The word "strongly" is a problem here. Genetics will determine the total spectrum of human capacity for emotion, as a species. It can tell us what rests at all 3 standard deviations of human capacity for emotion. Heredity can determine some predisposition for emotional states, which can be expressed through behavior. However, these predispositions are never a guaranteed outcome. This is why two children with the same parents can have different emotional frameworks. However, direct environmental pressures can have a far more dramatic effect on someone's emotional state.
Ritualistically rape and starve someone for 20 years by their parents, who is predisposed genetically to be gentile, and they will not be a gentile person.
Part of the problem I see with people who are taking a genetic determinist stance is that they refuse to recognize that environment can effect genes. We know that some genes are activated by environmental pressures, and we also know that sex-selection is not random nor purely genetic.
do you believe that generalized behavior helps inform how a culture develops?
Behavior informs culture, but culture also informs behavior. Culture is one part of the environment which can cultivate behavior. A culture may be modified by individuals behaving differently, and the society adopting the new behavior, but a culture may promote the conditioning of people to behave in a certain way. It's a lot of give-and-take.
I really appreciate the response. I know I annoy you, but I hope you realize I appreciate what you do, even if we disagree. Same goes for AoV. Best faggot jannies ever. Sincerely.
who is predisposed genetically to be gentile, and they will not be a gentile person.
Is this a slip of the tongue? Kidding, I know it is. But seriously... christ man.
If you mean gentle, I completely agree. Genetics are not determination. They are simply predisposition. This simple fact is why I would never judge and individual based on some preconceived genetic expectation. On the individual level, we have extreme variation. When I speak of groups, I'm talking about disproportionate outcomes, not individual actions.
Behavior informs culture, but culture also informs behavior. Culture is one part of the environment which can cultivate behavior. A culture may be modified by individuals behaving differently, and the society adopting the new behavior, but a culture may promote the conditioning of people to behave in a certain way. It's a lot of give-and-take.
See. Right here. We have complete agreement. Our real contention on this point is evolution of African culture. Only in global context though. African culture evolved the way it did for a reason, and when everything is said an done, they may be the most viable people standing. Diversity is strength.
I get why you hate IDpol. I did for a long time. I do think that there is an element beneficial to survival by setting that anchor, though. Not where I wanted to be, but it seems to be where we are.
Is this a slip of the tongue? Kidding, I know it is. But seriously... christ man.
Your face when: LadiesAndGentlemenWeGotHim.gif
Our real contention on this point is evolution of African culture. Only in global context though. African culture evolved the way it did for a reason, and when everything is said an done, they may be the most viable people standing.
I don't think you can say that either. Honestly, I don't think we can say much useful about "African" culture. If you want to say, "The cultures of Sub-Saharan Africa", then I would say there's a conversation about geography, diet, isolation, animal predators, and a bunch of other things to add.
I get why you hate IDpol. I did for a long time. I do think that there is an element beneficial to survival by setting that anchor, though.
Genuine, all around, Identity Politics can be good-natured if handled properly, but isn't really an optimal way of doing anything. It is the worst way to govern a society. And, of all the identities to utilize, race is probably the absolute stupidest identity to try and unite around. Stupider than sex, stupider than civic identity, stupider than religion, stupider than ethnicity, and by multiple orders of magnitude.
The Black Racialist Communists have been rallying themselves around the Pan-African identity, and institutionalizing it for years. At the height of this "Pan-African" Black Diaspora bullshit, Africa went through the bloodiest continental war in it's history, brought up by ethnic tension that was stoked by communists.
Mixing Socialism and Racialism might be the most unequivocally stupid idea in human history, and the Germans were probably the only people who could have given it a real chance at succeeding... and 50 million people died. Of all the bad ideas: mixing them is like mixing ammonia and bleach, or Meth and Fentanyl. They're both the worst possible things you could do individually, and you mixed them together and made something exponentially worse. Together, they are worse than the sum of their parts.
Racialism is horrid. Socialism is evil. Put them together and you get a guaranteed genocide, whether it's done by Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Jews, etc. There is no possible good outcome.
I don't think you can say that either. Honestly, I don't think we can say much useful about "African" culture. If you want to say, "The cultures of Sub-Saharan Africa", then I would say there's a conversation about geography, diet, isolation, animal predators, and a bunch of other things to add.
Again, we can find a lot of agreement here. Within context of the conversation I thought Sub-saharan Africa was implied, but if there's confusion, my apologies.
As to IDpol, it only has a place when there are identifiable groups. Ethnic divisions are just subdivisions of race. Ethnic divisions ruled the day since antiquity, but with modern mobility, ethnic difference have evolved into racial differences. People from far greater distances are now regularly in close contact. I think Aristotle had it right. Heterogeneity in people will lead to factionalism. This, by necessity will encourage tyranny to maintain order, as factionalism is an inherently chaotic force.
I think the view on the Germans is a bit of bad history. The ethnic cleansing is not why 50 million people died. Territorial expansion is. Another ancient motivation for conflict. There's certainly an argument that the ideas of lebensraum where racially based, so in turn the territorial expansion was also racially based, but I think that's being a bit too narrow in scope to make it a better fit for a certain circumstance. There's also the argument that socialism, being economically incompetent, required plunder to feed the socialist machine. It's a fair observation, and mostly true. I think conflating the racialism and the socialism is off base, though. Without the territorial expansion, the racialism wouldn't really have been much more than a blip on history's radar. Mostly, because the territorial expansion made deportation options impossible, and the wartime strain on resources made concentration camp maintenance untenable.
Put them together and you get a guaranteed genocide, whether it's done by Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Jews, etc. There is no possible good outcome.
I'd say that putting Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Jews, etc together is how you get genocide. There's no possible good outcome. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. It's just a question of who gets the paddling at this point.
The word "strongly" is a problem here. Genetics will determine the total spectrum of human capacity for emotion, as a species. It can tell us what rests at all 3 standard deviations of human capacity for emotion. Heredity can determine some predisposition for emotional states, which can be expressed through behavior. However, these predispositions are never a guaranteed outcome. This is why two children with the same parents can have different emotional frameworks. However, direct environmental pressures can have a far more dramatic effect on someone's emotional state.
Ritualistically rape and starve someone for 20 years by their parents, who is predisposed genetically to be gentile, and they will not be a gentile person.
Part of the problem I see with people who are taking a genetic determinist stance is that they refuse to recognize that environment can effect genes. We know that some genes are activated by environmental pressures, and we also know that sex-selection is not random nor purely genetic.
Behavior informs culture, but culture also informs behavior. Culture is one part of the environment which can cultivate behavior. A culture may be modified by individuals behaving differently, and the society adopting the new behavior, but a culture may promote the conditioning of people to behave in a certain way. It's a lot of give-and-take.
I really appreciate the response. I know I annoy you, but I hope you realize I appreciate what you do, even if we disagree. Same goes for AoV. Best faggot jannies ever. Sincerely.
Is this a slip of the tongue? Kidding, I know it is. But seriously... christ man.
If you mean gentle, I completely agree. Genetics are not determination. They are simply predisposition. This simple fact is why I would never judge and individual based on some preconceived genetic expectation. On the individual level, we have extreme variation. When I speak of groups, I'm talking about disproportionate outcomes, not individual actions.
See. Right here. We have complete agreement. Our real contention on this point is evolution of African culture. Only in global context though. African culture evolved the way it did for a reason, and when everything is said an done, they may be the most viable people standing. Diversity is strength.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048999/
I get why you hate IDpol. I did for a long time. I do think that there is an element beneficial to survival by setting that anchor, though. Not where I wanted to be, but it seems to be where we are.
Your face when: LadiesAndGentlemenWeGotHim.gif
I don't think you can say that either. Honestly, I don't think we can say much useful about "African" culture. If you want to say, "The cultures of Sub-Saharan Africa", then I would say there's a conversation about geography, diet, isolation, animal predators, and a bunch of other things to add.
Genuine, all around, Identity Politics can be good-natured if handled properly, but isn't really an optimal way of doing anything. It is the worst way to govern a society. And, of all the identities to utilize, race is probably the absolute stupidest identity to try and unite around. Stupider than sex, stupider than civic identity, stupider than religion, stupider than ethnicity, and by multiple orders of magnitude.
The Black Racialist Communists have been rallying themselves around the Pan-African identity, and institutionalizing it for years. At the height of this "Pan-African" Black Diaspora bullshit, Africa went through the bloodiest continental war in it's history, brought up by ethnic tension that was stoked by communists.
Mixing Socialism and Racialism might be the most unequivocally stupid idea in human history, and the Germans were probably the only people who could have given it a real chance at succeeding... and 50 million people died. Of all the bad ideas: mixing them is like mixing ammonia and bleach, or Meth and Fentanyl. They're both the worst possible things you could do individually, and you mixed them together and made something exponentially worse. Together, they are worse than the sum of their parts.
Racialism is horrid. Socialism is evil. Put them together and you get a guaranteed genocide, whether it's done by Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Jews, etc. There is no possible good outcome.
Again, we can find a lot of agreement here. Within context of the conversation I thought Sub-saharan Africa was implied, but if there's confusion, my apologies.
As to IDpol, it only has a place when there are identifiable groups. Ethnic divisions are just subdivisions of race. Ethnic divisions ruled the day since antiquity, but with modern mobility, ethnic difference have evolved into racial differences. People from far greater distances are now regularly in close contact. I think Aristotle had it right. Heterogeneity in people will lead to factionalism. This, by necessity will encourage tyranny to maintain order, as factionalism is an inherently chaotic force.
I think the view on the Germans is a bit of bad history. The ethnic cleansing is not why 50 million people died. Territorial expansion is. Another ancient motivation for conflict. There's certainly an argument that the ideas of lebensraum where racially based, so in turn the territorial expansion was also racially based, but I think that's being a bit too narrow in scope to make it a better fit for a certain circumstance. There's also the argument that socialism, being economically incompetent, required plunder to feed the socialist machine. It's a fair observation, and mostly true. I think conflating the racialism and the socialism is off base, though. Without the territorial expansion, the racialism wouldn't really have been much more than a blip on history's radar. Mostly, because the territorial expansion made deportation options impossible, and the wartime strain on resources made concentration camp maintenance untenable.
I'd say that putting Blacks, Whites, Chinese, Indians, Jews, etc together is how you get genocide. There's no possible good outcome. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. It's just a question of who gets the paddling at this point.