I've created a list of rules as below, they will likely change later, but they are here for the purposes of establishing a base level of social order:
ONE: Do not post Illegal Activity. Also, do not post any manifesto's done by terrorists, active shooters, serial felons rationalizing such things, or promoting such things, even if your content does not endorse the message.
TWO: Do not engage in speech that promotes, advocates, glorifies, or endorses violence.
THREE: Do not threaten, harass, or bully users; and do not encourage others to do so on or off-line; nor make per se defamatory states at users.
FOUR: Do not post ISM. Involuntary Salacious Material means NSFW material of a manner that was not intentionally made public. This is the "upskirt", "revenge porn", and "private intimate photos" rule.
FIVE: Do not post Porn
SIX: Content that contains nudity, pornography, or profanity, which a reasonable viewer may not want to be seen accessing in a public or formal setting such as in a workplace should be tagged as NSFW. Any material of a titillating nature must be marked NSFW.
SEVEN: Do not post Facebook accounts, individuals who's twitters are less than 500 followers, private/personal information that is not publicly available, addresses, or participate, encourage, or engage in any doxxing campaign.
EIGHT: Do not intentionally deceive others by impersonating another. This does not apply to satire.
NINE: No person shall use communities.win sites (including kotakuinaction2.win) to solicit, facilitate any transaction, or gift including: ... ATF defined firearms or ammo as defined by the ATF, Bump-stock type devices, Explosives, 3D printing files to produce the aforementioned, controlled substances, Drugs, Alcohol, Tobacco, Stolen goods, Paid services involving physical sexual contact, Personal Information, Falsified Official Documents, Falsified Currency, Fraudulent Services, Pharmaceuticals
TEN: No vote manipulation. Do not break communities.win's features.
ELEVEN: Do not post spam. If you are self-advertising, you must have sufficiently engaged in the sub prior to your post, and you must engage with the users when they comment in your post. Spam will also include repeated messages and comments that are done with no effort to add to the conversation.
TWELVE: Do not post intentional falsehoods or hoaxes. Yes, the Elders of Zion and other such intentionally fabricated documents fall into this. If your POST is arguably false by the user-base, it may be marked as either misleading or unfounded based on it's factual assertions, particularly in the title.
THIRTEEN: If you have reposted something, it will be removed
FOURTEEN: Do not post more than 5 posts a day to this sub.
FIFTEEN: Do not direct particularly egregious identity based slurs at users. A list will be provided
SIXTEEN: Do not attack entire identity groups as inferior, subhuman, inherently morally deficient, biologically/evolutionary mongrel, or participating in a vast conspiracy to take over the world, ala ZOG-NWO / The Patriarchy.
I'd argue the ability to deceive effectively is very innate, and if the most successful of a group are those who can do this well, it puts selection pressure on the group for that trait to become dominant, but beyond that such arguments could certainly be more culturally based. It wouldn't be an all or nothing, of course, and it wouldn't be universally applicable.
I'm not big on moral relativism, myself. I think theft, murder, and rape are objectively wrong, at least within the context western culture. It would lend to moral unsuitability to western culture, though if moral relativism is your bag, that doesn't mean they aren't better suited to a different culture that's of equal value.
Anyway, I understand your concern, but these ideas are some of the most heavily censored in the world. Academic attempts to discredit them never really worked over the last 60 years, so they've resorted to banishment of scientists who look into such fields over ethical concerns here in the last 15 or so. There's a reason free speech havens tends to attract such discussion, since you don't need a free speech haven to talk about cat pictures (yet?).
E: just a study that does seem to show that lying is at least a partly heritable trait https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4852200/
most behavior has a genetic trait, it seems.
If anyone ever figures out where the line is between nature and nurture, feel free to let us know.
It's not really a line, though. It's just potential and actualization.
I think that's nothing more than another argument about the very nature of intelligence itself, but I also don't think that intelligence is innate in the way that it keeps being touted. Intelligence, first, is not genetic in and of itself, it is a measure of multiple things that are informed by genetics. The ability for average IQ's to rise and fall over time in populations suggests to me that how it is being used is a fairly significant abuse of any actual argument about genetics.
Right and behavior might be partially the result of genetics, as well as environment, and environment can even effect genetics as well.
This is a fair point, and the Flynn effect seems very real (though it's seemed to have evaporated in the last decade or two). However, racial disparity is fairly persistent, despite conducive environments for realizing higher potentials of intelligence. The average may rise and fall a standard deviation across the board, but the average deviation between blacks and whites track pretty much the same. Nutrition seems to be a major factor. The rationing of sugar during WW2 correlated strongly with a major boost in IQ in the British youth growing up in that period. Perhaps it was the exercise of rationing itself, though that's unlikely over such a short period of time. Could be the decrease we currently see is also a dietary issue. Maybe it's google and lack of mental exercise.
Potential intelligence is likely genetic in and of itself. Realized intelligence will be a combination of the potential one starts with, and how well the environment is suited to realizing the full potential. I'm not saying there's an intelligence gene, but there are a little over 1000 that we know of so far that interact to create what we call intelligence. In the most basic sense, intelligence is just the ability to apply knowledge.
Environment can certainly effect gene expression and mutation. That's not even debatable. That doesn't mean you're going to turn someone with a max 90 IQ potential into a genius, even with the absolute best environment.
In these discussions though, it's always important to remember that this isn't about an individual (we all vary a lot, even within our families), but the large numbers present in demographic groups, the trends that emerge from those large numbers, and the impacts those trends have on the broader society.
I'm not even sure if that would work.
Right, but when you start talking about groups of people, that stops being an issue, and we can start talking about sex selection.
Yes, absolutely. We have built a society that can function relatively well without intelligent people, because we've centralized so much. IQ is even becoming less of factor in socioeconomic success. Intelligence is not a valuable trait in a mate right now.