ShariaHeap
4mo ago
But if you make all the low IQ people slaves again, most of them would be white men.
Is that really what white supremacy is arguing for these days?
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
Well thank him and move on with your life. This fetish around purity codes and whether people are 'good' or 'sinful' is very tiring. It must be latent Protestantism. Take what you like, for my mind he's been extraordinarily prescient in gender issues and wokism broadly, introduced elements of religion, myth and psychology to me and been burned up in the culture war, though seems to be quietly recovering.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
This is not a ban worthy post whatever patterns you're seeing. I personally think moderation should be uber-light. It is the overall community we need to trust in maintaining standards, not moderation. There should be a ban line at explicitly inciting hate, but not at allusions, dog whistles etc. I may be naive but I just don't see how a broad base community like this will get swept up in a descent to all out racism or whatever. People will counter till they will get bored and then disengage. A small minority will feed off each other's posts potentially but I think it's worth being radically open here given what is happening internet wide with censorship.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
It was provocative I admit and I welcome harsh criticism of such a lazy post. But I have read some of the posts here and I stand by my gut feeling of a lack of sufficient nuance for the topic.
As far as I can tell it traverses the full complexity of human complexity - genetics, epigenetics, phenotypics, brain science, interaction of culture with genetics, study design, statistics, intelligence measurement, long history, short history, local history, global history, evolutionary biology, education, development...
Ie, partitioning off causal effects based on aggregate numbers on IQ across partly socially constructed population categories feels 'fraught'. I'd engage with it more (currently reading Charles Murray) if it wasn't for the fact that most posts don't seem to show the slightest glimpse of epistemic humility or acknowledgement of the gaps, difficulties in causal analysis.
But it's an intuition - I could be way off, can you point me to something enlightening and I'll make a start on the topic. I'm picking this would need about 1000 hours of research /thinking as a starter given it's complexity.
ShariaHeap
6mo ago
Well I have no idea of that scenario obviously, not having been in it. I've done some minor karate/Kung Fu sparring to know my skills and strength are negligible on the curve and on the street I've come off second best in several encounters though usually extremely drunk and in my youth. I suppose I have a quiet confidence that trained and with weaponry I would stand my own under fire but it's completely hypothetical. My theory is there's some advantage to calibrating your actual skills and courage to reality, rather than some wishful ego conception, so that way when it comes to crunch you don't find yourself unable to bridge to reality.
Now of course, instigating war doesn't require the instigators to have courage, they can pass that on to others, as well as the moral torments of having directly killed innocent people.
I just think I'm tired of the over-confident manner of mottizens in general. Talk is so cheap, and real thinking so expensive. So little on here has any relevance, interesting as it may be, because there is no reality test. As far as I can tell a lot of commentary just reinforces the position and ego of the commenter without persuading anyone else one way or another. On average people just like the friction of their position relative to others rather than being willing to actually adjust their position or acknowledge epistemic deficits. I'm worried that the tendency for over confident takes is actually psychological compensation and that the motte is actually riddled with a bunch of right brain autists metaphorically jerking off in their parents garage.
I think if you advocate genocide in a hot take you need to justify your bona fides. ie you should have murdered someone, or been a war veteran, or had your family murdered or something.
This site is resembling Reddit with the confident geopolitical hottakes.
ShariaHeap
6mo ago
Well, I've put more sauce around it in a reply, but fair comment. I'm actually looking for an escape out of my internet habits at present so I might try a voluntary ban for a period once Ive addressed any comments that arise.
ShariaHeap
9mo ago
Can you point me to a name, link that does the genetic proof for HBD. Most of the content I see here already assumes this axiomatically or is low resolution. What id like is something where I can start to 'cleave the arguments at their bones'
Eg, I'm curious what interpretation people have for the Flynn effect, or what the evidence base is for isolated genetic pools over long history..
ShariaHeap
6mo ago
It wasn't an intent, merely an afterthought and in the spirit of trying to demonstrate sovereignty I'll do it myself thanks.
ShariaHeap
9mo ago
All doctors still have to pass the requirements don't they, regardless of how they get into medical school? Also I don't think it's necessarily linear between SAT and being a good doctor. My guess is you would want a minimum (higher than average) threshold and people at the top would probably specialise in any case. In between hard working, curious, empathetic, life-long learning could circumvent a lot- I don't know how these characteristics distribute but I don't think the average white doctor is that high a bar in the 10 min pharmaceutical dispensing slot I experience them in. Mostly they're just passing on the received wisdom of the medical model.
ShariaHeap
5mo ago
Much of the refugee migration was out of Iraq, Syria destruction so off the back of US war mongering and lingering cold war stuff. We shouldn't forget these root causes when we champion the next intervention.
ShariaHeap
9mo ago
There's truth in that of course, but your rebuttal somewhat proves the point as it's very reductive and misses a lot of what religion also is. Religion in addition to the creedal beliefs is also pointing beyond as it is about engaging with that which is greater. The Christianity of different times, say Meister Eckhart or Thomas Aquinas, is not sufficiently countered by Jesus never did miracles or was the son of God because it would be scientifically impossible.
The point is that atheism is lacking also, it is floundering on the rocks of reductive materialism. Religion points to some of what it's missing. What we do next is not theism as we've done, and it's not atheism, hence the idea of non-theism.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
It's a potentially narrow, fairly homogeneous grouping at least for some of history. It's more tractable for study. 'Black people', which at that level, not so much-it would include a plethora of overlapping lineages.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
Apologies, environmental, I mean, though culture overlaps with environmental.
ShariaHeap
5mo ago
Yes exactly - I think it's a sure sign of a mania when we abandon long-established understandings about child development without any reason. If anything neuroscience has shown development (particularly frontal cortex, critical for being able to make judgements with long term consequences) goes on much longer than we had though.
This new thinking goes against known understandings and norms in child development psychology, medical ethics, education and culture broadly. Its a huge clue we're in a mania.
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
I don't have great insight into this field but I think you overstate the science somewhat. A number of genes have been 'implicated in' intelligence but that is a long way off from the proof that inserting these genes into someone will make them intelligent. I believe there is evidence that genes can function differently in different circumstances/populations so it's not a trivial X makes Y scenario.
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
I think abortion is one of those Necker cube, two ways of seeing the world things. If you can't see the two sides then you haven't really tried very hard or have some systemic condition such as black or white thinking.
Murder is the wrong word of course but we get the idea, someone is ending a potential human life.
But having the state force someone to carry through an event they're not in favour of and that has very real risks to health and even life is morally wrong if you believe in the sovereignty of the individual. It's not equivalent, or a real life scenario, but a thought experiment of forcing someone to take a vaccine with serious potential health impacts and a 9 month side-effect profile in order to save someones life wouldn't presumably get the same republican buy-in.
So at the least it is weighing up these morals. My take is that a liberal society can't force someone to do carry to term- it would be fine in a theocracy but we don't live in a theocracy. Frankly that's some cold-assed shit to put on someone who is at most 50% to blame.
At the same time I think culture needs to shift back the other way. There should be shame associated with abortion, the morning after pill is not contraception, a fetus is a potential human being, not just a bunch of cells.
ShariaHeap
9mo ago
These seem all a bit rote, and again don't really address much complexity. If I can practice and improve on a test then there is a cultural element. You mention speed reaction can't be trained for, but I'm assuming elite black athletes have superior scores on these, does this imply that blacks have superior native intelligence on aspects of intelligence?
Populations at the level of black v white v mixed are mixed of genetic lineages. This means tail genetics doesn't have to relate to median genetics.
Your genetic pot analogy seems a bit naive scientifically. To infer a causal relationship I'm going to need a bit more in terms of genetics.
My beef isn't that there's 'nothing there', just that the complexity is not engaged with, which implies a dunning-kruger potential. I am a scientist so I'm actually interested in the complexity and science. Others aren't interested in this but in making blanket statements about groups of people (with immense intragroup genetic variation), which overindexes on skin attributes.
ShariaHeap
9mo ago
I'm not able to help with the new atheism internet history but if you've read Dawkins that's probably enough to get the gist of the general sense of the righteousness of the atheist tribe and of course the rational points raised against faith beliefs.
But as you mention agnosticism and seeing the limitations of physicalism I really want to point you to the idea of non-theism. This is the idea that contemporary framings of religion and atheism share the same modal mistake in the focus on propositional beliefs, with say a literalist creed asserting that everything in the bible being literally true, and an atheist refuting those beliefs.
But in many ways, while the rationalist critique of atheism is valid, it is also a straw man. Religion has also always been about participating in relationship with a phenomenological reality that is beyond oneself. Atheism, mired in a reductive physicalism is not able to engage with this and so ignores it, also reducing religion to this limited frame.
Yes, I agree with you. There's a sense of solidarity by a modern liberal woman with anything perceived as progressive that overrides debate on certain issues.
I'd like to outline my meta-critique of feminism in relation to this phenomenon. It's a kind of speculative post-Jungian thing and doesn't attempt any evidence so take it with a grain of salt.
The first thing women know is that men are more powerful than them physically - they are stronger and more violent, so the average woman would lose in a fight to an average man. Additionally because of procreation they are more vulnerable- men desire to rape woman more often than they desire to rape men, so even a weak man will be safer on the streets from that kind of violation (though more likely to experience common assault).
Men also have higher representation in the tails of achievement across many different domains - this is not describing the average, but does mean that generally the smartest woman would have usually found a smarter man in her domain (of course there are spectacularly smart woman in the distribution as well).
All this means that deep in their psyches, women feel an inferiority complex in relation to men (men in turn have inferiority around the ability to procreate, hence a push to have the heavenly father dominate over earth mother in Western traditions). Also as an aside both men and women are misogynistic, projecting their existential disgust/despair onto woman as the closest to 'life/creation/existence'.
This inferiority combines with the actual injustice of historical patriarchy, servitude, male domineering that woman have experienced into feminism.
To avoid the knowledge of male primary power, feminism took up the ideas of social constructivism a la Foucault, where power relations determine the way things are. Thus the exclusion of biological science in discourse in favour of blank-slate ideas. And the explicit use of politics and solidarity to wield power.
But, political aims work against truth discernment and so feminism has wandered, and failed to integrate biology and evolution, and has, like a lot of social science, favoured novelty over synthesis.
This political wandering has led to internal factionism, first with intersectionality, which undermines solidarity across the category women, and now gender ideology and queer theory, the bastard sister of gender studies, which undermines the very category of women.
But modern liberal progressive politics demands solidarity across the sisterhood, and so more than anyone, women are responsible for sustaining the politics undermining feminism, and womanhood, itself.
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
Yes I've heard a lot of people are in favour of extending it out.
Changing sex is still impossible last time I looked, perhaps you mean sex characteristics?
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
Yes, the example wasn't very real and a bit half-baked but as a thought experiment youre obliged to take it as it is. The point is there's a compulsion element from the state on the individual in banning abortion. This kind of thing normally raises the hackles of an average republican but doesn't seem to register in this case. Murder is also a misframing because the cost of not committing murder is zero.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
Yep, I stand by my prior post up the chain, there's very little information or science to engage with in the last 10 posts, just sweeping generalisations and opinion among people that agree with each other.
Now that may be because you've all 'done the work' already, but a post needs something more than back-slappimg surely?
ShariaHeap
1yr ago
Don't forget the anti-jihadist immigration stance that excluded a lot of talent.
ShariaHeap
1yr ago
I don't agree with censorship and if you're gay, faggot seems pretty normal as a greeting for another gay in the era Im from. Like black people can use the n word.
But I was interested in the origin of faggot, which according to the podcast or article I was listening or reading, I forget which, actually derives from the gays being the first on the fire before the witches were burnt in mediaeval times. The literal meaning is of course 'bundle of sticks', ie kindling.
This would seem to make it a particularly nasty term to use on people outside your in-group, though of course people don't necessarily know the origins of words when they use them...
It needs to end so that it can begin again as it's just rainbow propaganda for the TQ+. LGB were sidelined long ago and the function of pride now is just authoritarian mind control.
More options
Context Copy link