I’m confused. When did I say this wasn’t going to happen?
When you say racist things, most of the civilized world will turn their backs on you. That’s not really new, but Kanye is NOT going anywhere. He’s too big. The most diehard Ye stans will always be around.
What I said is true and will hold true; I’m literally watching a TikTok video right now about Kanye, and his fans are in the comments saying:
“the elites mad they can’t control kanye”
“he spoke his mind and they silenced him”
“If this isn’t tell you who actually runs the show and don’t want him to speak on it you’re truly trapped in a mindless world”
And this didn’t ‘demolish’ Ye’s net worth. He’s still worth hundreds of millions of dollars and could easily just sell his Yeezy’s himself.
yeah its definitely not a black and white picture like many autist commenters would want but it fills the bigger picture which is that some people adored by many can get away with a lot.
Kek. So, apparently, a sizable fraction of his net “worth” was dependent on the success of the shoes he endorsed. I suppose taking out a giant loan would make me a millionaire huh? Maybe I should buy myself a mail-order bride and not even have her shipped to my physical location so I can brag about how much pussy I slay.
that type of thinking is ostentatiously designed and fails to take notice of the fact that the right doesnt care about antisemitism as much as you think they do and i dont think the liberals will forgive Kanye as much as you think you do.
maybe as general statements they make sense but for the time being i would think more ambiguous arrangements will prevail.
With the exception of Catholic paleocons like Buchanan and some of the more irreverent secular libertarians, American right-wingers are extremely philosemitic.
The American Anglo-Saxon population is principally descended from Calvinist fanatics who saw themselves as being – in some sense – da troo jooz.
LOADEDsaid:
yeah but the right is all about virtue signaling so they will care more about how to virtue signal their position than the actual position they hold.
believing themselves to be the moral upholders they might not want to disparage rap music as much as you think they will honestly.
they hold values that are not clear and path focused as you think they are is all im saying.
Ganzirsaid:
Imagine living in a culture so shallow that people care about what some rapper said about anything
If your thesis is that Jews created the culture of worshipping blacks, why do you think so many of the biggest beneficiaries of that culture (Kanye, Michael Jackson) so resent Jews?
The Philosophersaid:
The jews may have abused them. Certainly financially speaking.
But according to you, Jews are the reason they have finances worth abusing in the first place, so aren’t they looking a gift horse in the mouth?
LOADEDsaid:
Ganzir everyone has a voice and who are you to tell them not to speak when people will listen?
Ganzirsaid:
Everyone has a voice but that doesn’t mean they should be using it
LOADEDsaid:
you use your voice until you have nothing else to say.
Lurkersaid:
By getting offended at Kanye attacking their tribe, because it was racist, they admit that people think tribally and they are legitimately afraid of it.
So basically, they admit by thinking others likely think tribally, they think tribally… thereby proving Ye’s point.
Yes, it’s semi-retarded 4D chess, just like Trump. But isn’t that what we all do? It’s beautiful to watch.
“No IQ test is perfect therefore IQ is fake.” =
“No circle is perfect therefore circles are fake.”
“No definition of intelligence is testable or falsifiable.” =
“No definition of health or goodness is testable or falsifiable.”
Often the same people who deny IQ on shaky grounds will then support provably horrible ideologies like equity or communism. Even though in communism “from each according to their ability, to each according their needs”, there is no good definition of “ability”, “needs” or whether it is even a fair idea.
Health” is a multi-dimensional, context-dependent concept. Discussions in medicine should be framed in terms of state descriptions (describing physiological/psychological states) and normative claims (what we value/disvalue), not searching for the “correct definition” for health and disease. (See Ereshefsky 2009.)
Do you believe in your life being unfairly just or unjust RR?
Lurkersaid:
“probably horrible ideologies like equity”
“It’s OK if you don’t know what “equity” means. Inequities are a kind of inequality which are avoidable, unfair and unjust.”
You didn’t grasp my point at all. Avoidable, unfair, and unjust HAVE NO OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS! That’s why people have different political views.
“Health” is a multi-dimensional, context-dependent concept. Discussions in medicine should be framed in terms of state descriptions (describing physiological/psychological states) and normative claims (what we value/disvalue), not searching for the “correct definition” for health and disease. (See Ereshefsky 2009.)”
Jesus christ you don’t need a citation for that. (unless you want to point out you were quoting someone).
Yes obviously health is context-dependent… but we still tend to agree on it. And we can agree on what is healthy, given what context. So it has an objective basis, though it differs depending on the context.
The Philosophersaid:
Ever since RR started dating this black woman hes been spouting stupid woke stuff.
Objective definitions exist, depending on the axioms. What are you on about? You don’t think logic and mathematics are objective?
Pill was right, there’s no use arguing with you because you won’t think about anything that hasn’t been in the “conclusions” section in some paper. Might as well be talking to a bot at this point.
“Ever since RR started dating this black woman hes been spouting stupid woke stuff.”
This is such nonsense. When we talk about definitions for X, we are talking about the meaning of X. Meaning is subjective. If meaning is subjective, then words—by themselves—have no meaning. If words by themselves have no meaning, then definitions are subjective and can’t be objective.
Sorry that was lack of IQ on my part. I didn’t connect oil with the colour black with the race black quicky enough when skimming to censor it. Next time it will be moderated.
LOADEDsaid:
RR is smarter than Pill.
The Philosophersaid:
Oil Drilling isn’t a racist word or term. Its informal. Its like when guys call a woman who likes blacks a mudshark. How the hell is that racist?
Erichthoniussaid:
“Its like when guys call a woman who likes blacks a mudshark. How the hell is that racist?”
Lmao, I think this perfectly encapsulates Philo’s obliviousness.
Lurkersaid:
“This is such nonsense. When we talk about definitions for X, we are talking about the meaning of X. Meaning is subjective. If meaning is subjective, then words—by themselves—have no meaning. If words by themselves have no meaning, then definitions are subjective and can’t be objective.”
Everything you said here was wrong.
Words have meaning. That’s how we refer to same thing. Perhaps when we get into the details, we disagree about the meaning, but they must have some similarity or we wouldn’t be able to communicate.
Subjective means no absolute meaning.
So “meaning is subjective”, does that have objective meaning or not? If it’s purely subjective, stop talking to me (and anyone).
“Appeal to motive.”
Are you autistic or messing with me?
rr must be banned immediately.said:
“Midwits” believe that “objective definitions” are a thing.
literally the most evil and retarded and hypocritical thing ever said on this blog by anyone.
objective definitions are only a thing when talking about IQ tests not when talking about meaningless woke vocab.
obviously rr is part black. no italian is that stupid and evil. not even nancy pelosi.said:
this is rr’s excuse for bombing the SAT-V. what a loser.
rr must be banned immediately.said:
It’s OK if you don’t know what “equity” means… because neither do i, because it’s all subjective, it means whatever you want it to mean. that’s why i’m a high-brow and no a mid-wit.
rr worships satan. thus his hair.said:
rr wants “oil driller” banned even though it doesn’t mean anything. it’s all subjective. like “racist”.
peepee not redacting it is an example of high IQ. peepee promising to redact it is an example of low IQ.
Erichthoniussaid:
Lack of meaning != subjective, you fucking moron.
Erichthoniussaid:
Lurker,
“Subjective means no absolute meaning.”
Words do not hold absolute meaning. That’s why definitions and language evolve. That’s why the term “cat” can refer to the four-legged animal that sleeps all day on the back of the couch… or to your mother’s pussy.
Lurkersaid:
““Subjective means no absolute meaning.””
To be absolutely clear, I mean COMPLETELY subjective means no absolute meaning.
“Words do not hold absolute meaning. That’s why definitions and language evolve. That’s why the term “cat” can refer to the four-legged animal that sleeps all day on the back of the couch… or to your mother’s pussy.”
This is obviously not my point. My point is when we refer to a cat, regardless of whether or not we agree on every jot and tiddle, we mostly have the same picture for what we are talking about. And to the degree we are referring to the same thing, that is objective. Otherwise we couldn’t be communicating.
I’m pretty sure this is extremely obvious if you actually think about it.
I’m aware words are invented by humans.
So yes, our words have absolute meaning as long as we are referring to the same thing (which is what we do when we use words…)
Yes, words obviously refer to human abstractions. But that’s been my point for most of this argument since RR brought up “M is not reducible to P” or even before that. Everything we understand about the world, including “physical facts” are abstractions… everything goes through the mind. I don’t think you can even perceive or conceive of anything that isn’t an abstraction. It’s basically tautalogical because conceiving or perceiving is something done by a mind.
If I say “there are 10 apples on the table”, all the words and concepts in that “physical fact” about apples and tables are all abstractions that the mind must grasp/form.
So when a scientist gathers more data, they will never be able to get data that isn’t abstract, because all data is an abstraction, because all of it is defined by the constraints of the mind. So either you agree that the mind can correspond with objective facts (or “physical facts”) or you should just give up on reality.
That’s why we can use language to actually talk about the world… because our mind is capable of forming the correct conceptions about physical reality. It’s not because physical reality magically “gives” us “physical facts” into our minds. Or maybe it does… but that would automatically defeat RR’s argument, because it would mean that mental facts were reducible to physical facts.
That’s why RR’s conception of learning from the environment is illogical since it acts as if the environment can magicallly give someone a way to view the world (culture), while also stating that physical reality does not determine mental reality (AKA does not determine one’s cultural context). That’s why I’m saying RR’s definition of intelligence is magical, because it seems to be self-contradictory or dualistic to a point that it’s unfalsifiable completely. (It seems to say knowledge is created by the culture but then gives no apparatus by which anyone can receive knowledge from the environment because it denies P causing M)
Erichthoniussaid:
“So yes, our words have absolute meaning as long as we are referring to the same thing (which is what we do when we use words…)”
You and I agreeing on the meaning of terms we use doesn’t suddenly mean their meaning is objective. At least not in the way that it is normally meant.
No offense, but I’m not really interested y’alls argument over the mental’s irreducibility. I was just trying to clarify what RR is saying.
Lurkersaid:
“You and I agreeing on the meaning of terms we use doesn’t suddenly mean their meaning is objective.”
It does mean the meaning is objective, because any meaning is objective. We both have some idea about what we are talking about when we refer to something, and that is objectively true. And if we are communicating, we must also objectively be communicating about the same thing to the extent we are actually communicating (and not talking past each other). What we are talking about might not correspond to physical reality, but it certainly corresponds objectively to the concepts we are referring to and what’s in our mind.
“If meaning is subjective, then words—by themselves—have no meaning. If words by themselves have no meaning, then definitions are subjective and can’t be objective.”
RR here states that because a word has no inherit meaning until we give it one, the definitions are subjective. I said what is “unfair” has no “objective definition”, which I meant we cannot agree on how it is actually applied and how it exists in reality and various details as evidenced in politics.
But his argument basically goes on to state there is no such thing as “unfair” because the definitions are created by people. So my point was that our detailed definitions are subjective, but not that the concept itself is subjective. We are still objectively referring to the same thing on some level, or else we couldn’t communicate. And that thing is more than a word because it actually coheres to other ideas we have in our mind.
“At least not in the way that it is normally meant.”
I think his idea about words being subjective is related to his metaphysical argument about the mind vs. physical world. (I guess it’s also an epistemological argument)
“No offense, but I’m not really interested y’alls argument over the mental’s irreducibility. I was just trying to clarify what RR is saying.”
No problem of course.
Erichthoniussaid:
“It does mean the meaning is objective”
That’s not what objective means, though. I think we agree, but the point of contention is semantic.
“I think his idea about words being subjective is related to his metaphysical argument about the mind vs. physical world. (I guess it’s also an epistemological argument)”
So, I can’t speak for RR, but I do not believe that is the case. Words and definitions are subjective regardless of whatever ontological philosophy you subscribe. In fact, I think I may have been the one that demonstrated to RR that meaning is subjective. I vaguely recall us having an argument back in the day when he said to me something along the lines of “words have meaning,” and I replied, “meaning is subjective.”
We may have even been arguing about the mental’s irreducibility like you two are now. Although I don’t remember.
Lurkersaid:
“That’s not what objective means, though. I think we agree, but the point of contention is semantic.”
Yeah I think we agree but I think the fact that RR thinks culture is somehow separated and that no test item could represent an objective measure of knowledge implies that he doesn’t understand that objective facts exist and can be known (or he has a mental block with some other belief).
The meaning of a word is objective in the sense we are talking about something objective, because meaning is always objective up to the point it is noncontradictory (since it is always “about something” which implies that there is something to be about).
A “three-sided square” has meaning in the sense we are talking about a shape that has sides, but it is mathematically impossible and self-contradictory. But at least we agree we are objectively referring to shapes so it can’t be said that it is subjective.
What we choose a specific word to refer to is of course subjective.
“So, I can’t speak for RR, but I do not believe that is the case. Words and definitions are subjective regardless of whatever ontological philosophy you subscribe. In fact, I think I may have been the one that demonstrated to RR that meaning is subjective. I vaguely recall us having an argument back in the day when he said to me something along the lines of “words have meaning,” and I replied, “meaning is subjective.”
We may have even been arguing about the mental’s irreducibility like you two are now. Although I don’t remember.”
OK, that makes sense in this case. I do think grappling with this fact would help one understand how knowledge works and can be tested though, so at least it’s more useful than simply a semantics argument.
I read some of his blog articles to get an idea of his beliefs because I never read any before we started debating this, I just always saw him reference studies that contradicted PP’s articles/comments but I couldn’t understand what his stance was half the time. Now I got that he denies IQ completely and thinks it simply measures acculturation, but I think he also denies natural selection (?) and thinks genetics have no impact on mental states.
Some of those ideas are interesting but there’s way too many contentious data and complicated theories about evolution, genetics and IQ, and related stuff in the social sciences/evolutionary biology sciences that too tackle them would require me to become a full-time biologist and investigate every claim. So you kind of have to go by your own gut… but for me from a bottom-up perspective and my own observation I can’t see how anyone could say genetics or brain size don’t influence IQ greatly and that IQ tests are just acculturation (or intelligence can’t be measured).
The argument I’ve given is sound. It’s not “self-contradictory.” So what is an “objective definition”? I’ve already shown that definitions can’t be objective, since meaning is subjective. There are merely “agreed-upon definitions.” The views you attributed to me are the views I hold. Something being “about something” is intentionality, what one intends their meaning to be…
“No one cares”
It’s not just “whether IQ has a heritable element”, it’s the fact that psychological traits are not heritable, which allows me to conclude that “IQ” isn’t heritable because thinking is irreducible. And also the fact that thinking is an action and intentional means that, since intentions don’t reduce to physical/functional states, then thinking too is irreducible to them.
“What the hell is a “mental fact”?”
A mental fact is like “I am conscious now.” Mental facts are facts about the mind; they are feelings and judgements, for example. The existence of other kinds of facts other than physical facts is shown by the Knowledge Argument, concluding that some facts are non-physical.
“A physical fact is a mental fact.”
You just asked me “What the hell is a “mental fact”?” and you just equated physical facts and mental facts? The fact of the matter is, mental facts aren’t physical facts; they are separate for a reason, since they refer to different things. Mental facts don’t reduce to physical facts, per the arguments I’ve given you previously.
When it comes to hereditarianism, hereditarianism is genetic reductionism. Hereditarianism is the claim that psychological traits and mental abilities are genetically heritable. But relational developmental systems arguments refute the claim, showing that genes are merely passive in the construction of organisms and have no more importance than other developmental resources.
Do you know how tests are constructed? If you understand that, then you will understand my point/argument. There is no logical reason to accept one set of items that gives one distribution and set of group differences over another set of items that shows something else.
Anyway, my claim that meaning is subjective doesn’t undercut the distinction I’ve made between equity and equality.
Physical reality is necessary for mental reality. “Learning from the environment” isn’t “illogical”; that’s the basis of social learning! I deny that P causes M because physicalism is false.
Melo,
“I think I may have been the one that demonstrated to RR that meaning is subjective.”
Yes you are. I remember that conversation. After that I fell into a philosophy of language pit. After that, I formulated the arguments about describing mind in physical terms that refer only to physical properties and about mental facts being described only in terms of physical facts.
Lurkersaid:
“The argument I’ve given is sound. It’s not “self-contradictory.” So what is an “objective definition”?”
To the extent we agree on a concept, it’s objective as a definition. To the extent it actually matches reality, it’s objective as a description of reality.
“I’ve already shown that definitions can’t be objective, since meaning is subjective. There are merely “agreed-upon definitions.” The views you attributed to me are the views I hold. ”
I think my above shows they are objective.
“Something being “about something” is intentionality, what one intends their meaning to be…”
Intention is just a concept (as the description you gave) with an accompanied experience (qualia).
We can’t know whether inaminate objects have feelings/intentions because they have no ability to organize an action based on intention. That’s why you can’t prove panpsychism is false.
“It’s not just “whether IQ has a heritable element”, it’s the fact that psychological traits are not heritable, which allows me to conclude that “IQ” isn’t heritable because thinking is irreducible. ”
But you believe our psychological traits are influenced by the environment, which is a physical fact influencing psychology. You seem to think everything comes from the environment (or from a magical immaterial source).
Also the fact that we need to have a interpretive structure to understand the world is inherited by all humans. This is also a psychological trait because you need some conceptual understanding of reality in order to interpret in the first place, don’t you?
“And also the fact that thinking is an action and intentional means that, since intentions don’t reduce to physical/functional states, then thinking too is irreducible to them.”
This doesn’t prove that all thinking doesn’t reduce to physical states, only that the experience (qualia) of thinking doesn’t. The information processing seems to be extremely related to the physical state.
“A mental fact is like “I am conscious now.” Mental facts are facts about the mind; they are feelings and judgements, for example.
Feelings = qualia. This is not measured by IQ.
Judgement is simply how you think about something, which can be subconscious and computers can do it (they can take data and interpret it according to their programs).
We can recognize that we have a certain opinion in some cases and also not realize it for another. Conscious (active, experienced) thought does not seem necessary for holding an opiniion.
“The existence of other kinds of facts other than physical facts is shown by the Knowledge Argument, concluding that some facts are non-physical.”
But “mental facts” or qualia/experience is not what IQ measures, so is it important in a conversation about IQ or intelligence?
The important part of thinking for an IQ test is the information processing. What you experience does not matter.
“You just asked me “What the hell is a “mental fact”?” and you just equated physical facts and mental facts?”
I never heard the term and I just tried to go ahead and understand it based on what I thought made sense. But it seems self-contradictory so it’s better to clarify in case I’m missing something before going on a tangeant.
“The fact of the matter is, mental facts aren’t physical facts; they are separate for a reason, since they refer to different things. Mental facts don’t reduce to physical facts, per the arguments I’ve given you previously.”
Well, that’s fine but IQ is only concerned with testable information processing of the brain.
And like I mentioned before, physical facts themselves are just abstractions because they filter through the mind.
So both M and P are abstract facts and any irreducibility of M to P poses no problem since we don’t/can’t measure M-only facts.
“When it comes to hereditarianism, hereditarianism is genetic reductionism. Hereditarianism is the claim that psychological traits and mental abilities are genetically heritable. But relational developmental systems arguments refute the claim, showing that genes are merely passive in the construction of organisms and have no more importance than other developmental resources. ”
Genes leading to different development depending on the environment doesn’t really make a difference when we we are unable to control the environment that effects the genetic material. Hereditarianism doesn’t depend on genetic material specifically being primary or active above the rest of the environment when determining mental abilities, but just that a genetic difference determines a different psychology given the same environment. Just because genes and environment work together doesn’t mean hereditarianism is false. I’m not looking at hereditarianism vs. relation developmental systems but vs. environmentalism.
Relation developmental systems seem to explain the physical facts of biological development differently but according to your argument these physical facts have no specific impact on mental facts anyway.
But even so, it doesn’t refute hereditarianism because if genes or anything else inherited take a role in the psychological traits of a person, even if very tiny and if they are developed in feedback with the environment, there is still the “first cause” element to any organism that starts existing and grows unless we reject determinist laws of physics completely (which means we wouldn’t be talking about biology anyway), and part of that first cause comes from their parents DNA.
The evidence around us is that what is inherited from parents is quite a lot (or the environments around us magically make it seem like we inherit a lot, which is a much less parsimonious argument and again basically makes talking about biology useless anyway).
But I think this comes back to our different ideas about reality and what mental activity actually is. Because I think you can actually process measurably more or less information and that you can tend to think certain things based on how feelings influenced by biological processes interact with commonly held thought patterns, while you think such a thing is impossible. Since you think it’s impossible of course genes or inheritance are unimportant to what we think, since you don’t believe specifics of the mind is related at all to physical processes. Which comes back to the purely environmentalist position being self-contradictory because nothing about the laws of physics will impact one’s mental state in the first place (since it’s fundamentally dualistic apparently) yet they want to claim that the environment impacts one’s mental state through physical laws (how else would it impact our mental states)?
“Do you know how tests are constructed? If you understand that, then you will understand my point/argument. There is no logical reason to accept one set of items that gives one distribution and set of group differences over another set of items that shows something else.”
I understand that and no test is perfect, but it doesn’t explain the numerous correlates with IQ when it comes to life success. Or correlates with IQ and other random tests of nearly any sort. IQ tests seem to work better for hiring people than most other random criteria except work experience/credentials.
Even if you want to argue this is not “objective” (even though IQ test performance is clearly related to objective facts especially in math tests or logic tests), the fact that it is so extremely pragmatic (countries with low IQs seem to do much worse on any quality of life measure) is enough to show that there is something real being measured.
A simple example of what is better to put on a test is something about general knowledge vs. something about the test maker’s personal life. Both are objective and actual knowledge but the first is something anyone has a possibility of knowing while the first is obviously biased towards the test maker and those close to them. (Yeah that’s an obviously ridiculous example but it’s not more ridiculous than saying there is “no logical reason” to accept certain test items to make useful distributions) Even quibbling about certain IQ test distributions or results doesn’t refute the idea of IQ or intelligence which IQ tests correlate with because of the fact that if you have greater mental ability you will always do better given a decent sample size.
“Anyway, my claim that meaning is subjective doesn’t undercut the distinction I’ve made between equity and equality.”
My point about equity was that no one agrees on what is unfair. We agree on it as a concept (within a game or a trade or something) but not necessarily how it applies to life. In other words we don’t agree on what to apply the predicate “unfair” to. In that sense it is subjective.
“Physical reality is necessary for mental reality. “Learning from the environment” isn’t “illogical”; that’s the basis of social learning!”
The P facts from the environment give you sensory information to interpret. As you interpret them, you form a worldview (acculturate). meaning that your M (culture) is reduced to a P (environment)
“I deny that P causes M because physicalism is false.”
But you reaffirm it by stating our worldview (knowledge/culture) comes from environment.
Neandercelsaid:
“Fuck off, racist.”
You have the self-awareness of an amoeba. You have no moral right to dish out that sort of smug, self-righteous crap as a repentant ‘racist’.
Lurkersaid:
New objective definiton: People who can’t evaluate ideas outside of quoting books and peer-reviewed articles are the definition of a midwit.
wtf. only one who is gay here is you Pill i am far from gay. i dont like it in my ass and i dont think explaining this to you will help with your personal experiences with homosexuality.
If environmentalists want to go after those who view human cognition/thought and experience as purely deterministic and non-generative, they should go after Big Tech instead of hereditarians.
They’re building a huge infrastructure that controls every aspect of our lives with technology that relies purely on deterministic output without factoring in any kind of revolutionary, paradigm-shifting (context-shifting) ideas, like minds can apparently produce.
Shapiro is literally Jewish. He probably won’t have Ye on his show because Ben views him as anti-Semitic.
And calling me conservative doesn’t change reality. I’m a fucking communist.
LOADEDsaid:
Pill was saying it ironically. He was using an analogue to describe how Shapiro is as liberal as you are by using a contrasting term like conservative. Makes sense?
Erichthoniussaid:
Are neocons not conservative?
LOADEDsaid:
Pill is trying to say neocons are not conservative and that Ben Shapiro is a liberal communist just like you.
Erichthoniussaid:
Lol, what?
LOADEDsaid:
its not hard to get my man.
Erichthoniussaid:
I get it Loaded. I’ve just never heard someone think that Ben Shapiro was a liberal communist.
The Philosophersaid:
Ben is pretending to be a conservative. What part of that don’t you get?
Erichthoniussaid:
Lmao, what?
Neandercelsaid:
“I’m a fucking communist.”
No wonder you’re always bitching and moaning about waycism. Are you the trust fund variety of commie, or the bitter loser variety?
Erichthoniussaid:
So, is the Jewish conspiracy that Jews are over-represented among wealthy elites and that they use their influence to support liberal ideology? Or is it that they do all of that specifically because they hate gentiles and want to eradicate them? Because I can believe the former, but the latter is far-fetched to me.
Most “antisemites” think it’s the former, but there are some hardcore ones who think it’s the latter.
I think what makes the former camp the most angry is the hostility that a lot of influential Jews have towards gentiles with socially conservative values. You see this all the time in tropes like “1950s = bad” and “the South is backwards”. Without Jewish amplification, these messages wouldn’t be nearly as popular.
So when the NYT advocates for mass immigration, LGBT rights, banning slut shaming, etc., a lot of whites take that personally. And some are (falsely) led to believe that the Jews want them dead. The reality of course is that most Jews feel more comfortable in diverse, socially liberal societies, so they’re inclined to push for these things.
Then there’s the name calling and general lack of intellectual honesty that dominates a lot of progressive narratives, which pisses people off, too. This is what makes me the most angry. I don’t like being seen as an evil person for believing that racial differences in certain outcomes can have causes other than “Institutional Racism” and “White Privilege”. I have no issue with people thinking otherwise, but I don’t want my life to be ruined over an honest disagreement.
I think this is less a Jewish thing, though, and just a consequence of not adhering to a popular moral paradigm. Religious dissenters have pretty much always been treated poorly in gentile societies. We’re just living under a different kind of religion.
The Philosophersaid:
“Or is it that they do all of that specifically because they hate gentiles and want to eradicate them?”
Correct.
The Philosophersaid:
They are literally replacing everyone in America. Europe will be next, if not already happening here.
Erichthoniussaid:
LOL, clearly doesn’t know what “replacing” means.
Erichthoniussaid:
“You see this all the time in tropes like “1950s = bad” and “the South is backwards”.”
But those things are true. The 1950s were bad for a lot of Americans. The south IS backward, culturally and technologically. Most southern/rural states are welfare states.
“So when the NYT advocates for mass immigration, LGBT rights, banning slut shaming, etc., a lot of whites take that personally. ”
Why? I can kind of see how immigration can anger blue-collar whites, assuming you believe some of the economic claims, but I don’t understand why allowing women to be hoes in the same way that men would anger someone. Moreover, I cannot comprehend how the existence of gay people can anger someone so much unless they are extremely religious.
“I have no issue with people thinking otherwise, but I don’t want my life to be ruined over an honest disagreement.”
How can they see it as honest, though? You’re talking about believing and vocalizing that another race is inherently inferior in an aspect (intelligence) that is universally held to be the defining trait of humanity. It’s dehumanizing, and I can’t blame someone for wanting to ‘punch a nazi,’ so to speak.
Lurkersaid:
It also should be noted that a lot of the people who think that Jews harm Goy societies are divided between thinking it’s more conscious or subconscious. Some people would argue that they are actively harming Western society, but it is due to their nature (like being greedy or psychopathic or neurotic or something) rather than simply hating Goyim. But some people seem to think they actively hate and understand that they hate.
Really the whole thing is pretty convoluted because there are lots of mixed race jews as well. But there is a lot of truth to it as well so it keeps popping up.
It’s basically inevitable that the Jewish community would experience backlash as 99% either push or support the liberal equity narrative that anyone doing better than others did it through exploitation of some sort and needs to pay it back or suffer. So once regular people look up how much more power the average Jew has than everyone it looks hilariously bad according to the Jew’s own worldview.
TFR < 2 + open borders = replacement. DUH!said:
LOL, clearly doesn’t know what “replacing” means.
true. you clearly don’t know what it means. what is your naive language melo?
melo’s IQ is too low to be allowed to comment anymore.
note melo and rr are the only commenters who have no degree.
note pill and mugabe have the most education by far.
Erichthoniussaid:
“note pill and mugabe have the most education by far.”
Which is ironic, considering you two have the lowest IQs on the blog
LOADEDsaid:
i have a Bachelors in Finance from the school that Mug looked up. i am very proud of myself.
Erichthoniussaid:
Actually, I think RR does have a degree. Don’t know what it’s in, though.
the reason the US has no left is because of retards like melo and rr.said:
melo says he’s a communist yet he also recommends voting for democrats like the squad. like he squad he agrees with the US sending $240 for every american to the ukraine because putin and trans rights.
IQ too low to comment.
Erichthoniussaid:
Well, yeah. Democrats are more likely to enable left-wing economic policy than Republicans, especially if they are young idealists like the squad.
It honestly doesn’t surprise me that you’re “pro Russia.” Most alt-right cucks are cowards.
melo's low IQ is disgusting.said:
being against killing people makes me “pro russian”? you are subhuman. you are lower than excrement.
that’s it. melo MUST BE BANNED. he’s not only mentally retarded. he’s EVIL.
Erichthoniussaid:
Yeah, because not helping Ukraine will totally keep people from dying.
Face it, you aren’t “against killing people” you’re just a contrarian that thinks being different is the same as being objective.
Kill yourself.
Teffec P.said:
My interpretation is that their liberalism is due to some combination of a greater capacity for cognitive empathy and fear of white gentile clout. The latter is instinctive and understandable, but it’s annoying when they and others have no awareness of it and think their advocacy is altruistic. People generally operate on greed and fear, and you can say that about anyone except Jews.
They also just have a tendency to critique/be hostile to reality, which is why they’re good at comedy and want men to get pregnant. I don’t know if this is an inherent trait or if it was developed because of what they’ve gone through.. or if what they’ve gone through is because it IS inherent and it pisses people off.
The Philosophersaid:
Obviously they don’t believe in liberalism. Look at the treatment of the palestinians.
kanye is the shortest Sexiest Man Alive to date.said:
austin personality!
it’s got nothing to do with THINK.
behind every man. behind every woman.
is a wolf.
stop playing the game that there’s no BEHIND.
LOADEDsaid:
i wish i were as articulate as some of you here. i feel like Anime because i dont have the proper mental fortitude to articulate my thoughts the way i want them to.
although im very fluid in my writings i think articulation is a skill i have to work on. also on not getting tongue tied when i speak to people.
I don’t see most people do that here though. Most of us admit Asians are smarter and PP practically worships them.
My only confusion around Asians (which I think is shared by a lot of others) is why they aren’t ruling the world despite their intelligence, especially China with 1.5 billion people with apparently averaging at over 100 IQs. So it seems there is some other psychological or physiological drawback to the average East Asian.
But creating a civilization doesn’t necessarily make the society intellectually superior since apparently North and South Americans did it.
Jon Von Newman, Einstein, Newton. Lots of smart people didn’t run the World, and East Asians did run the World for centuries.
Lurkersaid:
Those are just particular examples, because overall higher IQ nations and individuals tend to be more succesful lower IQ ones. And all of them might have had their weird psychological elements (especially Neumann) that made them not excel socially. Plus they were all successful and had clout anyway, so…
We wouldn’t expect the correlation between IQ and power (even at the group level) to be perfect, especially when the East Asian > white IQ gap is so small.
Lurkersaid:
Well I’m not disagreeing about that but I’m more wondering about why East Asians don’t have more intellectual feats given their intelligence. Especially China with its huge population.
The Philosophersaid:
I think youre wrong Puppy. I think that 5 points is qualitatively gigantic. And I suspect the tails are longer for the east asian IQ distribution.
The reason east asians stagnated is complicated. The operating theory is that they basically domesticated themselves too much.
We shouldn’t accept Lynn’s numbers for one, and for two, he didn’t use many, many studies for China (1, 2). Funny enough, there is no response yet to Rebecca Sear’s (3) and Christian Ebbeson’s (4) critiques of the dataset from hereditarians yet. Further, China is selective with the provinces they report to the OECD for the PISA—they only provide 4 provinces, so one cannot claim that those results are representative of China (5, 6). What explains Asian American academic achievement is the selectivity of the population, with certain rules being in effect that makes such selectivity possible since the 1970s, (7, 8, 9, 10). There is also the fact that after the economic upturn in Asian countries, their “superiority” began being talked about by people like Lynn, when for a long time they were talked about like blacks are talked about today. (11).
So putting this altogether we have: Asians to America are a selected population; Chinese “IQ” is inflated by Lynn ignoring numerous studies; the Chinese are shady when it comes to PISA results; and we should reject claims from Lynn and Becker’s “dataset” since it’s they don’t provide an unbiased, comparable accurate comparison between countries, nevermind within them. Thus, the only takeaway here is that Lynn is a hack.
” . . . and East Asians did run the World for centuries.”
PP, what on Earth are you talking about? The Turks, Mongols, and Tartars were all Central Asians rather than East Asians.
“It’s absolutely hilarious the amount of mental gymnastics whites will pull to try and deny Asians their intellectual feats.”
Eric, I’m a known indophile. Did you read the linked article? It asserts that the Chinese received the rudiments of their civilization from other Asians, not from whites (my joke about the Tocharians notwithstanding).
Run the world was overstatement but they were the most powerful
LOADEDsaid:
wow Neandercel youre an indophile? have you ever been with an indian girl i ask out of curiosity.
Pumpkin China was a strong country but very isolated and never really in control of things. their power has and will always be a weak sort of persuasive rule they have and they will suffer collateral damage in any case if they try to extend their power in any regard.
Neandercelsaid:
“Run the world was overstatement but they were the most powerful”
That’s true. Sorry, I was being an asshole.
“wow Neandercel youre an indophile? have you ever been with an indian girl i ask out of curiosity.”
Yeah, I’ve always found Indian culture to be fascinating. I’ve only been with white women, but I have a thing for Indian women (especially Punjabis).
Expecting Howard Stern or [name redacted by pp, 2022-10-30] to tell you what your morality is Melo is a fool’s errand. These people have nothing going on between their eyes. Theyre like sharks. You hate racists because they hate racists. Not because you hate racists.
I hate racists because they’re racist. It just seems immoral to despise another group of people for something they can’t control. It’s like hating someone because they’re disabled or because they have a weird name.
Melo is a kind of derivative of RR. I would say RR is woke because he is sleeping with a black woman. I don’t think anyone could be as dense as RR. But I would say Melo is woke because he is stupid. Objectively white gentiles created everything and everything that is worth admiring.
Its true that insofar as you believe in good and evil the only objective way to tell would be through aesthetics. Nature wouldn’t lie. Its objectively true blacks and jews are ugly.
Gentlemen, I’d like to propose that the concept of happiness is un-empirical and possibly incoherent
It has no clear definition. As the term is ordinarily used, it’s supposed to describe something like an indefinitely protracted experience of excitement, pleasure, satisfaction, and serenity. Have any of you ever known anything remotely resembling this?
Like enlightenment, grace, and sanctification, happiness refers to something outside of ordinary experience. It is conceivable only within a religious framework because it is miraculous.
Secular self-help books are retarded. There’s not a damned thing to be happy about if we’re rotting meat machines making idiot noises at one another on a rock hurtling around a radioactive fireball* at 66,000 mph.
Pumpkin Person 
clickbait.
Melo is crying right now.
I’m confused. When did I say this wasn’t going to happen?
When you say racist things, most of the civilized world will turn their backs on you. That’s not really new, but Kanye is NOT going anywhere. He’s too big. The most diehard Ye stans will always be around.
What I said is true and will hold true; I’m literally watching a TikTok video right now about Kanye, and his fans are in the comments saying:
“the elites mad they can’t control kanye”
“he spoke his mind and they silenced him”
“If this isn’t tell you who actually runs the show and don’t want him to speak on it you’re truly trapped in a mindless world”
And this didn’t ‘demolish’ Ye’s net worth. He’s still worth hundreds of millions of dollars and could easily just sell his Yeezy’s himself.
yeah its definitely not a black and white picture like many autist commenters would want but it fills the bigger picture which is that some people adored by many can get away with a lot.
I think adidas owns the rights to his Yeezy designs
They do, but I think he owns the trademark. People buy yeezys because of the brand, not the design.
Melo youre nothing but a dumb black cock worshipper.
LOL, I don’t understand why you get so upset when I state facts.
Pill is insecure about being cuckolded by a black man meLo. its obvious to anyone who reads this blog and has a brain.
he has tiny-penis syndrome.
Melo is not black…
A shocking revelation.
Well that certainly doesn’t offer any evidence against the Jews controlling most major industries.
I’ll be sorely disappointed if Kanye recants.
Kek. So, apparently, a sizable fraction of his net “worth” was dependent on the success of the shoes he endorsed. I suppose taking out a giant loan would make me a millionaire huh? Maybe I should buy myself a mail-order bride and not even have her shipped to my physical location so I can brag about how much pussy I slay.
Most billionaires are worth what the market is willing to pay for their company, not money they’ve already been paid. Oprah’s the exception
>> Not having valuable assets
yeah most people arent what they say theyre worth this is obvious.
My point is the way net worth is calculated is very unreliable if your worth is tied to assets that lack fixed value
i wasnt questioning what you were saying just stating something i thought was obvious lol.
youre so sensitive Pumpkin.
i was just clarifying cause i wrongly thought you misunderstood. i couldn’t be here if i were sensitive
I wonder what the Kosher Sandwich for this is going to be. My best guess:
Right: Rap music/gansta culture is bad because antisemitic.
Left: Kanye was a genius but off meds now. Only crazy people think bad things about Jews.
that type of thinking is ostentatiously designed and fails to take notice of the fact that the right doesnt care about antisemitism as much as you think they do and i dont think the liberals will forgive Kanye as much as you think you do.
maybe as general statements they make sense but for the time being i would think more ambiguous arrangements will prevail.
With the exception of Catholic paleocons like Buchanan and some of the more irreverent secular libertarians, American right-wingers are extremely philosemitic.
The American Anglo-Saxon population is principally descended from Calvinist fanatics who saw themselves as being – in some sense – da troo jooz.
yeah but the right is all about virtue signaling so they will care more about how to virtue signal their position than the actual position they hold.
believing themselves to be the moral upholders they might not want to disparage rap music as much as you think they will honestly.
they hold values that are not clear and path focused as you think they are is all im saying.
Imagine living in a culture so shallow that people care about what some rapper said about anything
The jews control the culture.
The highest IQ people in the world gave us a culture of worshipping magic negroes.
If your thesis is that Jews created the culture of worshipping blacks, why do you think so many of the biggest beneficiaries of that culture (Kanye, Michael Jackson) so resent Jews?
The jews may have abused them. Certainly financially speaking.
But according to you, Jews are the reason they have finances worth abusing in the first place, so aren’t they looking a gift horse in the mouth?
Ganzir everyone has a voice and who are you to tell them not to speak when people will listen?
Everyone has a voice but that doesn’t mean they should be using it
you use your voice until you have nothing else to say.
By getting offended at Kanye attacking their tribe, because it was racist, they admit that people think tribally and they are legitimately afraid of it.
So basically, they admit by thinking others likely think tribally, they think tribally… thereby proving Ye’s point.
Yes, it’s semi-retarded 4D chess, just like Trump. But isn’t that what we all do? It’s beautiful to watch.
Jesus Christ you think hypocrisy works with these guys? They abuse palestinians daily and their media never mention the apartheid state in Israel.
Right but I’m not really talking about Jews understanding their hypocrisy but other people.
Hopefully average people are paying attention and taking notes…
I predict Kanye will apologise for his views and blame Trump for telling him about the jews.
I think he already apologized for the tweet.
Melo why haven’t you called Kanye a russian spy yet?
Please get new jokes.
Puppy is a russian spy.
i look a little like tik.
“No IQ test is perfect therefore IQ is fake.” =
“No circle is perfect therefore circles are fake.”
“No definition of intelligence is testable or falsifiable.” =
“No definition of health or goodness is testable or falsifiable.”
Often the same people who deny IQ on shaky grounds will then support provably horrible ideologies like equity or communism. Even though in communism “from each according to their ability, to each according their needs”, there is no good definition of “ability”, “needs” or whether it is even a fair idea.
“probably horrible ideologies like equity”
It’s OK if you don’t know what “equity” means. Inequities are a kind of inequality which are avoidable, unfair and unjust.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2021/09/12/the-distinction-between-equity-and-equality/
Health” is a multi-dimensional, context-dependent concept. Discussions in medicine should be framed in terms of state descriptions (describing physiological/psychological states) and normative claims (what we value/disvalue), not searching for the “correct definition” for health and disease. (See Ereshefsky 2009.)
Do you believe in your life being unfairly just or unjust RR?
“probably horrible ideologies like equity”
“It’s OK if you don’t know what “equity” means. Inequities are a kind of inequality which are avoidable, unfair and unjust.”
You didn’t grasp my point at all. Avoidable, unfair, and unjust HAVE NO OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS! That’s why people have different political views.
“Health” is a multi-dimensional, context-dependent concept. Discussions in medicine should be framed in terms of state descriptions (describing physiological/psychological states) and normative claims (what we value/disvalue), not searching for the “correct definition” for health and disease. (See Ereshefsky 2009.)”
Jesus christ you don’t need a citation for that. (unless you want to point out you were quoting someone).
Yes obviously health is context-dependent… but we still tend to agree on it. And we can agree on what is healthy, given what context. So it has an objective basis, though it differs depending on the context.
Ever since RR started dating this black woman hes been spouting stupid woke stuff.
“Avoidable, unfair, and unjust HAVE NO OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS!”
“Midwits” believe that “objective definitions” are a thing.
When you start oil drilling it messes with your mind. RR probably thinks we all owe reparations to his gf now.
Fuck off, racist.
Objective definitions exist, depending on the axioms. What are you on about? You don’t think logic and mathematics are objective?
Pill was right, there’s no use arguing with you because you won’t think about anything that hasn’t been in the “conclusions” section in some paper. Might as well be talking to a bot at this point.
“Ever since RR started dating this black woman hes been spouting stupid woke stuff.”
It does check out lol.
“Objective definitions exist”
This is such nonsense. When we talk about definitions for X, we are talking about the meaning of X. Meaning is subjective. If meaning is subjective, then words—by themselves—have no meaning. If words by themselves have no meaning, then definitions are subjective and can’t be objective.
“It does check out”
Appeal to motive.
PP censors the most mundane words but doesn’t censor an outright racist term “oil driller”—weird….
Sorry that was lack of IQ on my part. I didn’t connect oil with the colour black with the race black quicky enough when skimming to censor it. Next time it will be moderated.
RR is smarter than Pill.
Oil Drilling isn’t a racist word or term. Its informal. Its like when guys call a woman who likes blacks a mudshark. How the hell is that racist?
“Its like when guys call a woman who likes blacks a mudshark. How the hell is that racist?”
Lmao, I think this perfectly encapsulates Philo’s obliviousness.
“This is such nonsense. When we talk about definitions for X, we are talking about the meaning of X. Meaning is subjective. If meaning is subjective, then words—by themselves—have no meaning. If words by themselves have no meaning, then definitions are subjective and can’t be objective.”
Everything you said here was wrong.
Words have meaning. That’s how we refer to same thing. Perhaps when we get into the details, we disagree about the meaning, but they must have some similarity or we wouldn’t be able to communicate.
Subjective means no absolute meaning.
So “meaning is subjective”, does that have objective meaning or not? If it’s purely subjective, stop talking to me (and anyone).
“Appeal to motive.”
Are you autistic or messing with me?
“Midwits” believe that “objective definitions” are a thing.
literally the most evil and retarded and hypocritical thing ever said on this blog by anyone.
objective definitions are only a thing when talking about IQ tests not when talking about meaningless woke vocab.
this is rr’s excuse for bombing the SAT-V. what a loser.
It’s OK if you don’t know what “equity” means… because neither do i, because it’s all subjective, it means whatever you want it to mean. that’s why i’m a high-brow and no a mid-wit.
rr wants “oil driller” banned even though it doesn’t mean anything. it’s all subjective. like “racist”.
peepee not redacting it is an example of high IQ. peepee promising to redact it is an example of low IQ.
Lack of meaning != subjective, you fucking moron.
Lurker,
“Subjective means no absolute meaning.”
Words do not hold absolute meaning. That’s why definitions and language evolve. That’s why the term “cat” can refer to the four-legged animal that sleeps all day on the back of the couch… or to your mother’s pussy.
““Subjective means no absolute meaning.””
To be absolutely clear, I mean COMPLETELY subjective means no absolute meaning.
“Words do not hold absolute meaning. That’s why definitions and language evolve. That’s why the term “cat” can refer to the four-legged animal that sleeps all day on the back of the couch… or to your mother’s pussy.”
This is obviously not my point. My point is when we refer to a cat, regardless of whether or not we agree on every jot and tiddle, we mostly have the same picture for what we are talking about. And to the degree we are referring to the same thing, that is objective. Otherwise we couldn’t be communicating.
I’m pretty sure this is extremely obvious if you actually think about it.
I’m aware words are invented by humans.
So yes, our words have absolute meaning as long as we are referring to the same thing (which is what we do when we use words…)
Yes, words obviously refer to human abstractions. But that’s been my point for most of this argument since RR brought up “M is not reducible to P” or even before that. Everything we understand about the world, including “physical facts” are abstractions… everything goes through the mind. I don’t think you can even perceive or conceive of anything that isn’t an abstraction. It’s basically tautalogical because conceiving or perceiving is something done by a mind.
If I say “there are 10 apples on the table”, all the words and concepts in that “physical fact” about apples and tables are all abstractions that the mind must grasp/form.
So when a scientist gathers more data, they will never be able to get data that isn’t abstract, because all data is an abstraction, because all of it is defined by the constraints of the mind. So either you agree that the mind can correspond with objective facts (or “physical facts”) or you should just give up on reality.
That’s why we can use language to actually talk about the world… because our mind is capable of forming the correct conceptions about physical reality. It’s not because physical reality magically “gives” us “physical facts” into our minds. Or maybe it does… but that would automatically defeat RR’s argument, because it would mean that mental facts were reducible to physical facts.
That’s why RR’s conception of learning from the environment is illogical since it acts as if the environment can magicallly give someone a way to view the world (culture), while also stating that physical reality does not determine mental reality (AKA does not determine one’s cultural context). That’s why I’m saying RR’s definition of intelligence is magical, because it seems to be self-contradictory or dualistic to a point that it’s unfalsifiable completely. (It seems to say knowledge is created by the culture but then gives no apparatus by which anyone can receive knowledge from the environment because it denies P causing M)
“So yes, our words have absolute meaning as long as we are referring to the same thing (which is what we do when we use words…)”
You and I agreeing on the meaning of terms we use doesn’t suddenly mean their meaning is objective. At least not in the way that it is normally meant.
No offense, but I’m not really interested y’alls argument over the mental’s irreducibility. I was just trying to clarify what RR is saying.
“You and I agreeing on the meaning of terms we use doesn’t suddenly mean their meaning is objective.”
It does mean the meaning is objective, because any meaning is objective. We both have some idea about what we are talking about when we refer to something, and that is objectively true. And if we are communicating, we must also objectively be communicating about the same thing to the extent we are actually communicating (and not talking past each other). What we are talking about might not correspond to physical reality, but it certainly corresponds objectively to the concepts we are referring to and what’s in our mind.
“If meaning is subjective, then words—by themselves—have no meaning. If words by themselves have no meaning, then definitions are subjective and can’t be objective.”
RR here states that because a word has no inherit meaning until we give it one, the definitions are subjective. I said what is “unfair” has no “objective definition”, which I meant we cannot agree on how it is actually applied and how it exists in reality and various details as evidenced in politics.
But his argument basically goes on to state there is no such thing as “unfair” because the definitions are created by people. So my point was that our detailed definitions are subjective, but not that the concept itself is subjective. We are still objectively referring to the same thing on some level, or else we couldn’t communicate. And that thing is more than a word because it actually coheres to other ideas we have in our mind.
“At least not in the way that it is normally meant.”
I think his idea about words being subjective is related to his metaphysical argument about the mind vs. physical world. (I guess it’s also an epistemological argument)
“No offense, but I’m not really interested y’alls argument over the mental’s irreducibility. I was just trying to clarify what RR is saying.”
No problem of course.
“It does mean the meaning is objective”
That’s not what objective means, though. I think we agree, but the point of contention is semantic.
“I think his idea about words being subjective is related to his metaphysical argument about the mind vs. physical world. (I guess it’s also an epistemological argument)”
So, I can’t speak for RR, but I do not believe that is the case. Words and definitions are subjective regardless of whatever ontological philosophy you subscribe. In fact, I think I may have been the one that demonstrated to RR that meaning is subjective. I vaguely recall us having an argument back in the day when he said to me something along the lines of “words have meaning,” and I replied, “meaning is subjective.”
We may have even been arguing about the mental’s irreducibility like you two are now. Although I don’t remember.
“That’s not what objective means, though. I think we agree, but the point of contention is semantic.”
Yeah I think we agree but I think the fact that RR thinks culture is somehow separated and that no test item could represent an objective measure of knowledge implies that he doesn’t understand that objective facts exist and can be known (or he has a mental block with some other belief).
The meaning of a word is objective in the sense we are talking about something objective, because meaning is always objective up to the point it is noncontradictory (since it is always “about something” which implies that there is something to be about).
A “three-sided square” has meaning in the sense we are talking about a shape that has sides, but it is mathematically impossible and self-contradictory. But at least we agree we are objectively referring to shapes so it can’t be said that it is subjective.
What we choose a specific word to refer to is of course subjective.
“So, I can’t speak for RR, but I do not believe that is the case. Words and definitions are subjective regardless of whatever ontological philosophy you subscribe. In fact, I think I may have been the one that demonstrated to RR that meaning is subjective. I vaguely recall us having an argument back in the day when he said to me something along the lines of “words have meaning,” and I replied, “meaning is subjective.”
We may have even been arguing about the mental’s irreducibility like you two are now. Although I don’t remember.”
OK, that makes sense in this case. I do think grappling with this fact would help one understand how knowledge works and can be tested though, so at least it’s more useful than simply a semantics argument.
I read some of his blog articles to get an idea of his beliefs because I never read any before we started debating this, I just always saw him reference studies that contradicted PP’s articles/comments but I couldn’t understand what his stance was half the time. Now I got that he denies IQ completely and thinks it simply measures acculturation, but I think he also denies natural selection (?) and thinks genetics have no impact on mental states.
Some of those ideas are interesting but there’s way too many contentious data and complicated theories about evolution, genetics and IQ, and related stuff in the social sciences/evolutionary biology sciences that too tackle them would require me to become a full-time biologist and investigate every claim. So you kind of have to go by your own gut… but for me from a bottom-up perspective and my own observation I can’t see how anyone could say genetics or brain size don’t influence IQ greatly and that IQ tests are just acculturation (or intelligence can’t be measured).
Lurker,
The argument I’ve given is sound. It’s not “self-contradictory.” So what is an “objective definition”? I’ve already shown that definitions can’t be objective, since meaning is subjective. There are merely “agreed-upon definitions.” The views you attributed to me are the views I hold. Something being “about something” is intentionality, what one intends their meaning to be…
“No one cares”
It’s not just “whether IQ has a heritable element”, it’s the fact that psychological traits are not heritable, which allows me to conclude that “IQ” isn’t heritable because thinking is irreducible. And also the fact that thinking is an action and intentional means that, since intentions don’t reduce to physical/functional states, then thinking too is irreducible to them.
“What the hell is a “mental fact”?”
A mental fact is like “I am conscious now.” Mental facts are facts about the mind; they are feelings and judgements, for example. The existence of other kinds of facts other than physical facts is shown by the Knowledge Argument, concluding that some facts are non-physical.
“A physical fact is a mental fact.”
You just asked me “What the hell is a “mental fact”?” and you just equated physical facts and mental facts? The fact of the matter is, mental facts aren’t physical facts; they are separate for a reason, since they refer to different things. Mental facts don’t reduce to physical facts, per the arguments I’ve given you previously.
When it comes to hereditarianism, hereditarianism is genetic reductionism. Hereditarianism is the claim that psychological traits and mental abilities are genetically heritable. But relational developmental systems arguments refute the claim, showing that genes are merely passive in the construction of organisms and have no more importance than other developmental resources.
Do you know how tests are constructed? If you understand that, then you will understand my point/argument. There is no logical reason to accept one set of items that gives one distribution and set of group differences over another set of items that shows something else.
Anyway, my claim that meaning is subjective doesn’t undercut the distinction I’ve made between equity and equality.
Physical reality is necessary for mental reality. “Learning from the environment” isn’t “illogical”; that’s the basis of social learning! I deny that P causes M because physicalism is false.
Melo,
“I think I may have been the one that demonstrated to RR that meaning is subjective.”
Yes you are. I remember that conversation. After that I fell into a philosophy of language pit. After that, I formulated the arguments about describing mind in physical terms that refer only to physical properties and about mental facts being described only in terms of physical facts.
“The argument I’ve given is sound. It’s not “self-contradictory.” So what is an “objective definition”?”
To the extent we agree on a concept, it’s objective as a definition. To the extent it actually matches reality, it’s objective as a description of reality.
“I’ve already shown that definitions can’t be objective, since meaning is subjective. There are merely “agreed-upon definitions.” The views you attributed to me are the views I hold. ”
I think my above shows they are objective.
“Something being “about something” is intentionality, what one intends their meaning to be…”
Intention is just a concept (as the description you gave) with an accompanied experience (qualia).
We can’t know whether inaminate objects have feelings/intentions because they have no ability to organize an action based on intention. That’s why you can’t prove panpsychism is false.
“It’s not just “whether IQ has a heritable element”, it’s the fact that psychological traits are not heritable, which allows me to conclude that “IQ” isn’t heritable because thinking is irreducible. ”
But you believe our psychological traits are influenced by the environment, which is a physical fact influencing psychology. You seem to think everything comes from the environment (or from a magical immaterial source).
Also the fact that we need to have a interpretive structure to understand the world is inherited by all humans. This is also a psychological trait because you need some conceptual understanding of reality in order to interpret in the first place, don’t you?
“And also the fact that thinking is an action and intentional means that, since intentions don’t reduce to physical/functional states, then thinking too is irreducible to them.”
This doesn’t prove that all thinking doesn’t reduce to physical states, only that the experience (qualia) of thinking doesn’t. The information processing seems to be extremely related to the physical state.
“A mental fact is like “I am conscious now.” Mental facts are facts about the mind; they are feelings and judgements, for example.
Feelings = qualia. This is not measured by IQ.
Judgement is simply how you think about something, which can be subconscious and computers can do it (they can take data and interpret it according to their programs).
We can recognize that we have a certain opinion in some cases and also not realize it for another. Conscious (active, experienced) thought does not seem necessary for holding an opiniion.
“The existence of other kinds of facts other than physical facts is shown by the Knowledge Argument, concluding that some facts are non-physical.”
But “mental facts” or qualia/experience is not what IQ measures, so is it important in a conversation about IQ or intelligence?
The important part of thinking for an IQ test is the information processing. What you experience does not matter.
“You just asked me “What the hell is a “mental fact”?” and you just equated physical facts and mental facts?”
I never heard the term and I just tried to go ahead and understand it based on what I thought made sense. But it seems self-contradictory so it’s better to clarify in case I’m missing something before going on a tangeant.
“The fact of the matter is, mental facts aren’t physical facts; they are separate for a reason, since they refer to different things. Mental facts don’t reduce to physical facts, per the arguments I’ve given you previously.”
Well, that’s fine but IQ is only concerned with testable information processing of the brain.
And like I mentioned before, physical facts themselves are just abstractions because they filter through the mind.
So both M and P are abstract facts and any irreducibility of M to P poses no problem since we don’t/can’t measure M-only facts.
“When it comes to hereditarianism, hereditarianism is genetic reductionism. Hereditarianism is the claim that psychological traits and mental abilities are genetically heritable. But relational developmental systems arguments refute the claim, showing that genes are merely passive in the construction of organisms and have no more importance than other developmental resources. ”
Genes leading to different development depending on the environment doesn’t really make a difference when we we are unable to control the environment that effects the genetic material. Hereditarianism doesn’t depend on genetic material specifically being primary or active above the rest of the environment when determining mental abilities, but just that a genetic difference determines a different psychology given the same environment. Just because genes and environment work together doesn’t mean hereditarianism is false. I’m not looking at hereditarianism vs. relation developmental systems but vs. environmentalism.
Relation developmental systems seem to explain the physical facts of biological development differently but according to your argument these physical facts have no specific impact on mental facts anyway.
But even so, it doesn’t refute hereditarianism because if genes or anything else inherited take a role in the psychological traits of a person, even if very tiny and if they are developed in feedback with the environment, there is still the “first cause” element to any organism that starts existing and grows unless we reject determinist laws of physics completely (which means we wouldn’t be talking about biology anyway), and part of that first cause comes from their parents DNA.
The evidence around us is that what is inherited from parents is quite a lot (or the environments around us magically make it seem like we inherit a lot, which is a much less parsimonious argument and again basically makes talking about biology useless anyway).
But I think this comes back to our different ideas about reality and what mental activity actually is. Because I think you can actually process measurably more or less information and that you can tend to think certain things based on how feelings influenced by biological processes interact with commonly held thought patterns, while you think such a thing is impossible. Since you think it’s impossible of course genes or inheritance are unimportant to what we think, since you don’t believe specifics of the mind is related at all to physical processes. Which comes back to the purely environmentalist position being self-contradictory because nothing about the laws of physics will impact one’s mental state in the first place (since it’s fundamentally dualistic apparently) yet they want to claim that the environment impacts one’s mental state through physical laws (how else would it impact our mental states)?
“Do you know how tests are constructed? If you understand that, then you will understand my point/argument. There is no logical reason to accept one set of items that gives one distribution and set of group differences over another set of items that shows something else.”
I understand that and no test is perfect, but it doesn’t explain the numerous correlates with IQ when it comes to life success. Or correlates with IQ and other random tests of nearly any sort. IQ tests seem to work better for hiring people than most other random criteria except work experience/credentials.
Even if you want to argue this is not “objective” (even though IQ test performance is clearly related to objective facts especially in math tests or logic tests), the fact that it is so extremely pragmatic (countries with low IQs seem to do much worse on any quality of life measure) is enough to show that there is something real being measured.
A simple example of what is better to put on a test is something about general knowledge vs. something about the test maker’s personal life. Both are objective and actual knowledge but the first is something anyone has a possibility of knowing while the first is obviously biased towards the test maker and those close to them. (Yeah that’s an obviously ridiculous example but it’s not more ridiculous than saying there is “no logical reason” to accept certain test items to make useful distributions) Even quibbling about certain IQ test distributions or results doesn’t refute the idea of IQ or intelligence which IQ tests correlate with because of the fact that if you have greater mental ability you will always do better given a decent sample size.
“Anyway, my claim that meaning is subjective doesn’t undercut the distinction I’ve made between equity and equality.”
My point about equity was that no one agrees on what is unfair. We agree on it as a concept (within a game or a trade or something) but not necessarily how it applies to life. In other words we don’t agree on what to apply the predicate “unfair” to. In that sense it is subjective.
“Physical reality is necessary for mental reality. “Learning from the environment” isn’t “illogical”; that’s the basis of social learning!”
The P facts from the environment give you sensory information to interpret. As you interpret them, you form a worldview (acculturate). meaning that your M (culture) is reduced to a P (environment)
“I deny that P causes M because physicalism is false.”
But you reaffirm it by stating our worldview (knowledge/culture) comes from environment.
“Fuck off, racist.”
You have the self-awareness of an amoeba. You have no moral right to dish out that sort of smug, self-righteous crap as a repentant ‘racist’.
New objective definiton: People who can’t evaluate ideas outside of quoting books and peer-reviewed articles are the definition of a midwit.
I don’t know who loves black penises more. Mugabe or Melo. We have 2 disgusting people here. Loaded also loves it in his ass.
wtf. only one who is gay here is you Pill i am far from gay. i dont like it in my ass and i dont think explaining this to you will help with your personal experiences with homosexuality.
drop it.
i love to post pictures of yuge black penises on peepee’s blog. true. but otherwise i find them unattractive.
Mug i bet youve sucked your fair share off. do you spit or swallow?
nein!
but i’m not so gay that i haven’t tried to grok why women would be attracted to men at all.
i think i unnuhstan it a little, but i still don’t unnuhstan it. it’s like the holocaust.
straight man’s idea of what women want = what fags want = greek god
straight women’s idea of what men want = greek goddess
the various imperfections are disgusting to people in their own gender but forgiven by straight people in the opposite gender.
Mug of Pee, did you see this?
rr needs to read ahmad sam’adi on adam and then apologize.
Puppy is turning all these people gay with his Oprah worship.
If environmentalists want to go after those who view human cognition/thought and experience as purely deterministic and non-generative, they should go after Big Tech instead of hereditarians.
They’re building a huge infrastructure that controls every aspect of our lives with technology that relies purely on deterministic output without factoring in any kind of revolutionary, paradigm-shifting (context-shifting) ideas, like minds can apparently produce.
Before the mind ‘was’ a computer, it ‘was’ a clockwork mechanism. Midwits literalize metaphors.
Big Tech is Big Gay.
PP, you should add the following as a floor item/screening for profound autism on your social intelligence test:
“If after saying Jews run media and banks you get deplatformed and banned from banks, these consequences are _______”
a. corroborative
b. coincidental
And Ben Shapiro, who is always whining about conservatives being censored, refuses to have him on the Daily Wire.
rr isn’t just low IQ…
he is AGGRESSIVELY low IQ…
and…
BELLIGERENTLY low IQ.
Ben is in on it. Hes one of the neocons. He’s about as conservative as Melo.
Shapiro is literally Jewish. He probably won’t have Ye on his show because Ben views him as anti-Semitic.
And calling me conservative doesn’t change reality. I’m a fucking communist.
Pill was saying it ironically. He was using an analogue to describe how Shapiro is as liberal as you are by using a contrasting term like conservative. Makes sense?
Are neocons not conservative?
Pill is trying to say neocons are not conservative and that Ben Shapiro is a liberal communist just like you.
Lol, what?
its not hard to get my man.
I get it Loaded. I’ve just never heard someone think that Ben Shapiro was a liberal communist.
Ben is pretending to be a conservative. What part of that don’t you get?
Lmao, what?
“I’m a fucking communist.”
No wonder you’re always bitching and moaning about waycism. Are you the trust fund variety of commie, or the bitter loser variety?
So, is the Jewish conspiracy that Jews are over-represented among wealthy elites and that they use their influence to support liberal ideology? Or is it that they do all of that specifically because they hate gentiles and want to eradicate them? Because I can believe the former, but the latter is far-fetched to me.
Most “antisemites” think it’s the former, but there are some hardcore ones who think it’s the latter.
I think what makes the former camp the most angry is the hostility that a lot of influential Jews have towards gentiles with socially conservative values. You see this all the time in tropes like “1950s = bad” and “the South is backwards”. Without Jewish amplification, these messages wouldn’t be nearly as popular.
So when the NYT advocates for mass immigration, LGBT rights, banning slut shaming, etc., a lot of whites take that personally. And some are (falsely) led to believe that the Jews want them dead. The reality of course is that most Jews feel more comfortable in diverse, socially liberal societies, so they’re inclined to push for these things.
Then there’s the name calling and general lack of intellectual honesty that dominates a lot of progressive narratives, which pisses people off, too. This is what makes me the most angry. I don’t like being seen as an evil person for believing that racial differences in certain outcomes can have causes other than “Institutional Racism” and “White Privilege”. I have no issue with people thinking otherwise, but I don’t want my life to be ruined over an honest disagreement.
I think this is less a Jewish thing, though, and just a consequence of not adhering to a popular moral paradigm. Religious dissenters have pretty much always been treated poorly in gentile societies. We’re just living under a different kind of religion.
“Or is it that they do all of that specifically because they hate gentiles and want to eradicate them?”
Correct.
They are literally replacing everyone in America. Europe will be next, if not already happening here.
LOL, clearly doesn’t know what “replacing” means.
“You see this all the time in tropes like “1950s = bad” and “the South is backwards”.”
But those things are true. The 1950s were bad for a lot of Americans. The south IS backward, culturally and technologically. Most southern/rural states are welfare states.
“So when the NYT advocates for mass immigration, LGBT rights, banning slut shaming, etc., a lot of whites take that personally. ”
Why? I can kind of see how immigration can anger blue-collar whites, assuming you believe some of the economic claims, but I don’t understand why allowing women to be hoes in the same way that men would anger someone. Moreover, I cannot comprehend how the existence of gay people can anger someone so much unless they are extremely religious.
“I have no issue with people thinking otherwise, but I don’t want my life to be ruined over an honest disagreement.”
How can they see it as honest, though? You’re talking about believing and vocalizing that another race is inherently inferior in an aspect (intelligence) that is universally held to be the defining trait of humanity. It’s dehumanizing, and I can’t blame someone for wanting to ‘punch a nazi,’ so to speak.
It also should be noted that a lot of the people who think that Jews harm Goy societies are divided between thinking it’s more conscious or subconscious. Some people would argue that they are actively harming Western society, but it is due to their nature (like being greedy or psychopathic or neurotic or something) rather than simply hating Goyim. But some people seem to think they actively hate and understand that they hate.
Really the whole thing is pretty convoluted because there are lots of mixed race jews as well. But there is a lot of truth to it as well so it keeps popping up.
It’s basically inevitable that the Jewish community would experience backlash as 99% either push or support the liberal equity narrative that anyone doing better than others did it through exploitation of some sort and needs to pay it back or suffer. So once regular people look up how much more power the average Jew has than everyone it looks hilariously bad according to the Jew’s own worldview.
LOL, clearly doesn’t know what “replacing” means.
true. you clearly don’t know what it means. what is your naive language melo?
melo’s IQ is too low to be allowed to comment anymore.
note melo and rr are the only commenters who have no degree.
note pill and mugabe have the most education by far.
“note pill and mugabe have the most education by far.”
Which is ironic, considering you two have the lowest IQs on the blog
i have a Bachelors in Finance from the school that Mug looked up. i am very proud of myself.
Actually, I think RR does have a degree. Don’t know what it’s in, though.
melo says he’s a communist yet he also recommends voting for democrats like the squad. like he squad he agrees with the US sending $240 for every american to the ukraine because putin and trans rights.
IQ too low to comment.
Well, yeah. Democrats are more likely to enable left-wing economic policy than Republicans, especially if they are young idealists like the squad.
It honestly doesn’t surprise me that you’re “pro Russia.” Most alt-right cucks are cowards.
being against killing people makes me “pro russian”? you are subhuman. you are lower than excrement.
that’s it. melo MUST BE BANNED. he’s not only mentally retarded. he’s EVIL.
Yeah, because not helping Ukraine will totally keep people from dying.
Face it, you aren’t “against killing people” you’re just a contrarian that thinks being different is the same as being objective.
Kill yourself.
My interpretation is that their liberalism is due to some combination of a greater capacity for cognitive empathy and fear of white gentile clout. The latter is instinctive and understandable, but it’s annoying when they and others have no awareness of it and think their advocacy is altruistic. People generally operate on greed and fear, and you can say that about anyone except Jews.
They also just have a tendency to critique/be hostile to reality, which is why they’re good at comedy and want men to get pregnant. I don’t know if this is an inherent trait or if it was developed because of what they’ve gone through.. or if what they’ve gone through is because it IS inherent and it pisses people off.
Obviously they don’t believe in liberalism. Look at the treatment of the palestinians.
austin personality!
it’s got nothing to do with THINK.
behind every man. behind every woman.
is a wolf.
stop playing the game that there’s no BEHIND.
i wish i were as articulate as some of you here. i feel like Anime because i dont have the proper mental fortitude to articulate my thoughts the way i want them to.
although im very fluid in my writings i think articulation is a skill i have to work on. also on not getting tongue tied when i speak to people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Babylonianism
Hmm. So much for the ‘independent’ origin of Chinese/East-Asian civilization.
PP, we wuz Tocharians an’ shieettt.
It’s absolutely hilarious the amount of mental gymnastics whites will pull to try and deny Asians their intellectual feats.
I don’t see most people do that here though. Most of us admit Asians are smarter and PP practically worships them.
My only confusion around Asians (which I think is shared by a lot of others) is why they aren’t ruling the world despite their intelligence, especially China with 1.5 billion people with apparently averaging at over 100 IQs. So it seems there is some other psychological or physiological drawback to the average East Asian.
But creating a civilization doesn’t necessarily make the society intellectually superior since apparently North and South Americans did it.
Jon Von Newman, Einstein, Newton. Lots of smart people didn’t run the World, and East Asians did run the World for centuries.
Those are just particular examples, because overall higher IQ nations and individuals tend to be more succesful lower IQ ones. And all of them might have had their weird psychological elements (especially Neumann) that made them not excel socially. Plus they were all successful and had clout anyway, so…
We wouldn’t expect the correlation between IQ and power (even at the group level) to be perfect, especially when the East Asian > white IQ gap is so small.
Well I’m not disagreeing about that but I’m more wondering about why East Asians don’t have more intellectual feats given their intelligence. Especially China with its huge population.
I think youre wrong Puppy. I think that 5 points is qualitatively gigantic. And I suspect the tails are longer for the east asian IQ distribution.
The reason east asians stagnated is complicated. The operating theory is that they basically domesticated themselves too much.
We shouldn’t accept Lynn’s numbers for one, and for two, he didn’t use many, many studies for China (1, 2). Funny enough, there is no response yet to Rebecca Sear’s (3) and Christian Ebbeson’s (4) critiques of the dataset from hereditarians yet. Further, China is selective with the provinces they report to the OECD for the PISA—they only provide 4 provinces, so one cannot claim that those results are representative of China (5, 6). What explains Asian American academic achievement is the selectivity of the population, with certain rules being in effect that makes such selectivity possible since the 1970s, (7, 8, 9, 10). There is also the fact that after the economic upturn in Asian countries, their “superiority” began being talked about by people like Lynn, when for a long time they were talked about like blacks are talked about today. (11).
So putting this altogether we have: Asians to America are a selected population; Chinese “IQ” is inflated by Lynn ignoring numerous studies; the Chinese are shady when it comes to PISA results; and we should reject claims from Lynn and Becker’s “dataset” since it’s they don’t provide an unbiased, comparable accurate comparison between countries, nevermind within them. Thus, the only takeaway here is that Lynn is a hack.
(1) https://raceandiqmyths.blogspot.com/2016/10/fake-chinese-iq-studies-richard-lynn.html?m=1
(2) https://raceandiqmyths.blogspot.com/2016/11/low-iq-data-set-on-china-as-mentioned.html?m=1
(3) https://psyarxiv.com/tzr8c/
(4( https://psyarxiv.com/26vfb/
(5) https://thediplomat.com/2013/12/china-cheats-the-pisa-exams/
(6) https://thepienews.com/news/chinas-pisa-not-representative-say-experts/
(7) https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/04/19/chinese-iq-immigrant-hyper-selectivityand-east-asian-genetic-superiority/
(8) https://newdiversities.mmg.mpg.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014_16-01_04_Noam.pdf
(9) https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/1369183x.2017.1315851
(10) https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/imre.12037
(11) https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2019/09/08/mongoloid-idiots-asians-and-down-syndrome/
” . . . and East Asians did run the World for centuries.”
PP, what on Earth are you talking about? The Turks, Mongols, and Tartars were all Central Asians rather than East Asians.
“It’s absolutely hilarious the amount of mental gymnastics whites will pull to try and deny Asians their intellectual feats.”
Eric, I’m a known indophile. Did you read the linked article? It asserts that the Chinese received the rudiments of their civilization from other Asians, not from whites (my joke about the Tocharians notwithstanding).
I was talking about china
I thought as much. When did China, “run the world”? Their reach never extended as far as India, the land which gave them their very religion.
Even their cultural influence outside of East Asia was paltry. No educated man is ignorant of Aristotle; who gives a shit about Confucius?
Run the world was overstatement but they were the most powerful
wow Neandercel youre an indophile? have you ever been with an indian girl i ask out of curiosity.
Pumpkin China was a strong country but very isolated and never really in control of things. their power has and will always be a weak sort of persuasive rule they have and they will suffer collateral damage in any case if they try to extend their power in any regard.
“Run the world was overstatement but they were the most powerful”
That’s true. Sorry, I was being an asshole.
“wow Neandercel youre an indophile? have you ever been with an indian girl i ask out of curiosity.”
Yeah, I’ve always found Indian culture to be fascinating. I’ve only been with white women, but I have a thing for Indian women (especially Punjabis).
this will be posted or i will never comment again.
melo has demonstrated SATANIC STUPIDITY.
he is literally a ZOMBIE. all he thinks he knows is what his masters want him to think he knows. he is TOTALLY incapable of thinking for himself.
i’m literally a communist but i’m also a russo-phobe. i hate russia so much because i was told to by people who care about me.
BAN HIM NOW AND FOREVER.
HE WAS LIED TO ABOUT RUSSIA-GATE. HE’S LIED TO NOW ABOUT UKRAINE. BUT HE’S TOO FUCKING RETARDED AND EVIL TO KNOW IT.
AND WHO LIED TO HIM? THE VERY SAME PEOPLE HE THINKS WILL PASS HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES.
HE’S LITERALLY FECES.
I stumbled upon this Christian critique of Goethe earlier today. A little moralistic, but basically sound.
tl;dr – Goethe was a self-indulgent rich kid who treated women like shit* and insulated himself from the suffering of the world.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/classics/strong-great-poets-and-their-theology/goethe.html
*as have I
yeah but you’re not rich
Expecting Howard Stern or [name redacted by pp, 2022-10-30] to tell you what your morality is Melo is a fool’s errand. These people have nothing going on between their eyes. Theyre like sharks. You hate racists because they hate racists. Not because you hate racists.
I hate racists because they’re racist. It just seems immoral to despise another group of people for something they can’t control. It’s like hating someone because they’re disabled or because they have a weird name.
Racism is also a great indicator of low IQ.
Melo is a kind of derivative of RR. I would say RR is woke because he is sleeping with a black woman. I don’t think anyone could be as dense as RR. But I would say Melo is woke because he is stupid. Objectively white gentiles created everything and everything that is worth admiring.
Its true that insofar as you believe in good and evil the only objective way to tell would be through aesthetics. Nature wouldn’t lie. Its objectively true blacks and jews are ugly.
Gentlemen, I’d like to propose that the concept of happiness is un-empirical and possibly incoherent
It has no clear definition. As the term is ordinarily used, it’s supposed to describe something like an indefinitely protracted experience of excitement, pleasure, satisfaction, and serenity. Have any of you ever known anything remotely resembling this?
Like enlightenment, grace, and sanctification, happiness refers to something outside of ordinary experience. It is conceivable only within a religious framework because it is miraculous.
Secular self-help books are retarded. There’s not a damned thing to be happy about if we’re rotting meat machines making idiot noises at one another on a rock hurtling around a radioactive fireball* at 66,000 mph.
*I’m aware that the Sun isn’t AKSHULLY a fireball
It isn’t? That’s messed up. It should be.
Interesting thread.
Teffec, check it out.
PP you should estimate the IQ of Ron DeSantis. He just got another term as governor down here
Reportedly he considers Trump a moron.
Don’t we all
i think the Flynn effect is real and that people of previous generations are a lot dumber because of it.
not a lot to do with the question you asked but it could steer in the right direction.