern gain-of-function research leading to a global pandemic, the butchery of children in the name of "trans-rights"... just to name a few. There's a reason why the stereotype of the "mad scientist" has been around for as long as it has.
The "hard" sciences are for the most part fine because they are readily testable, reproducible and rigorously follow the scientific method, but the "soft" sciences are much more open to interpretation and manipulation and therefore ride the coattails of credibility that the hard sciences have earned.
Oh, "science" always seems to agree to condemn the madness ... two or three decades after the fact. I'm sure if our civilization survives this bad idea, they will do exactly the same.
If anything, the history of science is notable for the formation of cosy little cliques that do their best to exclude everybody else until the bleeding edge of research has progressed so far that the dominant clique is simply unable to maintain control.
Seriously, from astronomy to atomic theory, it's one large group grimly clinging on to control until the entire community is forced to concede that the academic emperor has no clothes.
You'd think that, but look at the eugenics stuff from the last century like Novanleon referenced. There seems to be no atrocity a group mind cannot endorse.
I'd wager there are many scientists -- maybe even the majority -- that think what is going on in the scientific community is insane but are just too scared to say or do anything about it.
The Left operates like the mafia -- or more accurately, an authoritarian government -- using fear, intimidation and lies to control people. By trying to personally destroy anyone who disagrees with them, they create a culture of coerced obedience, and it only takes a few radicals to create this culture. In reality the number of insane radicals on the Left is minuscule but their behavior so viscous and their voice so loud, they've successfully fooled people into believing they're far more powerful than they are, which ends up being a self-fulfilling prophesy in a way.
Eugenics is exactly the kind of science that will be suppressed by Nature. And the eugenicists were right. The technology that makes us comfortable prevents the natural cleaning of the gene pool. People condemned the solutions that eugenicists came up with on a moral basis but never suggested anything morally acceptable to replace them. The attitude is "well, promoting good genes requires steps we find repugnant, therefore let it happen." It would be interesting if they had this attitude towards climate change.
Those who write candidly about sex and population differences, such as David Geary or Charles Murray, routinely preface discussion of their findings with the unambiguous declaration that empirical differences do not justify claims of superiority or inferiority. Nevertheless, the editorial is a warrant to attack, silence, and suppress research that finds differences of any social significance between sexes or populations, regardless of whether or not such differences do in fact exist.
And despite the disclaimers they are pilloried in the leftist/corporate press by know-nothings who react to the name Charles Murray like drooling dogs to the sound of the bell.
Funny, isn't it, that those demographics with the highest incidence of ... suboptimal ... behaviour are the ones granted freedom from any consequences.
By this standard, for instance, there would never be any investigation of the epidemiology of monkeypox, for instance, as that puts particular demographics the left will never criticise in the frame.
Ehh, I don't know about "blacks" ... if this was a matter of genetics, for instance, the Ghanaian community that my in-laws are part of would be a bunch of hoodlums. They're not. Not everywhere is America ;)
That said, African American culture seems crafted to create people who prize aggression and lawlessness, to the point that you suspect they're being trained that way quite consciously.
Got a good link?
Edit: the MAO gene is the warrior gene, right? Or am I thinking of something else?
I might be mixing you up with another user, but didn’t you rage about “muh antishemites” on 50+ alt accounts? And now you’re a fan of race realism? Hmmm
Its cultural. Check out Thomas Sowell and what he has said about Black rednecks.
Though I have no doubt that the american variety has been bred to be more violent and antisocial. A few decades of selective propagation, via trashy single moms and deadbeat dads, and a culture that ensures the loudest most violent gets to spread more of his
spgerms.Necessity is the mother of invention. Europeans developed because winter forced them to, tropical climates don't need much development to be livable.
They didn't. The Asian countries that advanced were ones with winter.
Ever notice that Korea is more advanced than Laos and Vietnam? Korea has harsh winters.
I think part of it is the initial necessity being required, and then once you have begun the inventing/innovating in order to overcome the necessity that it then starts to foster a culture of doing those things. Which in a way, creates a positive feedback loop of further invention and innovation.
They never invented the wheel cause it’s warm out? Lmao
Yeah that's it, because it's warm out.
Not because there was plentiful food year round and you never really had to go anywhere to get it.
Nope, because its warm out.
Because the culture there is ancient anarchy. The smart ones immigrate. Like the Nigerian community that are the most educated, and not in gender degrees.
Because Africans never needed to lol. Europeans had to overcome pretty awful climate. Same reason native americans did jackshit.
lol at Quilette talking about once-respected journals becoming ideological. years after their website went full cuckservative and claire lehmann went full vaxxtard.
"Where free thought lives"
Kek.
Hey, I was assured by Claire Lehmann herself that she's pro-science and pro-Western-Civilization on Coleman Hughes' podcast just last week. She's not one of those science-denying Putin lovers.
Very scary. Honestly never thought I’d see the day when science loses its mind like this
Honestly it's always flirted with this kind of naked cliqueishness, since the days of aristocratic academies. But at some point we crossed to the wrong side of the threshold of enough men with the integrity to hold to their principles over following consensus, even if it meant taking a personal career hit.
Commercialization, big money, funding, university administration. Its all rooted at an obsession to money & influence rather than passion in your field.
Its why I can't stand "influencers" and the moment some interesting internet talking persona become famous, they turn bot. Hardly any worth listening to after they start hitting 10k-100k-1M follower milestones.
Even Rogan for that matter is only able to maintain his walking the line kinda stance because he is insulated by all his wealth. Like Musk. The rest of us idiots are in the trenches getting dowsed in feces and drug paraphernalia, that we are forced to call neu-meatloaf, with an order of insect on the side.
The scientific establishment has never had a good track record.
The eugenicists of the last century, the atrocities (human experimentation) committed by Japanese and German scientists during WW2, global warming alarm-ism, modern gain-of-function research leading to a global pandemic, the butchery of children in the name of "trans-rights"... just to name a few. There's a reason why the stereotype of the "mad scientist" has been around for as long as it has.
The "hard" sciences are for the most part fine because they are readily testable, reproducible and rigorously follow the scientific method, but the "soft" sciences are much more open to interpretation and manipulation and therefore ride the coattails of credibility that the hard sciences have earned.
I can agree with that. I guess I expected science to shut down the morons saying that men can be women
Oh, "science" always seems to agree to condemn the madness ... two or three decades after the fact. I'm sure if our civilization survives this bad idea, they will do exactly the same.
If anything, the history of science is notable for the formation of cosy little cliques that do their best to exclude everybody else until the bleeding edge of research has progressed so far that the dominant clique is simply unable to maintain control.
Seriously, from astronomy to atomic theory, it's one large group grimly clinging on to control until the entire community is forced to concede that the academic emperor has no clothes.
I get that. I guess due to the idea that a man claiming to be a woman is obviously delusional. That should be a slam dunk like 2 plus 2 is 4.
You'd think that, but look at the eugenics stuff from the last century like Novanleon referenced. There seems to be no atrocity a group mind cannot endorse.
That’s true. That has been proven over and over
I'd wager there are many scientists -- maybe even the majority -- that think what is going on in the scientific community is insane but are just too scared to say or do anything about it.
The Left operates like the mafia -- or more accurately, an authoritarian government -- using fear, intimidation and lies to control people. By trying to personally destroy anyone who disagrees with them, they create a culture of coerced obedience, and it only takes a few radicals to create this culture. In reality the number of insane radicals on the Left is minuscule but their behavior so viscous and their voice so loud, they've successfully fooled people into believing they're far more powerful than they are, which ends up being a self-fulfilling prophesy in a way.
Eugenics is exactly the kind of science that will be suppressed by Nature. And the eugenicists were right. The technology that makes us comfortable prevents the natural cleaning of the gene pool. People condemned the solutions that eugenicists came up with on a moral basis but never suggested anything morally acceptable to replace them. The attitude is "well, promoting good genes requires steps we find repugnant, therefore let it happen." It would be interesting if they had this attitude towards climate change.
This is how you get the Dark Ages
soyence
And despite the disclaimers they are pilloried in the leftist/corporate press by know-nothings who react to the name Charles Murray like drooling dogs to the sound of the bell.
‘If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.’ —Orwell