domain:npr.org
My core point stands uncontested.
"Uncontested". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
HBD the theory hides behind HBD the science in order to try to gain legitimacy as a "grand-theory of why the world is the way it is" despite every "grand-theory of why the world is the way it is" being half-baked and not capable of standing up to any critical analysis.
Error on top of error. It is not enough to merely declare that every "grand-theory of why the world is the way it is" is half-baked. Nor does it matter that something does not stand up to "critical analysis", if you mean that in the postmodern sense. And certainly it is not a mark against HBD that it tries to explain aspects of the world.
The American conflation of race with class is bizarre. Upper-middle class urban white Americans share few cultural values with unemployed drug-addicted Appalachians and grouping them together as a homogenous “white” block makes little sense.
Wasn’t there a link a while back to one of those Woke Rightists who moved to a majority white town and realised he had nothing in common with the people there, and ended up missing the diverse big city?
Do you think that means they believe Israel is literally twisting the US's arm to do it's bidding,
Was your question.
And the response was:
I'm not dogmatic on whether it's arm-twisting or owning hearts and minds, there's a mix of both going on.
Stating that Israel does twist the US' arm.
This would, again, make a lot of other wars into genocides,
Yes, yes it would. A majority of historical wars were genocidal in intent; wanting to exterminate your enemies is in fact an extremely common motivation for warfare, and if it's not what you start out wanting, you sure want it once the bastards have butchered thousands of your lads on the battlefield.
A lot of the confusion about Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia comes from the relevant countries and their advocates protesting that they're not engaging in Unprecedented Evil Behavior, just fighting wars like they've been fought for thousands of years. And in a way, they're right! But "the kind of wars our ancestors have been fighting since the Neolithic" is in fact what we've been trying to ban out of existence once and for all, because they sucked. There is an under-discussed gap between people who think of the modern notion of war crimes in terms of "the World Wars were anomalies, we need to ban the sort of thing that went on in WWII to ensure we only fight normal wars like we had before", and people who think of the modern notion of war crimes in terms of "the scale of the World Wars showed that we urgently need to ban a whole lot of things that had been rampant in practically every war until that point, but never made quite so starkly obvious in their horror than when they were implemented on an industrial scale".
And artillery shells being depleted is a real issue against China, the logistics here are sort of fungible, and spending a lot of resources resupplying Ukraine is going to demand we replace that (we have to be prepared to fight more than just China, a military's job isn't only to prepare for the most obvious threat), and the resources that go into replacing those assets, plus their losses, will eat up resources that could go into the Pacific.
This seems plausible, but there is a claim the opposite direction that the Ukraine conflict gives the US and its allies cover to invest heavily in war materiel production while still notionally in a time of peace without large domestic or foreign suspicion about warmongering or wasteful spending. In 1941 the US benefited heavily from having already tooled up for lend-lease production and broadly expecting to get dragged into the conflict eventually. Designs for aircraft and tanks that would only get fielded later in the war were in development, and Iowa's keel was laid before Pearl Harbor.
So why are you asking if people remember something that they're reminding you of?
As far as I can tell, the real core of this story is that children that were found orphaned in Russian-captured territory were put in the Russian orphanage system, which seems like a normal thing to do.
Russia could have returned them to Ukraine. Russia is happy to do extensive prisoner swaps, so why not allow innocent children to go?
Because the regime does not believe that is What Russia Should Do with Ukraine.
Yeah that was what reminded me of the subject.
Anyone remember that whole "HBD" thing? You don't hear much about it anymore.
It's literally being debated in the post before yours...
I think it never goes away, yeah. But as you say it gets easier and easier to get through. Eventually I have found and heard from others that you get to a point where you get triggered and then just sort of move through it in a few seconds/minutes.
Also I'm very curious what X is?
What is your favorite tea, herbal remedy, and or like non-pharmeceutical thing you do for a pick me up?
Personally I like green tea and throat coat. I also love the Dr. Teals bubble path - lavender and fresh spring rain are my favorites. Have a lot of candles and church incense which are amazing.
the theory hides behind ... the science in order to try to gain legitimacy as a "grand-theory of why the world is the way it is"
Many such cases: this is a generic problem, IMO, with several branches of science, maybe even every branch with immediate political impact (also economics, epidemiology, climate science, [group] studies). I don't think you're wrong that this even happens to HBD folks who are probably diametrically opposed to plenty of those other examples.
I don't know of a generic strategy to counteract this human failing: my first recommendation would be to reject claims that "the science is settled": the scientific process is never truly settled. But if you go too far in the un-trusting direction, you'll start questioning the concept of childhood vaccinations or jet fuel melting steel beams.
I might be missing something, but I think this disproves your claim rather then proves it? There being a mix of both does not imply that Israel's influence rests on their ability to make the US leadership generally do something against their will.
Anyone remember that whole "HBD" thing? You don't hear much about it anymore. It makes sense. The new narrative on the Online Right is that there's a huge mass of white men without jobs who have no choice but to inject fentanyl because of "the border" and free trade sending the factories to China. The unemployment rate is only low because these people are so dispirited that they've given up looking for work. We need to drastically remake our economy to help these unfortunates, who are incapable of helping themselves. This worldview would seem to conflict with HBD theories. Indeed, one would have to conclude that whites are an inferior race. Guatemalans in their "third-world s***hole" don't just sit around despairing, they cross multiple borders and look for work in a country where they can't even speak the language, while white men who got laid off in their rust-belt factory towns twiddle their thumbs and inject fentanyl, unable to compete with said Guatemalans. They see whites like people have long seen the American Indians, a "noble" race who ought to "own" the country but who are ill-equipped to deal with the evils of modernity that more advanced peoples have introduced like liquor or fentanyl.[1] But where this worldview makes some sense in the case of the Indians, it is utterly nonsensical to apply it to whites, who all the statistics show have higher incomes, higher IQs, higher educational attainment, and lower unemployment. Even opioid overdose deaths, initially a "white" issue, are now highest for blacks and American Indians, as with most social problems. (Whites do die at higher rates than Hispanics or Asians.) Labor force participation rates have indeed declined, mostly because there are more students and retirees. 89.2% of men aged 25-54 are in the labor force, a figure that is likely higher for whites, and the 11% who aren't include students, prisoners, stay-at-home dads, and those who can't work because of legit disabilities.
The Online Right has often been compared to the woke left. The woke black looks at his race, disproportionately poor, uneducated, and working low-skill jobs, and demands affirmative action so that more blacks can work in medicine, law, business, and politics. The "Woke Rightist" looks at his race, sees a mostly imaginary mass of helpless unemployed drug addicts and demands tariffs so that they can rise to the lofty heights of sewing bras, picking fruit, hauling equipment, and digging ditches in the rain. Is that really what you want your political ideology to be?
Now, you may be asking, "what about the real unemployed drug addicts?" For one, this is a disproportionately non-white group. One study found that blacks are 3.5 times more likely to ever be homeless in their lifetimes than whites, while Hispanics are 1.7 times more likely. Still, while not as common as some of you think, they do exist. Tariffs aren't going to help them. Law enforcement, drug treatment, mental health care, and legalizing SROs might, though the real issue is that these people need to help themselves. If I believed, as many of you profess to, that my race was at risk of going extinct, I wouldn't be centering my politics around helping the least capable members of said race who refuse to help themselves. Don't you have bigger problems? It's not like you should feel any "political" loyalty to them, Trump's working-class base work, homeless people rarely vote.
- The "heritage American" label reminds me of this. Like white people are Ford model-Ts, outmoded machines that nevertheless have aesthetic and historical significance.
Well, I think the burden of proof is much higher for the person who wants to argue that it works this way for every single animal except humans.
To your actual point though adoption studies seem useful.
Yeah, but I thought you were arguing that controlling weed is harder relative to controlling alcohol, and I'm not seeing it.
Also, if potency is just about the female flower thing, how come it increased around the time of it's normalization / legalization? Doesn't that imply that attempts to ban it are actually keeping the potency down?
Goals for last month went okay. Did my chore spreadsheet successfully, read about 3k pages, saved over 50% (due to an unexpected bonus) and swam and ran what I was supposed to. Did not stay fap free or meditate at all. This month I want to focus more on processes/habits and less on deliverables.
-
Figure out triggers of masturbation/porn use and try and cut the problem off at its root. Masturbation may not be all that bad, but I think my perception of women/the ability to relate to the opposite sex has been messed up, and despite ~5 years of trying, I've never kicked this bad habit.
-
Be more social. Have social activities planned on at least 3/4 weeknights and one weekend night
-
Do one thing at a time. Multitasking is an illusion that hurts both productivity and causes anxiety.
-
Replace the default bored or stressed activity of scrolling with either doing nothing (preferred), or reading an easy fiction/pop sci book.
I think your idea here is plausible, but I have trouble seeing how you'd isolate nature from nurture here for these axes without some industrial-scale twin studies that seem implausible.
Well, that perspective makes no sense and I've never seen it advocated; only implied by those who don't seem to know what they're talking about.
Occasionally the US tries to do something that actually prioritizes American interests over Israel's, the Israel lobby usually nixes this in the end: the Iran deal for instance.
I mean, the US has never invested ground forces in taking out any military group directly opposing Israel. There are/have been so many of these I'm not sure you could just label them occasional incidences of America not prioritizing Israeli interests at this point.
Merely shutting off aid would be catastrophic for their military,
I'm not sure you understand the actual numbers involved. US annual aid to Israel is $3.8 billion, not a small number, but less than 1% of Israel's GDP. That number has gone up during the recent hostilities, but not to the extent that it would be a catastrophe for Israel to have to pay upfront.
who relies on US provided weapons, satellites, communications and USAF for air defence.
Was this last bit about the USAF some sort of typo?
I'm not dogmatic on whether it's arm-twisting or owning hearts and minds, there's a mix of both going on.
@ArjinFerman There you go.
I will just say that I think fertility is a bit of a crisis in a lot of places, but not necessarily in the way people think.
If the concern is “Lowered fertility makes the GDP line stop going up,” that’s not a crisis. GDP lines should be allowed to fluctuate up and down as populations grow and shrink. It’s not the end of the world, especially in the nuclear age.
From that standpoint, there is no deficit that needs to be made up with foreigners. The native population will organically wax and wane over time if not interfered with. It’s only when a lot of foreigners are brought in that a native population might begin to feel pressured to spur increased fertility rates as a way of not being boxed out by invasive newcomers, which creates a fertility crisis.
A lot of HBD advocates in spaces like these do want it to just be about IQ, and a lot of people who call themselves pro-HBD will say it is just about IQ. It's one fracture on the DR regarding the Jewish Question, for example.
The US government did try pretty hard for like 50 years and failed abjectly, so it must at least be... fairly hard? I'm prepared to accept "both are above the threshold of hardness that the richest most powerful nation in the world can accomplish"?
The exact word for this kind of randomness is serendipity.
The term antisemitism came into existence from Germans trying to justify that This Time it wasn't just dumb, bigoted Judenhass (literally "Jew-hatred"), and they had good (pseudo)scientific reasons to dislike them. Bringing other semitic peoples into it implicitly validates Nazi race science like talking about related Aryans in India.
Although some seem to be trying the This Time approach again, using "anti-Zionist" as the new label. Maybe in a century someone will claim it applies to Zionist Mormons in Utah.
More options
Context Copy link