That's interesting. People's thought processes definitely widely vary (which also adds to my point in this thread that it's hard to blanket statement apply or attribute something to everyone & their brain/thoughts). Personally, I'm very aware of my analysis of any or everything.Originally Posted by Duschia
My thing is how are you supposed to hold people accountable for any unconscious bias. If it ain't conscious what are they supposed to do about it? Racist thoughts can't hurt people.
I'm just saying, I look around and don't see my "oppression", even though I was in the conditions where it's supposed to be right in front of my face.
Yea, life is nuanced, but nuance is messy so it doesn't give people one liners to spout.
Last edited by Lord Pixel; 09-04-2020 at 03:54 AM.
People try to make things more cut & dry than they really are in reality imo. Would you agree?
Cut and dry makes headlines. And people only read headlines nowadays.
BLM and critical race theory highlight existing problems in American society. They aren't intended as "subversion tactics." Black people airing their grievances is only a problem if you either see them as stepping out of their place or believing it was never a problem in the first place.
You're the one being played here. Why you follow the Republican line of "they are creating a wedge" when the current administration is the most corrupt in American history, I'll never know. All in all, a garbage take.
It is literally marxist subversion.
Black people will never be equal in their abilities compared to white people.
Intelligence is low, aggression is high - On average.
Reframing every kind of objective difference between people as opression is pure marxism.
It is divisive and hurts society to play their games.
It is literally predistined to decimate social trust and it works, just see how messed up gender relations are due to feminist marxism.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...o-founder-fea/
'We are trained Marxists': Black Lives Matter co-founder featured in GOP ad
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...th-bill-ayers/
Black Lives Matter Founder Mentored by Ex-Domestic Terrorist Who Worked with Bill Ayers
How do you define "marxism"? What are "gender relations"? What is "feminist marxism" and how does it differ from regular marxism? How do you define e black people and white people?
Malcolm X
Martin Luther King Jr.
Maya Angelou
George Washington Carver
Niel DeGrasse Tyson
Rosa Parks
Anyone else feel free to jump in with examples of black people who are more intelligent then this nazi lover
Marxism is for me a political concept that ignores inherent differences of performance between different gorups of people and therefore demonizes the lack of equality of outcome as the result of some kind of opression while it usually stems from genetic differences.
Marixst doctrine usually aims to revert this kind of opression by overpowering the 'opressor' and equalizing things in form of classizide, robbery and the establishon of a communist order.
Original marxisim was about class and wealth, different marxist theorists went with the times and invented the words sexism an racism in order to find new revolutionary mass by telling women and minorites they were opressed due to the lack of equality of outcome when facing the same tasks.
Gender relations are the relations, means attitude and manners of interaction between men and women.
Feminist marxism - disguised by marxists as feminsm in order to hide its destructive, subversive and totalitarian nature is the very same concept as described above applied to men as being the 'oppressors' and women being the supressed mass.
Black people are people clealry visible of african descent, usually the most visible feauture is their skin colur, but there are also different bone and facial structure visible as well as many other signs. There is a continuum between Black people and white people, still different traits tend to be more prominent and pronounced in each one of those groups in a significant way, very important traits such as base levels of aggression and intelligence.
White people are people predominantely from (western-)European decent, usually easily recognicable by their bright skin colour and the lack of characteristicaly asian, slavic and hispanic features.
good ol’ 16types; never change (つ﹏<)･ﾟ｡There is a continuum between Black people and white people, still different traits tend to be more prominent and pronounced in each one of those groups in a significant way, very important traits such as base levels of aggression and intelligence.
this supports my hypothesis that every one of my favorite social forums and imageboards with low moderation degenerates into /pol/ shitholes
give or take couple years for the child porn spam
Supervising me on Si heh?
Wow, i made typo, this completely refutes my point, congratulations.
No, just generally messing with your poor Te.
no i’m just smarter than you. also you made 4 typos.
Malcolm X was great, yes:
“A race of people is like an individual man; until it uses its own talent, takes pride in its own history, expresses its own culture, affirms its own self hood, it can never fulfill itself.”“So over you is the greatest enemy a man can have — and that is fear. I know some of you are afraid to listen to the truth — you have been raised on fear and lies. But I am going to preach to you the truth until you are free of that fear…”"One of the things that made the Black Muslim movement grow was its emphasis upon things African. This was the secret to the growth of the Black Muslim movement. African blood, African origin, African culture, African ties. And you'd be surprised - we discovered that deep within the subconscious of the black man in this country, he is still more African than he is American."
"We're not Americans, we're Africans who happen to be in America. We were kidnapped and brought here against our will from Africa. We didn't land on Plymouth Rock - that rock landed on us."
Wow according to itsme Slavs arent white either.White people are people predominantely from (western-)European decent, usually easily recognicable by their bright skin colour and the lack of characteristicaly asian, slavic and hispanic features.
It's difficult to formulate it in a sound way that still takes account for all posiblities, i thought about how to word it, but favoured simplicity over washing everything down. He asked for a clear cut definition and inside of this context i thought it would be easier to exclude them.
It very much depends, and i think it is fine to do both, propably seperating western, and eastern europeans and using europeans as a term for both would be great, but when it comes to race and culture, and also shared history it may be wiser to exclude them from this, especially when discussing marxist subversion because due to different and complex factors slavic countries seem to be immune to a lot of marxist doctrine and they are not facing the same soft genocide as the western world does right now.
How does Marxism "ignore inherent differences of performance?" Since when does "performance" determine the worth of a human?
What about North Africans? What about the Irish?
wdym by "immune to marxist doctrine"? reluctant to accept it bc of failed socialism?
Yes, this could be one of the factors accountable for this.
You can see that eastern europe still has a lot of its values intact, they are conservative and not neoliberal in the same way as the western world is, groups such as pussy riot are there the opposition, being treated like right wing dissidents are being treated in the west.
Victor Orban even made a big campaign calling out George Sorros which would be unthinkable in most western countries.
I think failed socialism could be the reason, also a lot of the subversion we are facing right now stemmed from KGB and KGB supportet enteties, it often was even designed to destabilize and undermine society and culture, so they propably very well know what they are facing and how to deal with it.
On the other hand there is not really anything to guilt slavic countries with, most of them (if not none) have not participated in colonialism, slavery or right wing authoritarism and the eastern block did not lose the second worldwar, making post-war demoralization and re-education by guilt possible. (also they refused to do this kind of brainwashing to the people in eastern germany themselves which does show, the former GDR is the most right wing area of germany by far)
A lot of Eastern countries also did suffer Islamic imperalism before so they are aware of the dangers and can even further not be guilted into compliance with the marxist doctrine of 'you are evil because of your anchestors'.
Of course you like him, you are a conservative.
It wants people to be equal who clearly have different levels of intelligence, largely bein inherent and instead of accepting these genetic differences they use mental gymnastics to construct some kind of 'opression' such as 'insitutional racism'
I never said that, i don't think there are many people advocating for this, even though it is somewhat in alignment with the values being trabnsported in a capitalistic society.
There could be solutions for black people to accept their place in this world which is usually not on the first place, as long as it is not about sports or music, and live with having poorer performance on average. For this people would need to be able to aknowledge scietifically proven facts such as race and IQ but this is being supressed by marxist ideologues because their whole ideology and political power is based on the lie that all races have the same abilities.
They are activiely supressing truth and taking away the posiblity to peacefully coexist.
Because these differences will not change without watering down white genetics on a performance level that is far below of what we are capable now.
What's up with racists and the insistence on the "facts"?
Race is a social construct not a scientific fact. If it is, prove it. Your definition of Marxism is weird and doesn't fit with my understanding of it. I wouldn't be surprised if you were peddling bullshit.
Racism had a shift, classic nazi culture was mostly beta sts who where mostly in for the Ti ideology and Fe group athmosphere, now with nerd culture shifting more and more right wing a high proportion of Gamma NTs adopted dissident beliefs.
So, a lot of modern racists - who are not your standard group affiliation seeking gang culture thugs - you will meet online tend to be Te egos favouring Factual accucarity, eg: There are no black philosophers, Blacks have a lower IQ than whites on average, Women and men are different from eachother
over Ti ideology from the one site: 'We are all the same' 'there is only one race, the human race'
So what you have is Young NTs especially gamma, being driven on masse to right wing ideology because by our very being we tend not to favour weakly spon ti constructs over empirically proven facts.
Calling Race a social construct shows that you do not have the intelectual capacities for this discussion to lead anywhere.
I just have decided that you are a social construct too, because words are seemingly meaningless now and you seem to want to argue like a fourth grader who picked up something that sounded smart from one of the older kids and repeated that hoping that nobody notices your absolute lack of any kind of knowledge, it did not work, it starts to hurt me, and it starts to become obvious you just do not function on a level high enough to break the conditioning.
I'll admit I'm not as knowledgeable as I'd like on these kinds of matters. I'll admit I used the phrase "social construct" without fully understanding what it means.
I've come what I set out to do: alleviate boredom and to test my knowledge and understanding of these political matters. I'll be back.
Alot of the "facts" the online right peddles nowadays are often just regurgitations from Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and others. And they usually leave out facts that don't enter into their narrative, quite ironic really from a group that spends their time accusing "the left" of doing exactly that.
There is alot of research that shows that IQ can be raised over generations, that the IQ of certain populations in certain parts of the world is easily raised through better nutrition and better standards of living overall. So while it is true that the IQ of certain populations may, on average, be lower than that of other populations, it's fairly irrelevant to emphasize. Also, the differences between men and women are not that relevant either, to most issues, but the online right tends to think it is a grand theory of everything, which to me is less of a "fact" in and by itself than a good reminder of how stupid and herd-minded some people can get.
What good is a book that does not even transport us beyond all books?
~Nietzsche
The (d)rug salesman and the small-hat hypocrite.a lot of right wingers listen to them lmao..
I wouldn't let the Chinese or the fuckin EU take over my country even if they had average 120 IQ, I don't give a shit. This is our shithole <_<.. t. Beta ST collectivist.
The problem right now is that all sides in the west have rejected absolute truth and we think in terms of relative truth. IF there is no absolute truth, that means my relative truth compared to others only matters if I can assert and impose it through force.. e_e and that is today's postmodern reality.. on the right and the left.
They will bicker and fight until everything is ruins and ashes.. just like be4. In such an arrangement discourse and understanding, let alone coming together to fix things is impossible.. because what one says is irrelevant as truth & morality have become relative.
Yeah, I agree with this. Facts are a buffer between my willpower and yours. Also, certain things are absolute, for example you run someone over with a tractor, that's a person's life that's not coming back. That's an absolute.
The problem with alot of people nowadays, as I see it, is an unwillingness to revise facts though. Scientists don't debate facts that are well-established, like evolution, for example. They debate facts for which there is less evidence. And ideally, they should debate without a desire to arrive at a specific conclusion.
My problem with people pointing out the differences between men and women is not so much this in itself but that's its usually used to push an agenda of returning to traditional gender roles. Or the race and IQ thing, though that has often been used more as an explanation as to why blacks in America succeed less well, for example Charles Murray's theories on the bell curve. Murray's work has often bastardized as a "should" rather than "is" statement. It becomes clear to me there is ideology involved when someone sticks to the facts they "know" without taking into account new information.
The problem is often not ignorance of facts, but acknowledging facts that only support a narrative and downplaying the rest.
What good is a book that does not even transport us beyond all books?
~Nietzsche
The moving nature of science means that no theory can be proven to be absolutely correct. Historically this has been the case, where theories get revised, refuted, replaced and so on.. it is merely objective.. so citing facts and theories is not very useful, not to mention that facts do not seem to convince ppl. Humans react to emotional slogans and propaganda. Its always just "current understanding of reality as we see it... to be expanded on.."
Also one cannot assert something like "All truth is relative." as it is self refuting, when I say absolute truth I'm also talking about moral absolutes. Secular humanism for example requires moral relativism and runs counter to moral absolutism. To think in absolute truth runs counter to how we all fundamentally think in modern times.
... e_e the problem is, without it all we have is as Hobbes put it:
“And because the condition of man . . . is a condition of war of every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it follows that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endures, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily allow men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule contain the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.” - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
The rest are just excuses for the WHY..
EDIT:
...moral realism is more fitting for a Te ego tho. I guess you may be trying to be a moral realist, while ppl around you are just steeped in moral relativism.
Last edited by shotgunfingers; 09-14-2020 at 04:23 PM.
Realism is a euphemism for cynicism.
I would. I generally don't like the awful bitter taste of coffee (although I'm aware there are some coffees in which this is null), but I want to like coffee. I have countless positive associations in my mind about coffee, including idyllic images of the Amazon rain forest (in western Fern Gully style), those hills somehow associated with fair trade coffee, my early memories of trying coffee for the first time and how alive it made me feel, mornings with my mom and sister drinking coffee and discussing things, all the interesting creamer flavors (even though I hate the coffee creamer too), the positive culture of coffee drinking in my area (it's some kind of social norm), the feeling that coffee is somehow more valid because there are so many different kinds of it (it's been worked out to adequate complexity, though it could be taken further), the constant bombardment of coffee-friendly imagery in society and association with how now you will be able to do all the tedious tasks if you drink this magical elixir. And of course there is the biggie: caffeine addiction. There are other things I may not like about coffee, such as bad breath and dehydration, and when the caffeine somehow makes me scattered instead of focused/productive.
When someone makes a pot of coffee I find myself dreading it and craving it at the same time, because I love it and rather dislike it. I suppose however I love it more than I hate it. But still a strange pattern of whimsical decision-making emerges when it comes to coffee. I may say I want it but then won't drink most of it, when the aversion to coffee wins out, and honestly I don't know why it wins out when it does. Other times I happily drink several cups and wish the coffee were not all gone after.
I wonder if sufficient cognitive dissonance makes often for decisions made off whims. When the mind is confronted with making a choice and the associations against the choice = the associations for the choice, eventually this state must be broken and it doesn't matter which way as long as a decision is finally made, or the state somehow resolved through other means (like avoidance).
Anyway, I think whimsical decision making is quite common. There are not always sufficient reasons to make a decision at all. I think being indecisive and being whimsical may go hand in hand. It's perhaps in this sort of space in which our biases can play out because they can help break the deadlock of cognitive dissonance as well.
There’s nothing “logical” when it comes to personal preferences. Personal preferences are not rooted in logic but emotions, Fi. A person may not like one variant of something but could like another. Example: not liking carrots but carrot cake.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually. There is systematic racism but it works in favor of black people. It’s called affirmative action. It’s another example of failed ethics that got codified.
https://youtu.be/VVvnTByzTmA
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Now that I'll agree with. You shouldn't get or not get something based on a factor like race that you can't change or control about yourself. It should be based on qualification, talent, how equipped you are to handle the task at hand, &/or if it best fits your ability. That's simply all that needs to be taken into account with school, work, etc.
When I grew up, racism was a lot more overt than it is today. There were no African-Americans on TV, other than Sammy Davis Jr. and a few other entertainers. I went to a high school with two-and-a-half thousand white kids and two black kids. The blacks all went to Jefferson High, across town.
At some point, the Supreme Court decided to follow scientific studies by sociologists which said that if you associate with a person, you will come to like them better. This was the rationale behind busing students across town to reacquaint everyone with other members of our tribe.
This legally enforced mixing extended to job quotas, and the military and the government agencies were among the first to implement the policies.
I assumed, because the black guys whom I'd met in city-wide sports events were superb athletes and poor readers, that everyone coming out of the educational system at that time would be at a similar level. Hence, when I saw a picture of some NASA scientists, standing around and seeming to avoid eye contact with the one black guy that was in the picture, I assumed that the attitudes of all the white guys in the clean room towards the single black guy was one of "What's this guy doing here? The fucker can't read."
I've remembered that picture all my life. I stored it as an example of what happens when you mandate that a workforce should have quotas unrelated to the skills needed for the job. At the time, though, I rationalized the loss of performance with the greater gains that society could make when everyone has a chance at the top slot.
Today, I read that one Dr. George Carruthers, the inventor of the UV spectrograph that Apollo astronauts took to the moon, had died after a long and distinguished career. I'm interested in space optics, so I looked up Dr. Carruthers, and found this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...460222206).jpg
He's the black guy in the NASA picture, standing behind the spectrograph that he invented. He was the Principal Investigator of the Lunar Surface Ultraviolet Camera program.
Am I guilty of systematic racism? I'd say so, yes.
It's funny that you would talk about posting garbage. You are a clown on top of being a racist. If there were such a button you would get the most dislikes out of everybody.
"Muh raycist, muh moralzz.. bla bla bla Fi/Fe garbage" .. muh obay or be labeled and shunned. Get fucked, I don't give a shit.
Last edited by shotgunfingers; 01-26-2021 at 02:35 PM.
I'd dislike anything you post, no matter what it is.
I make music
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
- 