Boycott Google

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:37 am

@Seredipper

Only the boomer whites are complaining. The millennial whites don't mind stepping aside for the sake of diversity.

Liberal policies protect incompetent, uncaring blacks from being fired.

This adversely affects us all.

Liberal policies discriminate against competent whites, in favor of incompetent blacks, adding to overall incompetency.

To burn people at stakes requires religion.

Why?

That's like saying you need (social) Darwinism to gas people in chambers.

No, what the studies show is the religious (7th day adventists anyway) are healthier than the average person.

No, the religious in general tend to be healthier.

Thank republicans for that. Fat people and republicans correlate. Poor people overeat.

Are conservatives more responsible for disempowering and impoverishing us than liberals?

Conservatives tend to cut taxes for the upper class, but also for the middle class, liberals tend to raise taxes for the upper class, but also for the middle class.

They may have said it changed, but there were no changes. We have cars, internet, grocery stores,,,

They may not seem like much by today's standards, but the Romans invented books, the newspaper and the postal service.

That was the their information revolution, it couldn't save them from tyranny and collapse, and ours won't save us either.

IF they're raised in poverty.

This is why I do not fear AI. Anything smarter than us will be kinder.

If that were true, capitalists wouldn't be exploiting us.

That's just a tactic and not philosophical foundation.

Plenty of philosophers tried to give liberalism a philosophical foundation, Rousseau's The Social Contract, the Utilitarians, John Rawls's A Theory Of Justice...
Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:55 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:17 am

@Seredipper

No one starves because they go to work (or they opioid themselves to death). Starvation is the sword forcing them into the laborforce by those who supposedly adore freedom so much. The only real freedom you have is in deciding which rich asshole you want to make richer.

I've correlated suicides with tax rates.

It's hard, but you can survive on welfare if you don't spend all your money on drugs.

People kill themselves less when taxes are high (because redistribution).

The evilness of y'all's side is coming into focus.

It's not my side, I'm in favor of taxing the rich.

We can't cut down a tree without asking the gov. What more do you want?

Thousands of more species are going extinct and wilderness is receding, we're not doing enough.
Last edited by Gloominary on Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:37 am

@Serendipper

Why wouldn't they support the guy who seems determined to ban abortion?

Trump personally supports "traditional marriage" but said after the election that he considers the nationwide legality of same-sex marriage a "settled" issue with the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.[340][160] This appeared to contradict some of his campaign statements, where he said he would "strongly consider" appointing justices who may overturn this decision.[341][342] While as a presidential candidate, Donald Trump largely avoided commenting on LGBT issues, the Trump administration rolled back a number of LGBT protections during the president's first six months in office.[309][343] However, he did keep some limited LGBT protections from the Obama-era.[344] In 2018, he nominated an openly gay attorney, Patrick Bumatay, to be a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court.

Marijuana and the rights of individual states to legalize recreational and medical marijuana was an issue of Trump's presidential campaign, and he formally stated during his campaign that he believed states should have the right to manage their own policies with regard to medical and recreational marijuana.[348][349] Following his election, he reversed his position on recreational marijuana and stated he believed medical marijuana should be allowed but stated the Federal Government may seek legal resolutions for those states which regulate the growth and sale of recreational marijuana.[350][351] However, in April 2018, he once again reversed himself, endorsing leaving the issue to the states;[352] and in June of 2018, Trump backed a bill introduced by Republican Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts that would leave the decision to the states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#Abortion_and_same-sex_marriage

Other than on abortion, he seems pretty moderate on social and religious issues.

What makes him further right are his stances on immigration, national sovereignty and tax cuts.

I totally agree. Homos are like 2% of the population. The real issue is poverty and wealth distribution.

Couldn't agree with you more there.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:40 am

@Serendipper

Well we left off with Jared Diamond's theory that domesticated animals caused the intelligence of whites, which you didn't seem to contest, but more focused on whether or not domesticated animals existed anywhere but europe, which is a point that's accepted as scientific fact pending evidence to the contrary.

Twin studies prove iQ is partly genetic.

Doesn't matter how much mutton you feed mulattos, they're never going to be as smart as whites.

Now just because the liberal Jewish historian Jared Diamond said whites had more (kinds of) domesticated animals, doesn't make it uncontestable.
Which's not to say we shouldn't consider what he has to say either, we should.
I wonder how much of the scientific community supports, and contests his narrative?
I doubt Diamond is even willing to seriously entertain the plausibility there's a genetic basis, even in part, for why whites have been more successful than other races.

Does Diamond also say whites had all these domesticated animals by chance?
Again, why didn't the Africans and Asians take them back to their lands and support large numbers of them?
And like you said, even if whites had more domesticated animals, doesn't mean that alone can explain why whites have been more successful than other races.

While some environments are better than others, are we really to believe Europe was the best subcontinent to live in?
Europe had its disadvantages too, especially in the north, again, cold, dark winters.
Whites adapted to these conditions, genetically and mimetically, and prospered despite them, whereas other races weren't able to adapt to whatever disadvantages they had, and prosper as much despite them.
And even if Europe was the best, again, the ancestors of whites had enough innate sense to migrate to, settle and fight for it, other peoples came and went.

Yes there is and it starts with the principle foundation upon which one chooses to view the world. It's polar. One either chooses to believe in absolute truth or he doesn't.

Why can't someone believe some things are absolutely true and others relatively?
Why can't someone take the position there's probably (not) absolute truth?
Why can't someone be unsure about absolute truth, or waiver?

Why do people who choose to own guns also choose never to use them to kill people? Because the dogmatic truth that killing is wrong cannot be changed.

Or is it because they have an empathetic, fair-minded, peaceable disposition?

There is no neural mechanism around dogma. Kennesaw GA mandates every head of household be armed and yet no murders in 10 years. And it's not fear of others who might be armed because if we arm prisoners, they'd kill each other that much faster.

Prisoners are averagely different than the gen pop, mimetically, and genetically.

And prison is a very different environment than the countryside, or suburbia.

So it's a mindset and dogma can't be circumvented. And that stems from a choice of worldview: does the absolute exist or does it not. Robots are trustworthy because they have no mind and the same explains conservatives who just as mechanistically follow lines of dogmatic code, and pride themselves for it.

If conservatives are sometimes guilty of being too dogmatic and legalistic, flaky progressives are sometimes guilty of deciding things on a whim, overturning all conventions overnight, without thinking them through, and of having a mob mentality.

Alan Watts actually breaks it all down and has nothing good to say about people who believe in law. He calls them "inflexible fools" and "machinery" that requires a boss with a brain. Start at 1:55:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7vFOU8e0wU

Liberals and conservatives each have advantages and disadvantages.

I think we should sometimes consider what authorities, customs, laws and traditions have to say, but we should never be completely bound by them.

Sure, yes, but not because blacks are inherently inferior but that the environment didn't favor the same outcome as whites. But it wasn't just the challenges that the whites had to endure that made them smarter, but the nutrition was better as well. Animals could be harnessed to provide much more for the whites than for the blacks.

I"m sure for you, nothing in man qualifies as inherent.

Skin color isn't inherent either, because given thousands or millions of years, through natural, sexual and social selection, it could change, so it can't even be said whites are white and blacks black, we're all amorphous blobs of goo, pure potential.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 30, 2019 6:57 am

Gloominary wrote:@Seredipper

Only the boomer whites are complaining. The millennial whites don't mind stepping aside for the sake of diversity.

Liberal policies protect incompetent, uncaring blacks from being fired.

I don't disagree.

This adversely affects us all.

Probably so, but it also benefits us all. The net effect could be positive.

Liberal policies discriminate against competent whites, in favor of incompetent blacks, adding to overall incompetency.

Well millennial whites can't be the ones complaining about it or it would be evident from the party demographics. And the ones complaining have the least reason to care.

To burn people at stakes requires religion.

Why?

That's like saying you need (social) Darwinism to gas people in chambers.

Gas chambers require religion too.







Show me an evil that was not perpetuated by religion.

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg

No, what the studies show is the religious (7th day adventists anyway) are healthier than the average person.

No, the religious in general tend to be healthier.

Right, healthier than "average". Not healthier than atheists. Just about any group that's a group is healthier than average lol

The healthiest states are the least religious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... eligiosity

The places where christianity resides is not any place you'd want to live, unless you like low wages, low education, high poverty, drug use, teen pregnancy, low property values, early death, lots of cops, strict laws, unreasonable judges, and republicans.

The 3 most religious states are the 3 most miserable places to live.

Thank republicans for that. Fat people and republicans correlate. Poor people overeat.

Are conservatives more responsible for disempowering and impoverishing us than liberals?

Without a doubt.

Conservatives tend to cut taxes for the upper class, but also for the middle class, liberals tend to raise taxes for the upper class, but also for the middle class.

I don't know about that http://www.bernietax.com/

They may have said it changed, but there were no changes. We have cars, internet, grocery stores,,,

They may not seem like much by today's standards, but the Romans invented books, the newspaper and the postal service.

That's not much. They didn't know much and most probably couldn't read. I wouldn't count the printing press until after the population could read.

Watts says they traded all their gold for luxury from india and had no money left to pay an army. Good thing we're not on a gold standard today and that there are no barbarian hordes lurking out there.

That was the their information revolution, it couldn't save them from tyranny and collapse, and ours won't save us either.

I think that fear is irrational.

IF they're raised in poverty.

This is why I do not fear AI. Anything smarter than us will be kinder.

If that were true, capitalists wouldn't be exploiting us.

I don't regard capitalism as a hallmark of intelligence. I think Marx put it like this: First we have monarchy with tribal leaders and such; then society progresses to a less feudal, but more class oriented capitalistic style; then they transition into socialism as new evils are recognized, and finally communism when government is no longer necessary because prosperity is so abundant.

Image

That's just a tactic and not philosophical foundation.

Plenty of philosophers tried to give liberalism a philosophical foundation, Rousseau's The Social Contract, the Utilitarians, John Rawls's A Theory Of Justice...

I don't know about that, but the right's assertion is morality exists and the left's assertion is only the assertion of morality itself is immoral. The right says some things are wrong and the left says that decreeing things wrong, is wrong. The left is fundamentally amoral. That's their point of departure. They're baby killers after all. Of course by "morality" I mean absolute morality and not relative morality.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:30 am

Gloominary wrote:@Seredipper

No one starves because they go to work (or they opioid themselves to death). Starvation is the sword forcing them into the laborforce by those who supposedly adore freedom so much. The only real freedom you have is in deciding which rich asshole you want to make richer.

I've correlated suicides with tax rates.

It's hard, but you can survive on welfare if you don't spend all your money on drugs.

I know a lot of those people who get a windfall and waste it only to return to their misery, but they were raised in poverty and have brain damage as a result. Plus, one fish isn't teaching a man to fish and one windfall doesn't make a new life with new opportunities.

The reason proposed for why whites commit suicide more than blacks is that blacks already know they're fucked from birth whereas whites think they have opportunity, but later realize they're fucked and off themselves.

I pin suicides and the opioid epidemic squarely on conservatives.

People kill themselves less when taxes are high (because redistribution).

The evilness of y'all's side is coming into focus.

It's not my side, I'm in favor of taxing the rich.

Yes but you're not in favor of handing out the money where it's needed, but giving it back to the same capitalists to incentivize the system. If you're not providing a basic standard of living, then suicides won't relent. Simply punishing the rich isn't going to help anyone.

We have to work towards a basic standard of living for everyone which will put pressure on corps to raise wages in competition with the gov. Then everyone will have the minimum required to develop a decent brain capable of learning what's necessary to participate in a democratic government instead of making poor decisions and becoming an eternal burden (drugs, crime, early pregnancy, looking like a tatted up meth whore, etc).

Something like 4% of people move from one quintile-class to another and so long as we have poor, we're going to continue having them because where you're born is where you'll stay (brain damage). And if I discovered I had suffered a neurological deformity so that some rich assholes could keep more of their money in order to provide more jobs and therefore more ways for him to become richer, I'd be pissed!

The capitalists don't realize that if my purpose on this earth is to make them rich, they have to provide me the nurturing environment necessary to develop the skills necessary to do so. But I suppose if disparity is the only goal, which it is, then it's much much easier to hold everyone down, keep them stupid and desperate enough to work for the peanuts required to generate the profits. Capitalism incentivizes poverty.

We can't cut down a tree without asking the gov. What more do you want?

Thousands of more species are going extinct and wilderness is receding, we're not doing enough.

What do we do about the emerald ash borer? What about the american chestnut tree? I also saw something about the banana going extinct soon. This isn't our fault.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Wed Jan 30, 2019 8:37 am

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Well we left off with Jared Diamond's theory that domesticated animals caused the intelligence of whites, which you didn't seem to contest, but more focused on whether or not domesticated animals existed anywhere but europe, which is a point that's accepted as scientific fact pending evidence to the contrary.

Twin studies prove iQ is partly genetic.

It's entirely genetic, isn't it? Fish aren't stupid because of bad environment. But the question is where did the good genes come from? The environment is the answer.

Doesn't matter how much mutton you feed mulattos, they're never going to be as smart as whites.

And probably not as arrogant either lol.

If the conditions responsible for the whites being smart were replicated on mulattos, then why would they not become smart?

Now just because the liberal Jewish historian Jared Diamond

Diamond is a jewish name? How can you tell these things?

said whites had more (kinds of) domesticated animals, doesn't make it uncontestable.

It's uncontestable because it's been independently verified. A few minutes spent on google and you can figure out where domesticated animals originated, and the sources have nothing to do with diamond. We've been through this before.

I wonder how much of the scientific community supports, and contests his narrative?

We've done this before too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger ... #Reception

There are criticisms, but no one is questioning where domesticated animals existed.

I doubt Diamond is even willing to seriously entertain the plausibility there's a genetic basis, even in part, for why whites have been more successful than other races.

We all get our genes from the same place. The question is why the genes changed.

Does Diamond also say whites had all these domesticated animals by chance?

I think so. I think that's the idea. He's pointing out it's just a bunch of luck and no cause for celebration (arrogance) on anyone's part.

Again, why didn't the Africans and Asians take them back to their lands and support large numbers of them?

For the same reason chimps don't enslave the africans.

And like you said, even if whites had more domesticated animals, doesn't mean that alone can explain why whites have been more successful than other races.

Sure it does since food is the basis for everything. Before globalization, midwestern people were fitter than southeasterners (toothless hillbillies eating only locally grown food). Rejection rates for wwii was 30% in the midwest and 70% in the southeast. Now imagine that persisting for 1000s of years.

Thundering herds of bison could not exist on the soils of the east, which can only muster sparse populations of scrawny deer.

While some environments are better than others, are we really to believe Europe was the best subcontinent to live in?
Europe had its disadvantages too, especially in the north, again, cold, dark winters.

The glacial till is to the north, so the soil compensated for the negative of the cold, which may have been a challenge that selected for intelligence.

Yes there is and it starts with the principle foundation upon which one chooses to view the world. It's polar. One either chooses to believe in absolute truth or he doesn't.

Why can't someone believe some things are absolutely true and others relatively?

All absolutists do because not everything is absolute.

Why can't someone take the position there's probably (not) absolute truth?

You can. Is murder probably wrong? It's either absolutely wrong or it isn't.

Why do people who choose to own guns also choose never to use them to kill people? Because the dogmatic truth that killing is wrong cannot be changed.

Or is it because they have an empathetic, fair-minded, peaceable disposition?

They're too busy railing against the government, calling people lazy, complaining about the kneegrows, and resembling too much the Grumpy Old Men to have time left for empathy and peaceful dispositions. They'll chew nails and spit venom, but they can't hit first. If you attack, oh yeah, they'll kill you and relish doing so. They might even beg you to attack, but they can't cross the line of integrity. They're a proud people because "you got to stand for something or you'll fall or anything."



Now Daddy didn't like trouble, but if it came along
Everyone that knew him knew which side that he'd be on
He never was a hero, or this county's shinin' light
But you could always find him standing up
For what he thought was right

He'd say you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything
You've got to be your own man not a puppet on a string
Never compromise what's right and uphold your family name
You've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything

There is no neural mechanism around dogma. Kennesaw GA mandates every head of household be armed and yet no murders in 10 years. And it's not fear of others who might be armed because if we arm prisoners, they'd kill each other that much faster.

Prisoners are averagely different than the gen pop, mimetically, and genetically.

And prison is a very different environment than the countryside, or suburbia.

If you want to kill someone, just snipe him from a distance and drive off. Whether anyone is armed is inconsequential. In prison they'd shoot someone and dive under something so their buddies couldn't return fire before the guards intervened. They have nothing but time to plan this stuff. The guns themselves aren't stopping the use of guns, but the people using them are making decisions not to because it's a line they can't cross. I mean, almost no one is really armed in kennesaw and you could still shootup a mcdonalds without getting shot. But still they have no murders in a decade.

So it's a mindset and dogma can't be circumvented. And that stems from a choice of worldview: does the absolute exist or does it not. Robots are trustworthy because they have no mind and the same explains conservatives who just as mechanistically follow lines of dogmatic code, and pride themselves for it.

If conservatives are sometimes guilty of being too dogmatic and legalistic, flaky progressives are sometimes guilty of deciding things on a whim, overturning all conventions overnight, without thinking them through, and of having a mob mentality.

Yeah probably. Liberals are flakey, fashionably late, fickle, procrastinators, etc. Conservatives are diligent like machines: on time, keep their word, predictable, etc. That's why runoff elections ALWAYS go to conservatives... the liberals don't get around to voting the second time and it's usually only a one-day election. Liberals blow it off or forget or whatever, but conservatives are there bright n early saluting the flag every time the polls open.

Alan Watts actually breaks it all down and has nothing good to say about people who believe in law. He calls them "inflexible fools" and "machinery" that requires a boss with a brain. Start at 1:55:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7vFOU8e0wU

Liberals and conservatives each have advantages and disadvantages.

I think we should sometimes consider what authorities, customs, laws and traditions have to say, but we should never be completely bound by them.

I agree.

Sure, yes, but not because blacks are inherently inferior but that the environment didn't favor the same outcome as whites. But it wasn't just the challenges that the whites had to endure that made them smarter, but the nutrition was better as well. Animals could be harnessed to provide much more for the whites than for the blacks.

I"m sure for you, nothing in man qualifies as inherent.

Skin color isn't inherent either, because given thousands or millions of years, through natural, sexual and social selection, it could change, so it can't even be said whites are white and blacks black, we're all amorphous blobs of goo, pure potential.

Seems right.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:47 pm

@Serendipper

It's entirely genetic, isn't it? Fish aren't stupid because of bad environment. But the question is where did the good genes come from? The environment is the answer.

The intelligence of humans is partly determined by genetics, and by nurture.
If you practice healthy eating, sleeping and so on habits, and if exercise your brain, you can increase your iQ.

And probably not as arrogant either lol.

Or confident in our abilities.

If the conditions responsible for the whites being smart were replicated on mulattos, then why would they not become smart?

Just because you place race B in a nearly identical environment as race A, doesn't mean they're going to adapt the same way.
If race B begins with different genes than race A and different mutations happen to occur in race B than race A, than race B will adapt in different ways than race A.
For example, if you place race A in the arctic, it may evolve greater intelligence to deal with arctic stressors, if you place race B in the arctic, it may evolve hibernation, if you place race C in the arctic, it may not evolve much at all and either die, or not thrive as much as A and B, and if you place race D in the arctic, it may devolve and perish, due to not having good genes to begin with, an accumulation of bad mutations and unlucky natural, poor sexual and social selection, which's not uncommon in nature, in fact it's the rule, most species go extinct.

And I mean what're you suggesting we do here?
Transport all the mulattos to the arctic, so in 10s of 1000s of years, they can be as smart as us?
They are what they are, people who contribute more to society should get more out of it.

We've done this before too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger ... #Reception

There are criticisms, but no one is questioning where domesticated animals existed.

From your own citation:

Another criticism of the book has been that it underemphasizes individual and cultural choice and autonomy. The anthropologist Jason Antrosio described Guns, Germs, and Steel as a form of "academic porn," writing, "Diamond's account makes all the factors of European domination a product of a distant and accidental history" and "has almost no role for human agency–the ability people have to make decisions and influence outcomes. Europeans become inadvertent, accidental conquerors. Natives succumb passively to their fate." He added, "Jared Diamond has done a huge disservice to the telling of human history. He has tremendously distorted the role of domestication and agriculture in that history. Unfortunately his story-telling abilities are so compelling that he has seduced a generation of college-educated readers."

It has no role for human genetics either.

For the same reason chimps don't enslave the africans.

Right, Africans have a lower iQ and they're more lax.
Look, each race has strengths and weaknesses, and I think every race is beautiful in its own way.
I am just sick to death of liberals attributing all our successes to some combination of luck, and malevolence, completely neglecting genetic, and cultural factors, and then using that to justify discrimination against us.
either we live in a color blind society, or we don't, I'm fed up with the one-way racism.
And there's nothing wrong with wanting to live in a mostly homogenous society either.
I say let's have a referendum on how much immigration we want.
And I want to protect our wilderness, pop density and jobs, we don't need the growth.

Sure it does since food is the basis for everything. Before globalization, midwestern people were fitter than southeasterners (toothless hillbillies eating only locally grown food). Rejection rates for wwii was 30% in the midwest and 70% in the southeast. Now imagine that persisting for 1000s of years.

Thundering herds of bison could not exist on the soils of the east, which can only muster sparse populations of scrawny deer.

Nutrition is very important, but it's not the only factor for why one race thrives while another merely survives.
There are genetic factors, cultural factors, climatic factors, geographic factors, predators, access to other (non)renewable resources...

The glacial till is to the north, so the soil compensated for the negative of the cold, which may have been a challenge that selected for intelligence.

Why can the cold select for intelligence, but poor soil can't?
So the cold cancels out the supposedly better soil, with which we could support bigger and more livestock (assuming we even had better soil).
So Europe had advantages and disadvantages, it was not Shangri-La after all.

All absolutists do because not everything is absolute.

Right, few are absolutely absolutist or relativist, some're relatively absolutist, some're relatively relativist.

You can. Is murder probably wrong? It's either absolutely wrong or it isn't.

Why can't something be probably (not) wrong?
According to the best of my abilities, my reason, research, experience and gut or moral compass, it's probably wrong.

They're too busy railing against the government, calling people lazy, complaining about the kneegrows, and resembling too much the Grumpy Old Men to have time left for empathy and peaceful dispositions. They'll chew nails and spit venom, but they can't hit first. If you attack, oh yeah, they'll kill you and relish doing so. They might even beg you to attack, but they can't cross the line of integrity. They're a proud people because "you got to stand for something or you'll fall or anything."

This just sounds like more unsubstantiated, anti-rural conservative rhetoric to me.
I'm sure this is true of some countryfolk, but not all or necessarily most.
If I'm not mistaken, urban liberals kill the most.
That's a mark against them.

Yeah probably. Liberals are flakey, fashionably late, fickle, procrastinators, etc. Conservatives are diligent like machines: on time, keep their word, predictable, etc. That's why runoff elections ALWAYS go to conservatives... the liberals don't get around to voting the second time and it's usually only a one-day election. Liberals blow it off or forget or whatever, but conservatives are there bright n early saluting the flag every time the polls open.

If you want to use MBTI, liberals are relatively INFP, or perhaps INTP, whereas conservatives are ESTJ, or ESFJ.
And one is not necessarily superior, they're just different.
Last edited by Gloominary on Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:40 am

@Serendipper

Yes but you're not in favor of handing out the money where it's needed,

From my research, I believe essential goods and services are overpriced and workers underpaid.
Capitalists could afford to reduce prices and increase wages many times over and still make more and work less than workers many times over.
We produce essential goods/services many times cheaper than we did a couple of centuries ago, thanks to advances in automation and energy production, but this hasn't translated into cheaper essentials or better wages.
Furthermore, allowing this absurd, hyper-disparity to exist has undermined the integrity of our democracy, as the overclass have the politicians and judges in their back pockets.

Therefore, I'm in favor of increasing wages and decreasing prices of essentials, so long as we help or at least don't hurt middle class small businesses in doing so.
What workers do with fairer wages and prices is up to them, either they can save/spend more like the upper class/live more leisurely.

However, what I'm not in favor of is a UBI.
The standard of living for the upper and lower classes shouldn't be kept artificially high and low respectively, but it shouldn't be artificially high for the idle either.
I believe in treating those who're genuinely disabled or unable to find employment humanely.
But, people who can, but refuse to work, are entitled to nothing, and whether they wind up on the street, in the hospital, jail or morgue, I don't care.
We should not weaken our society for their sake.

What do we do about the emerald ash borer? What about the american chestnut tree? I also saw something about the banana going extinct soon. This isn't our fault.

Not everything is our fault, but what is needs to be corrected ASAP.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:57 am

My ideas are syncretic, they don't fall squarely in the left/right camp.

I think both the left/right get it wrong.

They're controlled opposition, and they'll continue to get us, nowhere.

People are far too polarized these days, it's not healthy for democracy, it'll tear it apart.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 31, 2019 3:00 am

@Serendipper

Probably so, but it also benefits us all. The net effect could be positive.

It doesn't benefit us all, it doesn't even benefit mulatto Americans, they were far better off economically and socially before the late 20th century when they started blaming whitey for all their woes.
Nigerian Americans fair better than not only mulatto Americans, but white and Asian Americans.
Discrimination is no longer a significant determiner of income, but genetics are and always will be.
I believe in doing more to help the poor, but not especially poor mulattos, or mestizos.

Well millennial whites can't be the ones complaining about it or it would be evident from the party demographics. And the ones complaining have the least reason to care.

I'm a millennial white, and I don't want my people being discriminated against.

Gas chambers require religion too.

Hitler was at best, a lukewarm theist, if not an atheist.
Race was his religion.

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1] In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[2] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity.[1] Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[3] Ernst Hanfstaengl, a friend from his early days in politics, says Hitler "was to all intents and purposes an atheist by the time I got to know him".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

He didn't need religion to enslave and/or exterminate people, he found all the justification he needed in social Darwinism.
In his mind they were inferior, and in the way.

Show me an evil that was not perpetuated by religion.

You know the atheist, communist Russians and Chinese massacred tens of millions.
And before the 20th century, every state was predominantly religious.
Give it time, atheists will kill many millions more.
Lastly just because a genocidal people happened to be been religious, doesn't mean religion was the primary, or even one of the culprits.
It depends, in fact in some cases religion may have prevented genocide, like if two different classes, nationalities or races share the same religion, they may be less likely to go to war with one another.

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

But for evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

I don't know about that http://www.bernietax.com/

That may be the case, I have to do more research on how liberals and conservatives tend to tax us.

That's not much. They didn't know much and most probably couldn't read. I wouldn't count the printing press until after the population could read.

Much is relative, there's no magic point where democracy, peace and prosperity are guaranteed.
It's only been 74 years since WW2, and the cold war nearly erupted into a hot one a few times.
Give it time.
While we may be progressing, I doubt it since the environment seems to be on the verge of collapse, and even if we are ultimately are, the road uphill will at least be bumpy.
Poverty, tyranny and war are inevitable, the only question is: how soon and severe?

Watts says they traded all their gold for luxury from india and had no money left to pay an army. Good thing we're not on a gold standard today and that there are no barbarian hordes lurking out there.

I'm totally against a gold standard.
But I'm against central, fractional reserve banking too.
Government should be able to print money debt free whenever it needs to.
Really we don't even need taxes.

I don't regard capitalism as a hallmark of intelligence.

My point is capitalists are averagely a little smarter and 100s-1000s of times wealthier than the people, yet this hasn't translated into niceness, on the contrary, if anything it's made them more mean.

I think Marx put it like this: First we have monarchy with tribal leaders and such; then society progresses to a less feudal, but more class oriented capitalistic style; then they transition into socialism as new evils are recognized, and finally communism when government is no longer necessary because prosperity is so abundant.

Government, or at least individuals and groups arming themselves, will always be necessary.

And the noble savage is a myth.
The murder rate in hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to be about 100 times ours.
So what do they fighter over, if they have so few resources to pilfer, hunting grounds?
Perhaps some of the time, but in the main: women.
Hunter-gatherers tend to be polygamous.
The alpha male(s) sometimes monopolize mates, and so they wage tribal warfare on each other in order to pacify, or eliminate the betas.

I don't know about that, but the right's assertion is morality exists and the left's assertion is only the assertion of morality itself is immoral. The right says some things are wrong and the left says that decreeing things wrong, is wrong. The left is fundamentally amoral. That's their point of departure. They're baby killers after all. Of course by "morality" I mean absolute morality and not relative morality.

The left have a morality, and we all know what it is, it's similar to conservative morality in some ways, and different in others.
People shouldn't lie, cheat, steal or kill, but if someone cheats you/your demographic and/or you/your demographic are very poor/large disparities, than it's okay for Robin Hood to steal from them.
And instead of marginalizing the other (supposedly women, outgroups), we should at least tolerate and accept them, if not reverse discrimination.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:44 am

Like libertarians and unlike conservatives, liberals believe anything involving consenting adults is tolerable, but libertarians won't compel you to approve of/support it, liberals sometimes will.
But liberals think it's wrong to lie, cheat, steal and kill, unless you're Robin Hood.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:57 am

Artificial scarcity means the 99% has to work a lot harder than they should have to, which also means the environment takes a hit. I agree wealth and resources ought to be spread more evenly, but everyone should still do their fair share.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:50 am

Just to throw things back at the topic:

youtube seems different now.

Now, I did clean out all my histories not too long ago. But my sense is that the algorithms have changed. I get more sponsered suggestions and it seems to adapt less to the choices I make. IOW it offers me less things like what I have chosen and more stuff that corporations want to sell, especially movies. This, to me, is less important than Google's change, which I actually think is extremely damaging, though in tiny tiny increments. But still a trend towards seeing me as not an agent learning about the world and exploring, but a consumer to be manipulated.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:40 am

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

It's entirely genetic, isn't it? Fish aren't stupid because of bad environment. But the question is where did the good genes come from? The environment is the answer.

The intelligence of humans is partly determined by genetics, and by nurture.
If you practice healthy eating, sleeping and so on habits, and if exercise your brain, you can increase your iQ.

Well then use that method to make mulattos smarter.

And probably not as arrogant either lol.

Or confident in our abilities.

Every organism is confident in its abilities. Overconfidence, or confidence in ability you don't have, is different.

If the conditions responsible for the whites being smart were replicated on mulattos, then why would they not become smart?

Just because you place race B in a nearly identical environment as race A, doesn't mean they're going to adapt the same way.
If race B begins with different genes than race A and different mutations happen to occur in race B than race A, than race B will adapt in different ways than race A.
For example, if you place race A in the arctic, it may evolve greater intelligence to deal with arctic stressors, if you place race B in the arctic, it may evolve hibernation, if you place race C in the arctic, it may not evolve much at all and either die, or not thrive as much as A and B, and if you place race D in the arctic, it may devolve and perish, due to not having good genes to begin with, an accumulation of bad mutations and poor natural, sexual and social selection, which's not uncommon in nature, in fact it's the rule, most species go extinct.

How does hibernation favor existence in the arctic? They have to hibernate 100% of the time.

I think it has more to do with the food than the challenges. Challenges can always be found, but abundant food cannot.

And I mean what're you suggesting we do here?
Transport all the mulattos to the arctic, so in 10s of 1000s of years, they can be as smart as us?

Feed em and teach em. They'll get smarter over time.

They are what they are, people who contribute more to society should get more out of it.

Yeah but people who contribute nothing shouldn't get nothing or else being born is conscription into servitude in order to exist. You may have made a case for the necessity of that 100 years ago, but today the rich are just way too rich and the machines are doing way too much to justify compulsion into the labor force because the justification for suffering is letting the rich keep their money. IOW, I grew up poor so that some rich asshole could keep a few extra bucks that he wasn't using anyway.

We've done this before too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Ger ... #Reception

There are criticisms, but no one is questioning where domesticated animals existed.

From your own citation:

Another criticism of the book has been that it underemphasizes individual and cultural choice and autonomy. The anthropologist Jason Antrosio described Guns, Germs, and Steel as a form of "academic porn," writing, "Diamond's account makes all the factors of European domination a product of a distant and accidental history" and "has almost no role for human agency–the ability people have to make decisions and influence outcomes. Europeans become inadvertent, accidental conquerors. Natives succumb passively to their fate." He added, "Jared Diamond has done a huge disservice to the telling of human history. He has tremendously distorted the role of domestication and agriculture in that history. Unfortunately his story-telling abilities are so compelling that he has seduced a generation of college-educated readers."

It has no role for human genetics either.

Genetics is an accident. Nobody guided genetics. And if agency exists, it exists by accident as well. Did you cause yourself and create yourself?

For the same reason chimps don't enslave the africans.

Right, Africans have a lower iQ and they're more lax.
Look, each race has strengths and weaknesses, and I think every race is beautiful in its own way.
I am just sick to death of liberals attributing all our successes to some combination of luck,

Then you have to show it wasn't luck; that is was guided.

and malevolence,

Who's claiming that?

completely neglecting genetic, and cultural factors, and then using that to justify discrimination against us.

It's illegal to discriminate against race.

either we live in a color blind society, or we don't, I'm fed up with the one-way racism.

How are you a victim?

Sure it does since food is the basis for everything. Before globalization, midwestern people were fitter than southeasterners (toothless hillbillies eating only locally grown food). Rejection rates for wwii was 30% in the midwest and 70% in the southeast. Now imagine that persisting for 1000s of years.

Thundering herds of bison could not exist on the soils of the east, which can only muster sparse populations of scrawny deer.

Nutrition is very important, but it's not the only factor for why one race thrives while another merely survives.
There are genetic factors, cultural factors, climatic factors, geographic factors, predators, access to other (non)renewable resources...

Well, there's no way to grow a big brain full of expensive machinery devoted to anything BUT surviving (art, science, language) without an excess of food. The only way to have oodles of time left over in order to develop these trivialities is to have an abundance of food. Genetics followed as a consequence of the food.

Probably the biggest leap was learning to hunt which selected for sweating and losing hair and provided the dense energy source in less time eating. Then discovery of fire and cooking which made time for language while pre-digesting food. Because of our meat diet, we lost ability to ferment and synthesize B12 along with nearly losing our carotene to A and K1 to K2 conversion ability. We're not efficient at gaining nutrition from vegetation as a result of genetic changes which resulted from hunting and cooking.

Then they migrated north to the glacial till soil to take advantage of grains, which could be farmed and stored over winter, and domesticated animals which put out fat-dense milk and eggs.

Then they turned white due to lack of UVB radiation at the latitude and finally they developed the arrogance to congratulate themselves as if the effect had anything to do with the cause.

All absolutists do because not everything is absolute.

Right, few are absolutely absolutist or relativist, some're relatively absolutist, some're relatively relativist.

I think an absolutist only needs one absolute belief and a relativist can't have any absolute beliefs. Like a theist only needs one god to constitute being a theist, but an atheist can't believe in any gods.

You can. Is murder probably wrong? It's either absolutely wrong or it isn't.

Why can't something be probably (not) wrong?
According to the best of my abilities, my reason, research, experience and gut or moral compass, it's probably wrong.

Well, probably wrong is not absolutely wrong, unless you mean probably absolutely wrong, in which case you'd be an absolutist.

They're too busy railing against the government, calling people lazy, complaining about the kneegrows, and resembling too much the Grumpy Old Men to have time left for empathy and peaceful dispositions. They'll chew nails and spit venom, but they can't hit first. If you attack, oh yeah, they'll kill you and relish doing so. They might even beg you to attack, but they can't cross the line of integrity. They're a proud people because "you got to stand for something or you'll fall or anything."

This just sounds like more unsubstantiated, anti-rural conservative rhetoric to me.
I'm sure this is true of some countryfolk, but not all or necessarily most.
If I'm not mistaken, urban liberals kill the most.
That's a mark against them.

Sure liberals kill the most because they hit first. Conservatives cannot hit first because it's impossible to circumvent their programming (dogma).

Yeah probably. Liberals are flakey, fashionably late, fickle, procrastinators, etc. Conservatives are diligent like machines: on time, keep their word, predictable, etc. That's why runoff elections ALWAYS go to conservatives... the liberals don't get around to voting the second time and it's usually only a one-day election. Liberals blow it off or forget or whatever, but conservatives are there bright n early saluting the flag every time the polls open.

If you want to use MBTI, liberals are relatively INFP, or perhaps INTP, whereas conservatives are ESTJ, or ESFJ.
And one is not necessarily superior, they're just different.

I've never had much admiration for that alphabet soup psychology. The bottomline is conservatives could be replaced by machines and not much would change.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 01, 2019 1:05 am

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Yes but you're not in favor of handing out the money where it's needed,

From my research, I believe essential goods and services are overpriced and workers underpaid.

I don't know how likely that is since for goods to be bid up requires a population with enough money to do it. If the price of toilet paper is high, it's because lots of people are willing to pay higher prices for toilet paper. Corps cannot just raise prices to squeeze more out of the consumer.

Capitalists could afford to reduce prices and increase wages many times over and still make more and work less than workers many times over.

The only reason for them to lower prices is to steal market share from a competitor. A gov can't force them to lower prices; price controls don't work.

We produce essential goods/services many times cheaper than we did a couple of centuries ago, thanks to advances in automation and energy production, but this hasn't translated into cheaper essentials or better wages.
Furthermore, allowing this absurd, hyper-disparity to exist has undermined the integrity of our democracy, as the overclass have the politicians and judges in their back pockets.

The only way to fix it is to tax the machines and give to the poor.

Therefore, I'm in favor of increasing wages and decreasing prices of essentials, so long as we help or at least don't hurt middle class small businesses in doing so.
What workers do with fairer wages and prices is up to them, either they can save/spend more like the upper class/live more leisurely.

Fairer wages come from the gov setting a wage floor and being in competition with corps by supplying welfare. Currently, boomers are supplying millennials with shelter which empowers them to refuse low wages. Why work for peanuts when you can live with mom and dad? That's the only mechanism holding wages as high as they are. Corps have to raise wages to attract workers from their mom's basement. Welfare accomplishes the same, but without burdening parents. But parents are stupid and would rather support their grown kids themselves than to pawn it off on Bezos and Buffett.

However, what I'm not in favor of is a UBI.

Yes and that's where your amygdala is showing. You're terrified that the undeserving might get something.

The standard of living for the upper and lower classes shouldn't be kept artificially high and low respectively, but it shouldn't be artificially high for the idle either.
I believe in treating those who're genuinely disabled or unable to find employment humanely.
But, people who can, but refuse to work, are entitled to nothing, and whether they wind up on the street, in the hospital, jail or morgue, I don't care.

And that makes you a capitalist minion who is conscripting people into the workforce specifically to enrich the capitalists.

:romance-ballandchain: :orcs-whip: "Unless you lick this guy's boots like everyone else is doing, you can go starve you worthless bum! The reason you exist is to serve the system and our blessed and most virtuous elites who have most graciously bestowed upon us all these muddy boots to lick, so exercise your freedom to decide which boots you want to clean, or not only can you go starve, but I'll call you names as well."

We should not strengthen our society for their sake.

Fixed it for you. In blue.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:20 am

Gloominary wrote:@Serendipper

Probably so, but it also benefits us all. The net effect could be positive.

It doesn't benefit us all, it doesn't even benefit mulatto Americans, they were far better off economically and socially before the late 20th century when they started blaming whitey for all their woes.
Nigerian Americans fair better than not only mulatto Americans, but white and Asian Americans.
Discrimination is no longer a significant determiner of income, but genetics are and always will be.
I believe in doing more to help the poor, but not especially poor mulattos, or mestizos.

I don't see the mechanism of keeping others down to lift ourselves up. Either shoot them or feed them, but allowing them exist in a diseased state is just shitting up your own environment.

Well millennial whites can't be the ones complaining about it or it would be evident from the party demographics. And the ones complaining have the least reason to care.

I'm a millennial white, and I don't want my people being discriminated against.

One exception. Asians are shorter, but what about that basketball guy? Most millennials are not on your side, but the boomers and silents are. And you're not complaining because you've been personally discriminated against, but are overdramatizing something I've never even seen or heard credible instance of. "The sky is falling... quick, run in circles while screaming!"

Gas chambers require religion too.

Hitler was at best, a lukewarm theist, if not an atheist.
Race was his religion.

I think you failed to watch the videos. There is no case to be made that hitler was atheist. If hitler was atheist, so is the pope.

Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious, anti-Christian, anti-clerical and scientistic.[1] In light of evidence such as his fierce criticism and vocal rejection of the tenets of Christianity,[2] numerous private statements to confidants denouncing Christianity as a harmful superstition,[1] and his strenuous efforts to reduce the influence and independence of Christianity in Germany after he came to power, Hitler's major academic biographers conclude that he was irreligious and an opponent of Christianity.[1] Historian Laurence Rees found no evidence that "Hitler, in his personal life, ever expressed belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[3] Ernst Hanfstaengl, a friend from his early days in politics, says Hitler "was to all intents and purposes an atheist by the time I got to know him".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Then go answer all Christopher Hitchens' "how comes".

And the whole premise of his rise to power was that the people had forsaken religion! The nasty jews with their sexual immorality had turned germany into a cesspool.

He didn't need religion to enslave and/or exterminate people, he found all the justification he needed in social Darwinism.
In his mind they were inferior, and in the way.

There is no way to throw jews in ovens unless you think you're doing god's work. Hitler thought god had saved him in wwi for a purpose.

Darwinism is non-teleological. You cannot guide it. If you do, then evolution will then be working against you. Evolution cannot work unless there is a force opposing it and hitler became that force. I become that force every time I pull a weed from my garden. I become the obstacle that evolution learns to overcome by making stronger weeds. All hitler accomplished was making smarter jews who now rule his "superior" aryans. Hitler was almost as dumb as trump.... blunder after blunder after blunder.

Show me an evil that was not perpetuated by religion.

You know the atheist, communist Russians and Chinese massacred tens of millions.

Russians were orthodox christians and you may have an example with the chinese because even the buddhists are atheist. Buddhism isn't a religion and has no god (the people don't even have souls).

And before the 20th century, every state was predominantly religious.
Give it time, atheists will kill many millions more.

More irrational and unsubstantiated fear.

Lastly just because a genocidal people happened to be been religious, doesn't mean religion was the primary, or even one of the culprits.

Yes it does.

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

But for evil people to do good things, that takes religion.

Well that's nice... so religion makes good people do evil and evil people do good. So why have it then?

That's not much. They didn't know much and most probably couldn't read. I wouldn't count the printing press until after the population could read.

Much is relative, there's no magic point where democracy, peace and prosperity are guaranteed.
It's only been 74 years since WW2, and the cold war nearly erupted into a hot one a few times.
Give it time.
While we may be progressing, I doubt it since the environment seems to be on the verge of collapse, and even if we are ultimately are, the road uphill will at least be bumpy.
Poverty, tyranny and war are inevitable, the only question is: how soon and severe?

We could blow the planet out of the solar system and still not stamp out life, but probably wind up with a smarter breed of it as a consequence.

Watts says they traded all their gold for luxury from india and had no money left to pay an army. Good thing we're not on a gold standard today and that there are no barbarian hordes lurking out there.

I'm totally against a gold standard.
But I'm against central, fractional reserve banking too.
Government should be able to print money debt free whenever it needs to.

That's probably the most sensible solution, but then the bank is state-run.

Really we don't even need taxes.

We still need redistribution or else the created money just funnels up to the rich until the rich are rich enough to topple government.

I don't regard capitalism as a hallmark of intelligence.

My point is capitalists are averagely a little smarter and 100s-1000s of times wealthier than the people, yet this hasn't translated into niceness, on the contrary, if anything it's made them more mean.

3 people have more wealth than 50% of the people and 2 of them (Buffett and Gates) have been on crusade to raise their own taxes for decades and the 3rd (Bezos) is probably cool with it. The rich want to fix the problem, but the poor stupid ones won't let them.

I think Marx put it like this: First we have monarchy with tribal leaders and such; then society progresses to a less feudal, but more class oriented capitalistic style; then they transition into socialism as new evils are recognized, and finally communism when government is no longer necessary because prosperity is so abundant.

Government, or at least individuals and groups arming themselves, will always be necessary.

And the noble savage is a myth.
The murder rate in hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to be about 100 times ours.
So what do they fighter over, if they have so few resources to pilfer, hunting grounds?
Perhaps some of the time, but in the main: women.
Hunter-gatherers tend to be polygamous.
The alpha male(s) sometimes monopolize mates, and so they wage tribal warfare on each other in order to pacify, or eliminate the betas.

Right, people get nicer as scarcity is reduced. When ferraris are free, there is nothing left to fight over. That's the marxist end-stage communism. It isn't instituted by force, but arises of its own. The problem comes in when dictators try to implement it as a government when the technology can't support it.

I don't know about that, but the right's assertion is morality exists and the left's assertion is only the assertion of morality itself is immoral. The right says some things are wrong and the left says that decreeing things wrong, is wrong. The left is fundamentally amoral. That's their point of departure. They're baby killers after all. Of course by "morality" I mean absolute morality and not relative morality.

The left have a morality, and we all know what it is, it's similar to conservative morality in some ways, and different in others.
People shouldn't lie, cheat, steal or kill, but if someone cheats you/your demographic and/or you/your demographic are very poor/large disparities, than it's okay for Robin Hood to steal from them.
And instead of marginalizing the other (supposedly women, outgroups), we should at least tolerate and accept them, if not reverse discrimination.

The left has no absolute morality.

Yes officer, I was wearing my seatbelt.
Sorry officer, I cannot tell a lie.

Take from the rich and give to the poor.
Stealing is wrong.

Kill the fetus so the woman has a better life
Murder is wrong.

I want to marry my boyfriend.
Homosexuality is wrong.

The liberal has no moral foundation because everything is relative.
The conservative cannot bend at all, ever, under any circumstances.

Every conservative could be replaced by a robot and nothing would change.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:25 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Just to throw things back at the topic:

youtube seems different now.

Now, I did clean out all my histories not too long ago. But my sense is that the algorithms have changed. I get more sponsered suggestions and it seems to adapt less to the choices I make. IOW it offers me less things like what I have chosen and more stuff that corporations want to sell, especially movies. This, to me, is less important than Google's change, which I actually think is extremely damaging, though in tiny tiny increments. But still a trend towards seeing me as not an agent learning about the world and exploring, but a consumer to be manipulated.

I don't notice anything different, but I have adblock installed.

youtube.jpg
youtube.jpg (243.41 KiB) Viewed 3780 times
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:29 am

Who Will Guard Us From The Guardians? YouTube "Protects" Users By Hiding "Conspiracy Theories" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... y-theories

hiding such content from users as if they were not cognitively thinking adults capable of making rational decisions.

Well, they're not.

Almost no one is equipped to make a rational decision on climate change, 9/11, JFK assassination, et al and any decision made cannot be cognitive, but emotional.

The crime committed is taking advantage of the ignorance of people to advance bullshit no different than a mechanic telling a woman her car needs a new johnson rod.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:08 pm

@Serendipper

Well then use that method to make mulattos smarter.

Giving stronger people with more potential more resources is social selection.
Social selection is part of how we evolve, along with sexual and natural selection.
Without selection, we de-evolve.

Every organism is confident in its abilities. Overconfidence, or confidence in ability you don't have, is different.

There is such a thing as over, and underestimating oneself.

There is such a thing as unwarranted guilt.

How does hibernation favor existence in the arctic? They have to hibernate 100% of the time.

Okay, say subarctic.

I think it has more to do with the food than the challenges. Challenges can always be found, but abundant food cannot.

Lack of food is a challenge.
Challenges should be proportionate with reality, or the work society has to do survive(yes, despite advances in automation and energy production, society still has to work to survive, and billions, or at least hundreds of millions have to work full time for society to survive).
everyone who can work, should share in that work, everyone who can't work can be treated humanely, which includes incarcerating and forcibly sterilizing them should they decide to unlawfully procreate.
Neither artificial scarcity, nor artificial abundance, should be imposed on people.
The former leads to artificial, excess/unnecessary evolution and socioeconomic growth, the latter leads to lack of necessary evolution or devolution and socioeconomic decay.

Yeah but people who contribute nothing shouldn't get nothing or else being born is conscription into servitude in order to exist. You may have made a case for the necessity of that 100 years ago, but today the rich are just way too rich and the machines are doing way too much to justify compulsion into the labor force because the justification for suffering is letting the rich keep their money. IOW, I grew up poor so that some rich asshole could keep a few extra bucks that he wasn't using anyway.

The contributors shouldn't be conscripted to take care of the non-contributors, which includes both the idle rich, and the idle poor.

Genetics is an accident. Nobody guided genetics. And if agency exists, it exists by accident as well. Did you cause yourself and create yourself?

Agency is irrelevant, if I buy a basket of apples and half go bad, I throw the bad ones out.

If I buy fruit trees and discover half of them bear lots of fruit and the other little, I take better care of the more fruitful half, and if I have limited land, time and energy, I mainly or only use the fruitful half for planting seed.
If farmers adopted your methods, well, there wouldn't be any farmers, we'd've all starved long ago.

Then you have to show it wasn't luck; that is was guided.

I already did, I proved whites are more intelligent, which you agreed with, which's at least in part why we're more prosperous.

Who's claiming that?

I've heard many liberals fallaciously claim whites invented racism, slavery, genocide...

It's illegal to discriminate against race.

On the contrary, some employers are forced to racially and sexually diversify their staff or prefer minorities and women over whites and men, even at the expense of productivity.

How are you a victim?

Sometimes incompetent blacks are hired and kept and so the quality of goods and services plummets.

Sure liberals kill the most because they hit first. Conservatives cannot hit first because it's impossible to circumvent their programming (dogma).

So religious dogma is good sometimes.

I've never had much admiration for that alphabet soup psychology. The bottomline is conservatives could be replaced by machines and not much would change.

Conservatives are more rigid than liberals overall, especially/particularly when it comes to much of their morality, but they can be flexible about other things, which's not to say liberals are amoral as you suggested either.
Actually these days, I'd say liberals are far more intolerant and strict than conservatives.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:29 pm

Serendipper wrote:Who Will Guard Us From The Guardians? YouTube "Protects" Users By Hiding "Conspiracy Theories" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... y-theories

hiding such content from users as if they were not cognitively thinking adults capable of making rational decisions.

Well, they're not.

Almost no one is equipped to make a rational decision on climate change, 9/11, JFK assassination, et al and any decision made cannot be cognitive, but emotional.

The crime committed is taking advantage of the ignorance of people to advance bullshit no different than a mechanic telling a woman her car needs a new johnson rod.
Fine. So what you're saying is allow the people with the most power to decide what ideas people should not be exposed to. IOW there bs will continue to be sacred. And by the way, the official report on 9/11 is a joke. I mean, apart from the whistleblowers, Building 7 is a laugh. I mean, it boggles the mind how educated people talk themselves out of the obvious on that one.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:00 am

@Serendipper

I don't see the mechanism of keeping others down to lift ourselves up. Either shoot them or feed them, but allowing them exist in a diseased state is just shitting up your own environment.

If unemployed people have kids, they should be incarcerated and sterilized.

However, maybe it's enough they live in poverty, have a lower standard of living than the working class.
These days hardly anyone has more than a kid or two, rich and poor, 1st and 3rd world alike.
The only continent with high population growth is Africa, which's unfortunate, as I'd prefer their remaining wilderness be preserved.

In any case, prohibiting this wouldn't be like prohibiting alcohol, because most people want to drink, whereas only something like 5% of the population is unemployed, and of those 5%, many or most would probably agree to not having kids in exchange for welfare.

One exception. Asians are shorter, but what about that basketball guy? Most millennials are not on your side, but the boomers and silents are. And you're not complaining because you've been personally discriminated against, but are overdramatizing something I've never even seen or heard credible instance of. "The sky is falling... quick, run in circles while screaming!"

The property manager at the apartment my friend lives in is terrible.
She's rude, and allows thugs who break rules, and laws to live there.
Otherwise it's a nice apartment in a nice neighborhood.
Lots of people have complained about her, but it's difficult to have her removed because she's a protected class (mulatto).

The nasty jews with their sexual immorality

Not to mention their corrupt banking practices and dissemination of anti-white propaganda.

And the whole premise of his rise to power was that the people had forsaken religion!

Hitler was plainly anti-Christian, and an atheist or nearly.

He wasn't serious about Christianity, he was using it until the German people were ready to relinquish it.

There is no way to throw jews in ovens unless you think you're doing god's work.

Why?

Why can't you throw them in ovens just because you think they're inferior and/or a threat to your people?

Darwinism is non-teleological.

Social Darwinism is.

You cannot guide it.

We can't help but guide it, thinkingly or unthinkingly, we discriminate against the weak in favor of the strong.

If you do, then evolution will then be working against you. Evolution cannot work unless there is a force opposing it and hitler became that force. I become that force every time I pull a weed from my garden. I become the obstacle that evolution learns to overcome by making stronger weeds. All hitler accomplished was making smarter jews who now rule his "superior" aryans. Hitler was almost as dumb as trump.... blunder after blunder after blunder.

What you propose is the very antithesis of evolution.
You're saying by fighting your enemies, you make them stronger, so you should just give up, but if we surrender, we perish.
We do what we can, eliminate our enemies if we can, or at least keep them at bay.
Fighting your enemies weakens them in the short term, but can strengthen, or weaken them in the long run.
It's best to pull weeds by the root, but sometimes you can't, but you still have to pull them, keep them at bay so you and yours can survive, and thrive a little.

Russians were orthodox christians

The communist government and its military were atheist, and they massacred millions of religious, and irreligious.

and you may have an example with the chinese because even the buddhists are atheist.

There you go, the atheist Chinese massacred millions.
Fundamentally people kill people, not religions.
Altho some religions may be more militarizing/pacifying than others, governments and militaries don't need religion to massacre millions.

Yes it does.

The primary reason governments and their militaries go to war is greed, they will distort religious teachings and kill pacifist religious leaders to justify their lust for power.

Well that's nice... so religion makes good people do evil and evil people do good. So why have it then?

Religion has good and bad, like just about any activity, I mentioned some of its other virtues earlier, I say leave it up to the individual to decide how much value it has to them.

We could blow the planet out of the solar system and still not stamp out life, but probably wind up with a smarter breed of it as a consequence.

More unsubstantiated and irrational optimism.

That's probably the most sensible solution, but then the bank is state-run.

And the state is a democracy, preferably of thinking men and women.

We still need redistribution or else the created money just funnels up to the rich until the rich are rich enough to topple government.

Government can print money and purchase the education and healthcare industries.

3 people have more wealth than 50% of the people and 2 of them (Buffett and Gates) have been on crusade to raise their own taxes for decades and the 3rd (Bezos) is probably cool with it. The rich want to fix the problem, but the poor stupid ones won't let them.

If the rich really wanted to fix the problem, there wouldn't be the rich, or at least not the obscenely wealthy.
The rich want to tax small businesses nearly as much as themselves, and force them to pay the same minimum wage.
This hurts the middle class more than themselves, because the rich can afford to pay the taxes and the minum wage, often the middle class can't, and because the rich can afford to bribe the courts, hire the best lawyers to find tax loopholes and so on.

Right, people get nicer as scarcity is reduced. When ferraris are free, there is nothing left to fight over. That's the marxist end-stage communism. It isn't instituted by force, but arises of its own. The problem comes in when dictators try to implement it as a government when the technology can't support it.

Meanness has merely grown more sophisticated, that is it, in the main.
The murder rate may be 10 or 100 times less, but disparities are 100 or 1000 times more.
The powerful have found ways to monopolize wealth without having to shed so much blood.
And what we do to our livestock and nature is atrocious.
Democratic force will always be necessary to bring justice about.

The left has no absolute morality.

Yes officer, I was wearing my seatbelt.
Sorry officer, I cannot tell a lie.

While liberals are sexually looser in many ways, you'll still hear them say: 'there's nothing wrong with adultery or promiscuity so long as it's open/honest'.
They still think you shouldn't cheat.

And in other ways, liberals are even more sexually restrictive.
Consent is exceedingly important to them, even innocent flirting is frequently misconstrued as sexual harassment.

Furthermore, there're some schools of Christian and conservative thought that say it's okay to choose the lesser of two evils if good isn't an option.

Take from the rich and give to the poor.
Stealing is wrong.

Yes but they justify stealing or as they like to say: 'appropriation, reallocation, redistribution', they say: 'it's for the greater good', not my good or no good, or they say: 'the rich cheated us'.
Their ethics are based more on consequences than actions.
Some of them also have alternative notions of property, like property is defined by continual occupation/use, or all property is public, a privilege democracy may temporarily bestow you, not a right.
No one on the left thinks it's right for the rich to steal from the poor, whereas some people further right do i.e. corporatists, fascists.

Kill the fetus so the woman has a better life
Murder is wrong.

I've never heard a liberal say rape is okay, or murder for the sheer thrill of it is okay.
It's been said conservatives care most about your life before you're born or suffering with a terminal illness, as they won't abort or euthanize, whereas liberals care most about your life in between, as they want to make sure you have access to education, healthcare and nutrition, altho they're not necessarily more charitable, they're just more willing to lower someone else's standard of living to raise yours, which, I am in favor of too, to an extent.

Hitler was sure willing to abort a lot of unborn, and born for his greater good.

I want to marry my boyfriend.
Homosexuality is wrong.

'I only want to befriend and be surrounded by people with the same race and customs as me'.

'Racist, xenophobe, Hitlerite'!

The liberal has no moral foundation because everything is relative.
The conservative cannot bend at all, ever, under any circumstances.
Every conservative could be replaced by a robot and nothing would change.

Liberals are every bit as predictable as conservatives.
The foundation for their ethics is on the pages of various writers from the enlightenment to the postmodern era, just as conservative ethics are, in part.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:17 am

@Serendipper

I don't know how likely that is since for goods to be bid up requires a population with enough money to do it. If the price of toilet paper is high, it's because lots of people are willing to pay higher prices for toilet paper. Corps cannot just raise prices to squeeze more out of the consumer.

The reason why billionaires are billionaires at all, is because they can afford to dramatically lower their prices and raise wages, but won't.
Instead of charging and paying what's arguably fair, so we don't have to work as much, they spend their enormous profits on extravagances, save and reinvest them in increasingly meaningless work we have to do especially for them.
Such're the origins of our consumerist society, increasingly we produce far more junk than we need to, largely so we can eat, and they splurge, taking a tremendous tole on both the health of the environment, and our own health.
They use both purist, and crony capitalism to exploit us, every tool in the toolbox.
This is why prices and wages ought to be fixed low and high respectively for big business, but either not fixed at all for small business, or fixed higher and lower respectively for small than big, either that or more extreme measures.
Government could print money and forcibly buy much, most or all essential mass production, sell their wares cheap, and pay workers well.

And that makes you a capitalist minion who is conscripting people into the workforce specifically to enrich the capitalists.

I'm for finding the right balance of capitalism and socialism, and in my estimation, neither the left, nor the right have it, they're both controlled opposition.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Gloominary » Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:30 am

I edited a bunch of times, lol.
User avatar
Gloominary
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 5:58 am
Location: Canada

Re: Boycott Google

Postby Serendipper » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:56 am

Gloominary wrote:I edited a bunch of times, lol.

No problem man. I usually give it a good while before I even look lol. I was thinking that maybe we should make separate threads for each main point of disagreement. Like the discussion on Jared Diamond's idea, UBI, and whatever the other thing was. Crap, what was the other thing? Religion? Yeah, is religion the cause of evil. Each of those are pretty heavy on their own.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users