In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there a
Neither IQ as a particularly good measure of innate human intellect or race (in terms of generic groupings like black/white) as a biological reality are supported by science. Not even the fundamental starting point of your argument is fact, let alone any of your conclusions based on it.
sure doesn't matter. Do you agree these topics *were not allowed on mainstream media in the last 50 years"?
that was the topic. You don't need to agree with me on content. My point was that these topics, which are vanilla ones for non leftists, were gatekept. We need 50 years where these conversations are not only allowed, rather encouraged as very normal, among normies on normie platforms.
Just to make up for the 50 years of dominance of liberalism banning these topics.
/
If you are shocked: yes. It's absoluetly normal to have a dinner among non communist italians and discuss if africans are genetically inferior intellectually or not. It's normal like it's normal to discuss how much salt to put in the arrosto or how much you hate property taxes ok? it's a normal topic of conversation among normal people.
Doesn't mean you have to agree with anything, just acknowledge discussing these topics was taboo (including on social media until recently)
the data is clear and obvious and known by everyone who cares. It has just been buried for decades by dedicated gatekeeping, and you know that.
The conversation should be about "what do we do given we know X for a fact", not about X.
My understanding is that it’s a settled issue that there is a difference but not a settled issue how much of the difference can be attributed to genetics. Hence the debate about heritability in intelligence studies.
I agree there has been a quasi-Catholic church style gatekeeping surrounding this issue, which I actually think is partially because it makes conservatives that deny evolution feel uncomfortable that there could be such a difference. They would have to deny the historicity of Genesis in order to affirm to it, or come up with some tortured hermeneutics.
And of course the far left/academia is motivated to believe that the cause of every conflict between every identity groups is actually either economic system or oppression of some kind.
Again unless there has been significant developments in that area that I’m unaware of I don’t think people have proven that the difference is all or mostly genetic (most agree it is at least partially).
Neither IQ as a particularly good measure of innate human intellect or race (in terms of generic groupings like black/white) as a biological reality are supported by science. Not even the fundamental starting point of your argument is fact, let alone any of your conclusions based on it.
I agree race is not a very good biological metric but it can be replaced with other population groupings that are a proxy for it, and you can also replace IQ with “g-loaded” intelligence testing.
My understanding is that it’s a settled issue that there is a difference but not a settled issue how much of the difference can be attributed to genetics. Hence the debate about heritability in intelligence studies.I agree there has been a quasi-Catholic church style gatekeeping surrounding this issue, which I actually think is partially because it makes conservatives that deny
Keep in mind that some conversatives (maybe many?) were actually happy with the gatekeeping.
Because under some reading of conversativism, if the worse outcomes are genetically-driven, then welfare is justified (!!!). Just think of conservatives in favor of medicaid and disability.
So in some sense the gatekeeping helped a portion of the right as well. As long as they can claim blacks and other minorities have worse outcomes because of their choices,they can claim they deserve their worse outcomes and they don't deserve any help from the state.
Ofc liberals would insist their "choices" aren't what causes their worse outcome , rather "systemic racism" does. But at least the conversation is about something else.
Now if we all agreed with measurable reality, that those groups have worse outcomes because of unfixable characteristics (i agree the exact amount of inheritability is still discussed, but it's very meaningful in any case) , it would be very normal for a lot of groups to then say "ok , so they deserve help forever", same as disabled people do.
I agree race is not a very good biological metric but it can be replaced with other population groupings that are a proxy for it, and you can also replace IQ with “g-loaded” intelligence testing.
Even scores in g-loaded tests are highly dependent on environment, particularly in childhood, so are still not a particularly strong evaluation of innate intelligence, which was my point moreso than IQ being a poor measure of intelligence in general (which is also true but can be mitigated as you say).
And social definitions of race not being a good biological metric is imperative when it comes to the sort of things Luciom was suggesting should be a consequence of these "facts".
Even scores in g-loaded tests are highly dependent on environment, particularly in childhood, so are still not a particularly strong evaluation of innate intelligence, which was my point moreso than IQ being a poor measure of intelligence in general (which is also true but can be mitigated as you say).And social definitions of race not being a good biological metric is imperati
for sure some social definitions of race are an absolute joke. "asian" in particular are the worst offender as a label. Really grotesque to put them all togheter for anything (not only IQ).
But see this is already "the discourse" which should be prominent among NORMIES because it underpins most societal issues in the USA.
Including immigration of course
I knew you were going to make some dumbass statement in the face of the overwhelming fact that right wingers have owned American media for all relevant history
Are you kidding? It's been years since I turned on a TV but I feel like I remember the news being like union organizing/power to the people revival shows 😀
Luci also thinks npr is a militant/revolutionary leftist outfit lol
Homan caught dead to rights in bribery scheme but the administration investigated itself and found itself of no wrongdoing https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-a...If I were to pick anyone most likely to get caught in a bribery scheme it would be Homan or the bearded guy I can't remembe
The guy who worked for Obama and Biden? The guy who Obama gave an award to?
Yeah the guy the "deporter and chief" gave an award to
the main topic would be education.If we accept blacks and other minorities have worse educational outcomes on average (and so jobs and everything else correlated to that) because of genetic reasons we stop wasting money on them , redoing curricula to "accomodate" them, and removing high talent classes because "they are racists".We start treating them as a group which has expect
If you gave a group less education, they would be even more likely to cause the problems you're complaining about.
what's false in what i wrote? do you realize liberals self-select themselves to live in uber-white/asian areas regularly especially in urban areas? they do this all the times, it's their main sportAnyway your reaction is proof of what i said. What i wrote is what all normal (=non leftist) people think. Everyone knows that. It should be the normal narrative in the media. But it
So you think conservatives are the ones more likely to have black neighbors? Or don't they try to move even farther away to the suburbs.
At the very least we could figure out if there is anything to that, which we currently can’t figure out because it’s a truth we ought not talk about… Which is what got Harris in trouble when he wanted to hash that stuff out. He’s still smeared as a racist for not having a hugboxxy conversation about that issue.
There would be no benefit in figuring that out. The only theoretical benefits would be the ridiculously stupid things that Luciom suggested.
Who is the "Harris" you mentioned?
sure doesn't matter. Do you agree these topics *were not allowed on mainstream media in the last 50 years"?that was the topic. You don't need to agree with me on content. My point was that these topics, which are vanilla ones for non leftists, were gatekept. We need 50 years where these conversations are not only allowed, rather encouraged as very normal, among normies on normi
If that is something everyone already knows, why would there be everyday conversations about it? The only reason I can guess is that the people having those conversations are so shamed by their own inadequacies that they need to make themselves feel better by reminding each other that at least they aren't members of that despised group. Pretty pathetic.
If that is something everyone already knows, why would there be everyday conversations about it? The only reason I can guess is that the people having those conversations are so shamed by their own inadequacies that they need to make themselves feel better by reminding each other that at least they aren't members of that despised group. Pretty pathetic.
because the generic notion would be known , but all the details *and the corollaries* are very complicated.
Same as we know that if you give free money to people there are some side effects (welfare) still sometimes it can still make sense to have welfare, but we need an open conversation about the topic.
Society will never stop discussing what the proper amount of welfare is. The same should happen when discussing race , about the fact that races are objectively and measurably not equal in outcomes, and not only because of "racism" rather because of inherent cultural or genetical characteristics of races (even if it was all cultural, it would still be something to blame the ethnicity itself about).
So you think conservatives are the ones more likely to have black neighbors? Or don't they try to move even farther away to the suburbs.
Conservatives aren't shy about their racism, so they have full rights to try to move away from minorities.
Every liberal who ever spoke in favour of minorities is a piece of human trash and at the bottom of the barrel if he ever tries to "escape" the diversity he wants to violently force upon everyone else with the civil right act and unlimited immigration from the third world.
It should be illegal to be a liberal unless you have homeless shelters and refugees living withing 200 meters of your house.
Conservatives aren't shy about their racism, so they have full rights to try to move away from minorities.Every liberal who ever spoke in favour of minorities is a piece of human trash and at the bottom of the barrel if he ever tries to "escape" the diversity he wants to violently force upon everyone else with the civil right act and unlimited immigration from the third world.I
I worked with my local state congress members to build a homeless shelter near here but the lenexa city council canceled it. there should be enough homeless shelters so that there are no homeless.
Keep in mind that some conversatives (maybe many?) were actually happy with the gatekeeping.Because under some reading of conversativism, if the worse outcomes are genetically-driven, then welfare is justified (!!!). Just think of conservatives in favor of medicaid and disability. So in some sense the gatekeeping helped a portion of the right as well. As long as they can claim
Yes there’s actually a really weird direction here because you can trace back a lot of this discussion to the progressive movement as they subscribed to eugenics, intelligence testing, and so on. There were actually strong objections to eugenics from a Christian perspective, because they believe all people are equal, we should not interfere with creation, evolution is an attack on Christianity, and so on.
Anyway weird racists, nazis, and conspiracy theorists are what people views as representative of the race and IQ question nowadays, and it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy at times…
I’m fairly agnostic on this question as I think there is a fair bit of overdetermination going on, but I broadly agree with you that it’s a topic of discussion that just should not be swept under the rug. Especially since it gives a huge argument to conspiracy theorists and racists who like to call themselves “truth tellers” on this arena.
Even scores in g-loaded tests are highly dependent on environment, particularly in childhood, so are still not a particularly strong evaluation of innate intelligence, which was my point moreso than IQ being a poor measure of intelligence in general (which is also true but can be mitigated as you say).And social definitions of race not being a good biological metric is imperati
I don’t disagree that environment plays a role. But to what extent genetics does play a role in differences is an important question that is currently being debated.
There would be no benefit in figuring that out. The only theoretical benefits would be the ridiculously stupid things that Luciom suggested.
Who is the "Harris" you mentioned?
Sam Harris.
love the marketplace of ideas, or whatever
Yes there’s actually a really weird direction here because you can trace back a lot of this discussion to the progressive movement as they subscribed to eugenics, intelligence testing, and so on.
Actual christians never believed all people are equal in talents, but they did believe all people were worthy of dignity and basics and so on.
And ofc since "forever" actual christians were against (for ex) aborting down syndrome babies. Which for liberals is absolutely "a must". But it's very basic eugenetics in the strictest sense. It's assassinating human life you know is objectively inferior to improve the gene pool.
And it goes on right now, to this day, it's not something that is way in the past. Btw to be clear i am fully in favour of voluntary abortions of defective fetuses (i dislike it if the state pushes for it though).
Then there is the more modern problem of euthanasia of the elders where christianity is stuck in it's fixed form (always against) while rationalists, liberals, and everyone else (for different reasons maybe) are very open to it.
At least euthanasia is a non-taboo topic we could discuss int he past as well. But very little has been achieved on that either in the USA or in Italy. I know some states made some timid steps forward (liberal states ofc, in this they have my full support) but it's still close to nothing compared to a full rationalist approach to the topic.
whenever i picture lucy, the italian version of this bald loser usually comes up:
someone should tell them both that they don't have anywhere close enough rizz to be hitler
Conservatives aren't shy about their racism, so they have full rights to try to move away from minorities.Every liberal who ever spoke in favour of minorities is a piece of human trash and at the bottom of the barrel if he ever tries to "escape" the diversity he wants to violently force upon everyone else with the civil right act and unlimited immigration from the third world.I
All of the jail cells would already be full of conservatives going back forever--so there would be no room 😀
Hiring illegal immigrants(while being hypocrites) right on up to all of the financial schemes etc. smoking weed/doing drugs while supporting prohibition etc it's a Long list bud
the Fed creates a line of credit that allows Argentina to give collateral to it (evne low quality collateral) and get real moneuy (USDs).The treasury also has a fund with limited capacity it can use to prop up the finances of foreign countries temporarily for some billions and it's using that.They are doing it because they are political allies. That's what you do as a country:
But I thought Argentina were doing great with far right politics and economics ?
Why they need help now ?
Let the system do what’s it’s suppose to do …
Isn’t that what you always say .
If it crash it crashes and a better full far right society and economy will emerge .
A dream come true for you .
Let’s do this !
Trump should say no help !
whenever i picture lucy, the italian version of this bald loser usually comes up: someone should tell them both that they don't have anywhere close enough rizz to be hitler
i'm sure it's mutual and he also pictures you while masturbating as well
If we get 50 years where we can discuss racial IQ genetical differences as normal topics for normal people having breakfast.
I feel so sorry for you children (assuming you didn’t invent them) having such a freak of a parent.
You should join a video breakfast club with Stephen Miller.
Yes there’s actually a really weird direction here because you can trace back a lot of this discussion to the progressive movement as they subscribed to eugenics, intelligence testing, and so on. There were actually strong objections to eugenics from a Christian perspective, because they believe all people are equal, we should not interfere with creation, evolution is an attack
Huh, I thought you might mean him, but I haven't heard of the controversy you mentioned. I have read several of his books but he lost me when he started writing about spirituality, and I haven't followed his other activities.
