Please keep it civil.
We’re the healthiest and smartest generation in the last hundred or so years on average per person, yet due to a variety of systemic factors we’re all totally handicapped to producing positive changes towards helping one another let alone many, and it’s largely down to our systems being completely shit.
Companies want people to be healthy and smart to do work. But they also want people to be divided to smaller groups (e.g. bullshit rule about not telling your salary to coworkers). And companies pay as less as people can withstand so we will want to work more. And by working more we are more closed minded and angry and don’t have a time to be kinder.
Idk if that’s makes sense, but I’m just sad because of inequality and people (poor, short sighted people) willing to defend it.
Pineapple on pizza is okay.
(I have my 9mm beretta, an uzi, a kalishnakov machine gun I picked up in the Congo, 6 grenades, a machete and and broad sword and I’m going up on that hill over there so you come and take me down. C’mon all you motherfuckers try and say otherwise, pizza purist pussies!)
We currently live in a thriving bully culture. Every stupid fucking political issue were focused on is either preventing bullying or encouraging bullying. I think its about time we recognized that a huge percent of humans get a dopamine/feel good boost when they shit on other people. This counts for things as vague and superficial as someones appearance, up to whether or not someone should have rights.
Representative Democracies have failed (are failing) like all other political ruling systems have failed so far. Some failed just faster than others that failed more catastrophically while some fail silently (agonizing). In the end all systems failed.
Wow, that is unpopular. I’ve been campaigning against republics for a long time, but I’ve never seen anyone agree.
Nowadays you can cause riots by saying: Humans come in XY and XX chromosomes by genetic program, the correct expression of this genetic program leads to male or female genitalia and there’s currently no medical or surgical procedure to change that, no matter how much you insist. So that was one notch less controversial.
You can’t cause riots by saying that. Obviously you can’t literally change your dna. No one is trying to do that. What people are saying, is that gender, while related to sex, isn’t the same thing as sex. The meaning of the word is basically category, and if you look at other cultures, they often have more than 2 genders, and they are not related to or are only partially related to sex. That’s what people mean when they say gender is a social construct. Trans people are truly changing genders, not sexes. That’s why the term “transgender” is used.
Sounds to me like they are recognizing the issue that gender is a construct, and making the issue worse by enforcing more made up social boxes to stuff things into, instead of recognizing and accepting the realities of sex and disrespecting gender as the oppressive tool it is. Just like how non-binary people who submit to their specific place in the trans story are enforcing the idea of two main boxes they fit between. I think the misstep in most languages development that pushed sex information/assumptions into pronouns has made it harder to think of things logically now. Someones genetic configuration have no relevance to the vast majority of communications. Unfortunately, I think this has cause bad people to enforce oppression and impacted peo people to create more fantasy that modifies the issue but doesn’t help it. I personally think the biggest danger in trans led communications is a lack of focus on looking to accept yourself as a physical being and disrespect what people expect from that, as a first step anyways. I think more steps beyond that are certainly good for some people. I think that sounds of the things trans people are advocating for is great for humans, but only because they’re the quickest way to get a slightly better quality of life using fantasy. I don’t know if eradicating the social constrains built into our very languages is as easy as creating fantasy social constraints that give more people more peace. It’s a difficult topic in my opinion.
I don’t know if eradicating the social constrains built into our very languages is as easy as creating fantasy social constraints that give more people more peace.
It would be essentially impossible to convince people to just stop using gendered pronouns. Some languages already do this, like Turkish, but it introduces more problems. It becomes much more difficult to differentiate between people in conversation if you use the same pronouns for everyone. People who natively speak Turkish, and other languages like it, learn to structure their sentences in ways that make it clear who they are talking about without the use of gendered pronouns. So not only do you have to convince people to stop using those pronouns, you have to change the way they speak entirely.
I think its a much better idea to have more than 2 genders, maybe 3 or 4, and randomly assign them at birth regardless of sex. This way you could differentiate between people even more effectively as well as remove the social constraints. This would also be extremely difficult and probably impossible to make happen, but I think its ideal.
We assign a random token at birth, that is used purely to identify you in conversations?
That’s called a name my homie
Yes, but why would you refer to people by their name every time you mention them? It gets very tedious very fast.
Is your argument only that democratic republics will fail? Are you arguing that it would be better to implement democracy in a different way, or that it should be foregone altogether? I imagine most people would agree that they inevitably fail, but not that there is a better option.
I intentionally wrote: representative democracies. I’m not aware of any ongoing implementation of complete direct democracy, not even in Switzerland so I can’t tell for those.
deleted by creator
So what’s the alternative then? Representative democracies devolve into shit shows given sufficient amount of time. Dictatorships are horrible, council-led states (Sowjet) don’t work either… So what’s left?
Anarchy doesn’t work either…
deleted by creator
That hasn’t worked for North America, it’s not working in the EU and if I look at South America… no I won’t.
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s representative democracy that is the problem per se. That said i would take your hypothetical 51% taking from the 49% over the current practical reality of the 1% voting to take from the 99%
deleted by creator
On average Black people have a lower IQ and and higher testosterone than White people. On average White people have a lower IQ and higher testosterone than Asians.
High testosterone is associated with violence.
There is a similar birth curve where black people on average have more babies but fewer survive than white and white more and fewer survive than Asian.
This explains birth rate differences and why mixing populations causes strange social effects.
These are provably correct but any discussion about it is considered taboo and controversial.
Whether the IQ part is true or not, there’s basically no reason for the average person to bring it up or account for it. Doing so doesn’t do anything except provide fuel for bigotry.
You also made a number of assumptions about the causes for lower IQ, survival rates, etc. It doesn’t necessary have to be the result of anything inherent in the people. For example, economic disparity can also have an impact. Let’s not forget that segregation in the US wasn’t even that long ago: in the US at least, blacks essentially were robbed of generational wealth, educational opportunities. They had a higher chance of ending up in areas polluted by industry, forced to move by eminent domain, etc. Even today, people with black-sounding names are significantly (I recall around 50%) less likely to get a call back for job interviews.
IQ really doesn’t just measure intelligence in a complete vacuum. Education is a factor, and people can learn to get better scores on IQ tests.
Finally, let’s say for the sake of argument people with a certain skin color are just plain 10% intelligent. If you meet a random person, what does that tell you? You have no idea of whether that person is more or less intelligent than the average even if the odds are slightly higher that they’d be less intelligent. Intelligence also isn’t necessarily that valuable all by itself: what’s the point of a super powerful sports car with bald tires or an empty gas tank? One also has to be able to apply those abilities in a constructive way: so attitude, motivation, work ethic, etc are also all very important.
It wouldn’t be hard for someone, let’s say 20% less intelligent but that is dedicated to learning, analyzing their problems and is motivated to outperform someone that is 20% more intelligent but lazy and unmotivated.
The problem comes up when making policy. Let’s say there are green people who average 10% less intelligent than purple people, and that jobs for smart people pay better than jobs for stupid people. Waving a magic wand to end racial prejudice and provide equal schools, safety, housing, and food would still leave the average green person worse off than the average purple person. You could wave the magic wand to end racial inequality of opportunity until your arm falls off and not get rid of the average pay gap between green and purple people because less intelligent people are being paid less no matter whether they are green or purple but more of them are green. If you want the average green person to be as well off as the average purple person, you need to make jobs for stupid people pay as well as jobs for smart people or take money from the mostly-purple rich and give it to the mostly-green poor.
If you are a commoner in an absolute monarchy or a subject in a dictatorship, maybe it’s best for you to forget about that because policy-making is in the hands of your betters. But you probably live in a democracy which means you have a small say in policy and need to think about whether a policy will do what you want before you support it.
I spent a good part of my post arguing a difference in intelligence (even if we accept it currently exists) 1) isn’t necessarily inherent, and 2) raw IQ isn’t necessarily the only factor that goes into being intelligent. So why did you your response just go ahead and disregard all that and assume the green people are simply inherently less intelligent and everything else is equal?
or take money from the mostly-purple rich and give it to the mostly-green poor.
Weird assumption.
Let’s say I’m a purple person with completely average intelligence. If I meet 100 random other purple people, statistically 50 of them are going to be less intelligent than me. Right? Now I meet 100 random green people. How many of them on average are going to be less intelligent than me?
But you probably live in a democracy which means you have a small say in policy and need to think about whether a policy will do what you want before you support it.
If I had to choose - without knowing my color in advance, I’d have no problem going for the world where if I lucked into being born as purple my ability to be wealthy would be subject to a slight limitation.
Quoting your previous post:
Whether the IQ part is true or not, there’s basically no reason for the average person to bring it up or account for it.
Finally, let’s say for the sake of argument people with a certain skin color are just plain 10% intelligent…I’m running with your “for the sake of argument” scenario and constructing a fairy-tale-level example to illustrate why the average citizen of a democracy has a reason to care. Namely, the average citizen votes on policy, and a policy of equality of opportunity doesn’t lead to ethnic equality when there is a big gap in average intelligence, or tenacity, or health, or what have you.
Let’s say I’m a purple person with completely average intelligence. If I meet 100 random other purple people, statistically 50 of them are going to be less intelligent than me. Right? Now I meet 100 random green people. How many of them on average are going to be less intelligent than me?
If I’ve got the statistics right, on average 75 of those random green people will be less intelligent than you (and 25 more intelligent). I am surprised and expected the numbers to be less skewed. I wouldn’t expect 75 of those random green people to also be poorer than you, but 60-65 sounds reasonable.
If I had to choose - without knowing my color in advance, I’d have no problem going for the world where if I lucked into being born as purple my ability to be wealthy would be subject to a slight limitation.
Then my post did its job of making you think about what policy you’d vote for in this situation.
I’m running with your “for the sake of argument” scenario and constructing a fairy-tale-level example to illustrate why the average citizen of a democracy has a reason to care.
Okay, I didn’t see the point you were going for until now. You’re only illustrating something in the fairy tale scenario though, because reality is more nuanced than “green people just plain are 10% dumber and everything else is the same”. This is sort of what I was talking about originally: when this subject comes up, most of the time people don’t account for these nuances, either due to bad faith or just ignorance.
If I’ve got the statistics right, on average 75 of those random green people will be less intelligent than you (and 25 more intelligent). I am surprised and expected the numbers to be less skewed.
Same here, assuming your math was correct. I’m actually not entirely sure what the correct number would be.
I wouldn’t expect 75 of those random green people to also be poorer than you, but 60-65 sounds reasonable.
But this sounds roughly in line with what I’d expect. So in the hypothetical situation of meeting 100 random green and 100 random purple people, 50 purples would be poorer than me, 60-65 greens would be poorer than me. Technically you wouldn’t be wrong to say “mostly green poor” but the numbers are pretty close to even.
Then my post did its job of making you think about
My position on that sort of thing is already pretty well established but fair enough.
I think it’s useful to construct simplified models to show how changing just one thing works without getting lost in the mire of other effects, counter-effects, and opportunities to twist the answer. Even if it’s unrealistic until you add those effects back in.
After thinking about it some, I was surprised how much “magic” was required to get something reasonably like equality of opportunity. Equal schools, yes, but also food, maybe clothes, neighborhood pacification, and trying to find an answer to the runaway loop of rational prejudice. In a more complex example, I’d have to deal with green kids growing up in worse conditions and anti-green prejudice opening a bigger gap between collective green success and collective purple success.
My math went like so: assume that purple people average 100 IQ (because the test was made for purple people), green people average 90 IQ on the purple scale, distribution is normal, and the standard deviation is 15 (like a real IQ test). Adjusting the mean and making the averages 105/95 doesn’t seem to affect the math. However, if there’s a combined IQ test in this world, the standard deviation is probably larger than the 15 that real IQ tests aim for and that would wreck my math.
I think it’s useful to construct simplified models to show how changing just one thing works without getting lost in the mire of other effects, counter-effects, and opportunities to twist the answer. Even if it’s unrealistic until you add those effects back in.
Well, I wouldn’t say something rude like “your post is useless” even if I believed it (which I don’t) but at the same time I’m kind of struggling to see how to apply your point seeing as it was made in the ideal hypothetical scenario. After we do add those effects back in like:
- There isn’t actually a race that’s just inherently X% dumber and everything else equal.
- Intelligence is a multifaceted thing. You can measure and average those facets and come up with a single number, but it doesn’t really tell you much about how a person can practically apply “intelligence” or what they can accomplish with their “intelligence”.
- Tests like the IQ test have significant flaws and culture/education level can have a non-trivial effect on the result. So someone that was deprived of access to education might score lower even though they have the exact same intrinsic potential for intelligence as someone else that scored higher.
How do we relate the real situation to what you said?
trying to find an answer to the runaway loop of rational prejudice.
That’s kind of the problem: Prejudice can seem rational in the simplified example that doesn’t have any nuance. In reality though, there are too many factors to account for, too much missing data. So when someone introduces “Greens have 10% lower IQ scores” to the conversation it’s virtually never going to be constructive. That’s the point I was making originally.
In a more complex example, I’d have to deal with green kids growing up in worse conditions and anti-green prejudice opening a bigger gap between collective green success and collective purple success.
Indeed. Even a small discrepancy that wouldn’t really have much practical effect could absolutely be magnified by bigotry. Again, I feel like this is kind of reinforcing my original point.
My math went like so:
My statistics knowledge isn’t good enough to call you out (or confirm that you’re correct). The 60-65 number you came up with sounded reasonable to me, so I don’t really have a reason to argue about that.
However, if there’s a combined IQ test in this world, the standard deviation is probably larger than the 15 that real IQ tests aim for and that would wreck my math.
You mean a test that includes both the greens and purples? I’m not sure how that would be relevant in this specific scenario since we’re talking about comparing greens and purples.
The biggest issue humanity is facing currently is corruption of governments and corporations.
Is the controversial part of this opinion the fact that it’s not controversial at all so that it will create a discussion based on its controversy?
Not controversial with politically literate people, but bigots, fascists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, etc., shouldn’t get a platform to spew their shit. Public or private, doesn’t matter. And any effort by them to acquire one needs to be put down.
It shocked me when my friends pushed back when I explained why Rogan shouldn’t have those people on his show with a freeze peach argument. Those people deserve nothing but a sock full of batteries.
Ahh, yes. The hallmark of the supposedly “politically literate”. Wanting to physically beat everyone who doesn’t agree. Truly the most enlightened of stances.
“doesn’t agree” here meaning “is trying to strip minorities of their rights”. Just a little intolerance should be tolerated.
Edit: I read some of their comment history, don’t bother engaging them. Full mask off shit. Favorite quote: “I don’t give a singular fuck about voting rights.”
I guess the I have no reason to be tolerant of you since you’re trying to strip people of their rights.
It is definitely a hallmark of the politically illiterate to be completely unaware of the paradox of tolerance.
One need not agree with every piece of garbage they’re aware of
Minorities (race/gender/religion/sexual orientation/gender identity/whatever) should be treated equally but not treated specially (no affirmative action/positive or negative stereotypes/etc) including celebrations/holidays or acknowledgements that they are the first XYZ person to do ABC. Those kind of details should be as utterly unremarkable as someone having a different eye color, different hair color, innie/outie belly button, being left- or right-handed, etc.
Otherwise, they are being given consideration based on some arbitrary trait rather than on character or other merits. And that consideration only serves to accentuate and widen the divide.
That dogs don’t belong in cities. There should be a demarcation where dogs are not allowed to be and where it’s illegal to own them. They are disgusting…
If you live outside in the countryside it’s fine.
A.I. should replace world leaders and it should administer our resources and the fact that we are not working towards that goal is worrying since the future and survival of humankind probably hinges on solving problems that the current leadership wont solve due to them being greedy short term obsessed pigs and just replacing them with other humans its just gonna keep the corruption cycle going.
That gender abolition is the best way forward for society. Really gets both sides all pissy
What is gender abolition, the abolition of any distinctions between male and female?
No, that would be quack genetic modification. Not my area of expertise. Eliminating the social categorization of gender as a whole.
No need to call anybody a quack. I’m just trying to understand your controversial opinion.
Social categorization is incredibly vague, so it’s still not clear to me what you feel should be abolished.
I think he is trying to say everyone should become a they/them and he wants to abolish he/she genders?
I’d be surprised if his most controversial opinion is related to grammar.
In an extremely blunt way, it’s correct. It obviously extends beyond grammar, and I have an entirely different stance on how 3rd person pronouns should be handled in English that described, but the premise is solid. Take where you would typically use gender, and, like, don’t. Obviously you would still have biological sex for things like medical records, but it wouldn’t be tied to who you are as a person, it would just be a letter on a paper somewhere.
Responding here since I didn’t know how to ping you in the other comment, in a sort of blunt way, you’re correct. Everyone would simply just be, not categorized into gender and the associated social expectations that come with it
I agree that its ideal, but how would you even do that? Its so engrained into peoples’ brains that I doubt it could even happen unless the vast majority of people agreed to not teach the concept to their children.
Same way any social progress is made: gradually change people’s opinions
Pandering to very small percentage groups, who still just moan and whinge, this bothers me. And employing based on quotas, this bothers me. You end up with a few people carrying a load of shit.
