site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 2269 results for

domain:youtube.com

My understanding of the HBD hypothesis is that the differences in outcomes across the world are, by a wide margin, mostly explainable by IQ differences in population. My understanding is that it's not a hypothesis founded or invoked with nuance, which is what you're trying to insert here. It's just trying to simplify complex geopolitical, domestic, and historical dynamics with "well, they're stupid". So please excuse me if my response to its invocation is equally terse and lacking in nuance.

Edit: Also, the thrust of my comment was more that it's funny to see the contrast of "Only white people are smart enough to form democracy" alongside (presumably) white people begging for the boot of autocracy to save them from the boogeyman.

When do you hold the rank and file accountable for the policies they voted for, versus blaming elites?

Say what you like about Dubya, Lord knows I have, but he was the most sincerely religious president since at least 1920. He had support from virtually all protestant Christian religious groups and leaders across America. One has to do some of kind of two-step to place him and his actions and their consequences outside the conservative movement or Red Tribe more broadly.

I don’t think that’s what the person was saying at all.

The implication is that the culture of Afghanistan and Iraq and most of Africa and numerous other parts of the world, along with substandard intelligence, means that those places aren’t ready to be part of the better world.

This seems true.

If you were to say ‘ white people are clearly the most intelligent people, and the most innovative ‘ I would also agree and just kinda point to absolutely everything that they’ve accomplished (I’m Slavic - I don’t count) and how they’re the envy of the world.

I do believe the rest of the world will catch up - and I do believe if you steal a baby from some shit he country and stick ‘em in an average American home that they’ll just be like everyone else.

But why pretend they won’t be flooded with bad culture on top of bad genes on top of bad environment where they currently are and won’t accomplish much ?

Well I have a vague theory that China will demolish the US military in Asia and create the actual conditions for real political change in the US and elsewhere (military defeat + huge economic crisis are a tried and tested combo), whereupon previously unthinkable options become possible.

But the problem with basing a theory on a hypothetical is that it feels like wishing, the infamous 'my ideology will be the one to arise from the ashes'. Trying to predict the world after an epoch-changing event is like trying to look inside or beyond a singularity. Maybe Trump gets the blame for fooling around and the old regime capitalizes it. Maybe the military gets blamed for losing and the US doubles down on democratic-socialist isolationism. Maybe there's a nuclear exchange. Maybe there's an AI singularity. Nothing is inevitable, even assuming a contested hypothetical.

Of course it'd be good to have more accurate, adaptive ideas flowing more widely. The US does not, in my opinion, need more Haitians, quite the opposite. The US shouldn't be spreading multicultural propaganda around the world, that's not a recipe for good outcomes. America isn't screwed, it's powerful and innovative in many areas. But it's running well below peak performance, there are fractures and internal weaknesses based on unsound ideas of human equality.

As for personal advice, well I've read Nightmare Vision's Rosedale thread https://x.com/GodCloseMyEyes/status/1414619671056297984 and 'Don't make the Black kids angry', it seems pretty clear that black parts of the US, London and elsewhere are dangerous and one shouldn't go there or live there. The author of the latter has seemingly been driven into this state of insanity where he just goes on and on, listing all these grievous attacks and perverse instances where white racism gets blamed for black misbehaviour, one after another after another.

How do you change this state of mind, where people speak in code to realtors because they're not allowed to ask about crime, because it's too racist and discriminatory? Who knows, it's bizarre and weird.

I'm not even American and so my theories about US politics are really limited in skin-in-the-game beyond having a lot of money tied up in US shares. Lots of cool stuff is happening in America, it's a country of contradictions.

It has neither actually.

So the Russian army never actually managed to fight somewhat competently any time in history? Really?

I assume your basic HBD-related argument here is that democratic transition was largely successful in Eastern Europe in 1989 because White Christians live there, as opposed to Zimbabwe and South Africa (or something).

Either way, I don’t mean this as an insult of some sort, I’d rather go ahead and nitpick.

The obvious commonality among the Eastern European nations that more or less successfully transitioned to democracy in 1989 is that they all have some past legacy of applied democratic norms, rule of law, parliamentary systems, Western orientation and (some differing level of) Germanic cultural influence. Belarus, for example, is a clear exception. (And the question of whether the area of the former GDR was ‘properly’ democratized or not is seemingly an ever thornier one on the minds of West German normies.) In contrast, the Russian, Central Asian and Caucasian republics of the former USSR clearly lack this and continued the norms of authoritarianism and repression accordingly. Whatever marginal democratic tendencies might have even been present at the beginning clearly went nowhere. This was already clear as day back in 2003, and was available as an argument against rosy neocon predictions regarding Iraq’s future.

I won’t argue about the basket case Rhodesia has turned into; with respect to South Africa though I’d point out that it’s easy to get dispirited about developments there instead of comparing what ended up happening to the absolute bloodbath and misery the country could easily have slipped into after Apartheid collapsed.

they've been around as long as most of the white people have, and so deporting them is not possible.

One quick conquest of Liberia, and you don’t have to let your dreams be dreams anymore.

You don’t even have to move every black person. For males, 2 or more felony convictions should surely be adequate justification to send them to our new prison colony. For females, you could craft some lifetime welfare income calculation. And for kids, well, better to not break up families, so they have to go as well.

Is this an idea that would take two decades to percolate out of the fever dreams of the right and into plausible reality? Sure, but that’s no reason to give up on it out of hand. Leftists sure don’t!

Really just said ~ "Only white people have a high enough IQ to form democracies".

I mean, I don't even find it useful to engage that assertion, but it is funny to contrast that with the take that I often see here that democracy in the west is now dysfunctional due to low IQ HBD dysgenics and only might concentrated in a single infallible strongman avatar can save us (Deus vult).

(+1 to aceventura's "History is longer than the last 70 years." which is approximately "read a book". I doubt the Greeks who invented democracy would've identified closely with your self identification on the HBD spectrum, you know, based on who they were geographically interacting with: southern Italy, Egypt, Anatolia, and Persia).

It would just be disingenuous for someone to caution you that your successful theft is contributing to an erosion of trust.

But that's why you're contradicting yourself by saying that the security is meant to stop fans of Lady Gaga, not people like you. If the security isn't aimed at people like you, then you can't invoke the security to say that they already don't trust people like you.

Assuming Russia breaks with all previous tradition and manages to fight somewhat competently, sure, but what part is supposed to make nation building in Afghanistan look like a cake walk?

We have, off the top of my head, at least one male atheist redpiller concerned about promiscuity. Every time he brings this up I ask him why he hasn’t converted to a fundamentalist branch of Christianity and he doesn’t answer, but theres clearly a reason.

Ok, so, like, not like buying fruit legally at the supermarket, as if it's just a regular Tuesday grocery day. There appear to be significant differences in the types of enforcement schemes that could conceivably be implemented.

What I'm trying to say here is that the potency of marijuana doesn't depend as much as you seem to think on the strain.

What does it depend on?

It would shock me if Galicia didn’t have mines and good land, and Russia doesn’t want that part.

It seems like the Ukraine invasion is mostly an analogue to the Iraq war from Russia’s perspective, not the USA’s.

I don’t think you can blame this on the naivety of republicans because it was an elite stratum doing the invading.

Consider for example a surgery that ends up lethal: what distinguishes accident from murder, and bad luck from negligence? What is the sin of gluttony, if knowing that youre satiated makes no difference?

I think you are saying intent matters. Intent does matter (edit: and i think I made that clear in the above comment when I talked about the subject knowing that they were likely/unlikely to get pregnant that day, and my comparisons were to other situations where it was possible/impossible to be pregnant). Someone having sex when not fertile intends to have sexual intercourse. Someone not having sex while fertile intends to avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex - the most normal way to avoid pregnancy imaginable.

I think there is a conflation between sexual intercourse and the possible results of sexual intercourse - or conception. Sexual intercourse is the ejaculation of a penis in a vagina. A lot of its moral significance comes from what sexual intercourse can do - it can make a new human life. But sexual intercourse is not in itself the making of a new life.

Sexual intercourse between two married people is morally allowed (and considered a fairly good thing) in Catholicism, even if it does not lead to conception. Intending to avoid making a new child is also morally allowed, in the sense that you can choose not to have sex.

You could similarly break the pulling out method down into steps, each of which "surely is allowed": 1) having sex is allowed under the right conditions 2) youre not obligated to keep the penis inside the whole time 3) if you just happen to ejaculate while its outside, thats an involuntary reaction. This assumes you can do it without jerking once outside, but thats possible and I doubt its supposed to make a difference.

  1. Correct
  2. Correct
  3. Correct, if it is truly an accident. I can go further and say that oral sex can accidentally lead to premature ejaculation and that isn't considered a sin if it is truly an accident - but you do have to take it into account the next time you try that kind of foreplay.

(Edit to add: the reason why this would be wrong is not that there is no likelihood of pregnancy, but because it's not sexual intercourse.)

the selling point of natural family planning is that it doesnt feel like technology.

Perhaps to secular people - but then there are so many smart devices now that will do it for you. To Catholics, the selling point is that you are avoiding having a child by avoiding having sex, which is the most normal way to avoid conception imaginable.

As @ToaKraka notes, 13/52 refers to the extremely disproportionate percentage of homicides committed by black people (13% of the population, 52% of the homicides). The US (and the pre-US colonies) already engaged in mass importation of high time preference demographics (I'll reserve judgement on the second part); they've been around as long as most of the white people have, and so deporting them is not possible.

It's a euphemism.

I agree that banning it is hard, and probably impossible to completely stamp out, given it's current prevalence, but I think it's easier to target a specific plant, than literally all sources of sugar, water, and yeast.

What am I missing?

That marijuana is even than this! People are growing it illegally right now!

NATO will inherit the rump state of what is left of Ukraine which is the part without the mines and the good agricultural land.

You will be surprised to learn that people have been growing pot illegally for a long time -- you used to be able to buy seeds mail-order; I imagine you can get them on the internet these days without needing to go particularly dark. Or you get them from your pot growing friends. What I'm trying to say here is that the potency of marijuana doesn't depend as much as you seem to think on the strain.

I dunno dude, the idea of thinking of a wife as like some kind of utility calculation around chore maxxing or whatever seems like the kind of thing that deranges radical feminists.

That's not what is being done by me to any greater extent than it was being done by the person I replied to.

I'm not interested in your selective disagreement with me. Marriage in this thread was leveraged in two contexts, a material function one, i.e. you wife can do things like organizing, doing housework etc, and an emotional function, i.e. you love them, they are your soulmate etc.

My point was that Bezos, on account of being a billionaire, does not need a wife for material function. So leveraging the utilitarian functions of marriage in support of an argument that marriage is beneficial to Bezos is asinine. I'd even argue that such a thing would be stupid. He probably has more than one giant house. Do we expect the wife to clean all of that? Of course not. Same for organizing big social gatherings. Hell, why even bother to cook when you can have a learned chef cook for you? It just doesn't make any sense.

For the emotional function, you don't need marriage to love a person or spend your life with them.

As for your definition of marriage, I'd argue that the only coherent view of marriage is when two persons want to start a family together. Marriage is a contract, Both a legal and not, between two people who a binding themselves for the ultimate task procreating. It can be because two people feel a very special connection and want to be with one another forever and start a family. It can also be because two people who don't really know one another all that much were pushed together because of necessity, and everything in between. Marriage is important and sacred all the same as a starting point for procreation.

To contrast this with your view, you can pay an assistant to functionally have undying loyalty through sickness and health, and you can marry a person who doesn't have that. I'm sure you have an enviable marriage, but I'm not sure if you leveraging that is conducive to a coherent argument.

History is broader than the last 70 years.