you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (46 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

    Spot on, Yin. My family breed dogs and other animals. This holds water with me, there is a reason we get the results we get, it is careful selection of parents and their respective traits.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      You should look at what socks responded to me with.

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

      [–]cisheteroscum 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

      Dog breeds are notoriously inbred. Humans are not. Crossbreeding dog breeds can mitigate duplicates of many of the harmful recessive alleles present in either breed. This is not the case for major human races. So it's not a relevant analogy

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yes, mix-breeding within species is different. I know people don't like labradoodles, but those dogs can be amazing if bred correctly. You get the best of both the poodle and the lab, and folks with allergies can at least be around them.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

        This game of sex you're so enthusiastic about

        Not true. I am merely repeating what one can find when searching for and studying mixed-ethnicities and mixed breeds of dogs (not that the two necessarily compare). It's easy to find more information on this. I've provided links in previous posts. Saiditors who want to argue for racist approaches seem to be rather enthusiastic about their claims, which are however not generally agreed upon in many cases.

        [–]send_nasty_stuff 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        The main reason certain dog breeds show health issues is because the AKC selects for weird aesthetics and not functionality. For example they've spent that last 70 years or so breeding the German shepard's back legs shorter to make it look to their 'standard'. A farmer or a military breeding program wouldn't do this. You don't get these health issues among working dog breeds. The AKC breeding for profit program is really dysgenic not eugenic.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Extremely underrated post for all its implications.

        [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

        I was not necessarily arguing against mixbreeds, more was I arguing against your understanding of genetics, and those studies did not adequately compare Old World breeds to New World ones. There is a discernible difference. I personally think race-mixing could work, depending on the parent. While on average, mixing dogs might produce okay results, but I'd argue it isn't so for humans. Also, I should make it clear that we once created a new mixed breed on accident (female dog broke into male dogs area). The puppies they made were physically superior, but they were fucking stupid and acted like they were hyped up goofballs, and their coats/skin were jacked up.

        [–]Ash 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

        Are you seriously comparing us to Dogs and animals? What is wrong with you people! My pets can't create art, shape their environment like we humans do or have the capability to love and hate as much we can do.

        We are special and right now God's highest creation until the Aliens will turn up! You are not a dog, I am not a bitch, what is wrong with you, guys?!

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        I have met dogs with more emotional capacity than people I went to school with. Calm down. Spend a decade with some animals, living close with them, taking care of them like family, and then you'll understand.

        No, I am not a dog. However, I know how to learn from dogs.

        "We are special and right now God's highest creation until the Aliens will turn up!" This is a weird view to have concerning humanity and reality.

        [–]Ash 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

        I'm weird and love animals but will draw the line between us and them. What I learned from my animals (dogs and cats) is unconditional Love and loyality. There are still not humans. We are currently the universes highest creation. There's no aother mammal as smart as we are. We discover and shape worlds, dogs can't.

        [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

        Ok, I never said humans are dogs. Why are you so intent on misunderstanding me?

        Im glad you learned of love and loyalty from your pets, but they have far more to teach you than that.

        "We are currently the universes highest creation." Ok, you are incredibly human-centric, and you should spend more time in nature. You are dead wrong about this.

        Humans are a part of nature, however, we've separated ourselves from nature in a dozen ways. If you want to reconnect with it, you need to view it objectively. Good luck trying to do that while also believing that some God made humans, and that humans are top dogs in the universe.

        Seriously, good luck.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

        I have explained elsewhere why I call James Watson a racist asshole, which boils down to the frequent quotations of his work by those who have no interest in the work of so many of the other geneticists and scientists who've arranged much better studies. Consider also that he calls mixed-ethnicity people 'hybrids'. Because of his obvious biases, his work cannot be trusted as purely objective science. Even when he's manipulated his findings, he can only propose a very small, insignificant difference in IQ points in 'hybrid' people. As I've noted earlier, any report must be compared and contrasted with other genetics studies, and especially studies by proper scientists who use objective scientific methods, rather than promote genetics and IQ numbers as a maths exercise that can be misused by non-scientists to make racist assumptions about mixed-ethnicity people with simple calculations, as these are unrelated to scientific genetics models. Moreover, the miniscule IQ differences are not the only measures of intelligencence or especially the other qualities of a person.

        [–]send_nasty_stuff 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

        I have explained elsewhere why I call James Watson a racist asshole, which boils down to the frequent quotations of his work by those who have no interest in the work

        He has very little control over who quotes his work. Especially since he's old and not as directly involved with the promotion and dissemination as when he was younger. If you made a groundbreaking scientific discovery and some random blogger you don't like quoted it do you want the masses of people judging you for you or for the blogger? Really sounds like you're reaching for excuses here. You seem motivated by fear. Are you familiar with Bret Weinstein? Bret was the professor at Evergreen college driven out by radical marxist students when they decided, along with most of the staff at Evergreen, to have a, 'day without white people'. Bret is significant because he made the prediction then that Americans don't just have right wing authoritarian threats to deal. The primary threat to america according to Mr. Weinstein is left wing authoritarianism.

        Socks you seem much more focused on right wing authoritarianism. Is this because of a fear of whites? If so where does this fear come from? I brought Bret up because even though he correctly predicted militant leftism in the US he also frequently says that at all costs we can't allow white people to 're-racialize'. In Bret's mind it always leads to gas chambers. May I be so bold as to assume that this is the real driving force behind your picking apart of scientists, activists and political groups like the dissident right? Is this why you insist on having a voice on DAR?

        Consider also that he calls mixed-ethnicity people 'hybrids'

        It's a scientific term. Does it really surprise you a scientist would use it? Mixed race people refer to themselves as hybrids on occasion. Looks like you're again just searching for something to be offended by.

        IQ differences are not the only measures of intelligencence or especially the other qualities of a person.

        Watson never said this.

        [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

        He has very little control over who quotes his work.

        That's not the problem.

        Especially since he's old and not as directly involved with the promotion and dissemination as when he was younger.

        Also not an issue. And he's likely happy with the rise in popularity of his work among those who do not want to look at the approaches of others to genetics.

        If you made a groundbreaking scientific discovery and some random blogger you don't like quoted it do you want the masses of people judging you for you or for the blogger?

        I don't think it matters in this instance. Who he is does not matter. What happened to his studies is at issue.

        Really sounds like you're reaching for excuses here.

        No - I am merely responding to fallacies, pointing out ways in which those are fallacies.

        You seem motivated by fear.

        This doesn't make sense to me. What would I have to fear? If I am happy to argue with people on Saidit, what would scare me about this or the subjects we discuss? (You don't have to answer this, but fear is certainly not the motivation.)

        Are you familiar with Bret Weinstein? Bret was the professor at Evergreen college driven out by radical marxist students when they decided, along with most of the staff at Evergreen, to have a, 'day without white people'. Bret is significant because he made the prediction then that Americans don't just have right wing authoritarian threats to deal. The primary threat to america according to Mr. Weinstein is left wing authoritarianism.

        I've now looked him up, and I have to admit - after reading several websites - I have no idea what up with him. I'll give it more thought. It's odd that he got himself fired from a relatively good job at a small liberal arts College.

        Socks you seem much more focused on right wing authoritarianism.

        Yes

        Is this because of a fear of whites?

        No - certainly not - nor have I ever met anyone who was scared of white people (why would one be?), or who would have addmitted this; and you must appreciate that this is not really an issue.

        If so where does this fear come from?

        I've never heard of it outside of Saidit. It seems crazy. Are you trying to discredit my approaches by claiming that they are rooted in fear and the fear of white people? If so, you'd have to admit, that's really strange and virtually unknown among normal people who are merely having online debates.

        I brought Bret up because even though he correctly predicted militant leftism in the US he also frequently says that at all costs we can't allow white people to 're-racialize'. In Bret's mind it always leads to gas chambers. May I be so bold as to assume that this is the real driving force behind your picking apart of scientists, activists and political groups like the dissident right? Is this why you insist on having a voice on DAR?

        Thanks for letting me know about him. Isn't he a remarkably unusual person and example in this case? What he argues about - it seems - is very much on the fringe of social discourse, as is Watson's work - another fringe aspect of his field of work.

        It's a scientific term. Does it really surprise you a scientist would use it? Mixed race people refer to themselves as hybrids on occasion. Looks like you're again just searching for something to be offended by.

        Yes - referring to hybrid species is a scientific reference. What Watson has helped found is what's known as 'scientific racism' that's similar to the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. What's wrong with this is that it's part pseudo-science and part actual science, while also heavily biased toward one kind of outcome (which is not scientific). The other problem is the assessment behaviour, which is not appropriately considered by these pseudo-science racists, partially because it's impossible to get a realistic assessment of behaviour for large groups, as social psychology and other studies are always incomplete. Moreover, the science does not show significant variances for mixed-ethnicity people - if one looks at Watson's spreadsheets and sources. And if we want to call mixed ethnicity people hybrid species, we would be comparing them to all species, and thus not valuing the differences of humans from other species. Perhaps that's a good idea, but when trying to understand behaviour, human behaviour differs significantly from that of animals.

        IQ differences are not the only measures of intelligencence or especially the other qualities of a person.

        Watson never said this.

        No - though followers of his work are fixated on this issue of IQ differences, as they oversimplify his work for their purposes, while also avoiding genetics research by so many other scholars.

        Perhaps I should explain that my responses here are merely meant to offer feedback for your arguments (not about fear, or whites, &c), because you were good enough to respond with some important points, and to clarify that I do not really fall into some of the categories you mention. I am remarkably, boringly, middle of the road on many issues.

        [–][deleted]  (5 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

          There's no need to attack me. Read the comments in the same thread and you'll see my responses. It's that simple. Leave me alone.

          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

            Again - Yin - just saying something is false obviously doesn't make it false. You don't seem to understand this.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

              It is false when it is false though

              Brilliant

              [–]send_nasty_stuff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

              I've now looked him up, and I have to admit - after reading several websites - I have no idea what up with him

              You're probably getting a mixed picture about the incident because there's a lot of disinfo about what really happened.

              Here's the incident from Bret's perspective

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-st73zhZL3A

              Here are some raw clips left out of the national story.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJ2TZ9Mvps

              It's a pretty fascinating story. It's hard to believe something like this happened in a western liberal arts college.

              Perhaps I should explain that my responses here are merely meant to offer feedback for your arguments (not about fear, or whites, &c).. and to clarify that I do not really fall into some of the categories you mention. I am remarkably, boringly, middle of the road on many issues.

              I appreciate you clarifying. I think that 'middle of the road' isn't really a good term anymore considering how wild and crazy modern politics have become. I also feel 'middle of the road' on a lot of issues but something tells me there's still a HUGE gulf between our views. I will say that after chatting with you a bit more I do think you are at least partially operating in good faith. You are just very tricky in how you debate people. You exploit holes in people arguments and force them into the minutia of an argument. Personally I don't really mind that but I can see how others will see this as tedious and even trollish. You kind of remind me of David Suzuki at the Rushton/Suzuki debate. You are like the polar opposite of Sam Harris who steel mans people arguments (before he attempts to tear them down). That's the way I like to debate but to each his own I guess.

              [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

              Thank you.

              I think Saiditors can focus more on the arguments, and much less on who I am and what I might want. These latter two issues aren't important and they're irrelevant in any discussion (per the pyramid od debate). Many response to me are nonetheless about me, which I don't want to talk about.

              I'll look up the names you mention.

              Looking back at my arguments for Saiditors, I think I've helped people understand fallacies and holes in their arguments, if they were curious about those problems. In this manner their next arguments should have improved. It's also helped me to think about ways of carrying on conversations with right-wing and alt-right people, which is very difficult.

              My approach is much like Jeremy Paxman's. He's the best interviewer I've seen. Some of my conversations on Saidit are much like the Paxman/Brand interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk (But Saiditors do not talk of revolution. My main question is sometimes: if you don't vote, why is your political opinion important? ) More Paxman interviews here: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/apr/30/jeremy-paxmans-top-10-newsnight-moments

              [–]send_nasty_stuff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

              I've seen that interview but I'll probably watch it again. Brand is an interesting character. Looks like Jordan Peterson has changed his views a bit and I think he's trying to at least listen and entertain some new ideas. I can't help but feel a bit verbally hustled when I listen to Brand. He's very high IQ, especially verbally, but often lacks depth and experience on the things he talks about. The only thing he speaks on with any authority is addiction. I do think he might have a future if he doubles down and continues to explore politics and philosophy. Might be cliche but he has a beautiful mind.

              Looks like you're a fan of fast paced brit wit. I am as well. If you stay on the edges of the dissident space you might learn about Johnathan Bowden. He's my my favorite British dissident. He had wit and verbal acuity in spades.

              But Saiditors do not talk of revolution.

              Saidit is so small I don't even see us as a distinct group. Most of us are either tech people, alt right that got kicked off reddit, curious conservatives, shareblue trolls, feds and of course indians. If you even mildly start to accept any of our views you will magically find your internet world shrinking. You will be stuck wandering in the intellectual desert for 40 years bouncing from social media site to site in a vain attempt to carve out a space for discourse.

              My main question is sometimes: if you don't vote, why is your political opinion important?

              Good question. You have to get more historical perspective. The citizens can exercise power in a LOT more ways then voting (I'm not necessarily endorsing any of these). They can riot. They can be non compliant. They can boycott. They form political parties. They can be hostile towards representatives of the government. They can form black markets or commit more crime. They can train their children to resist the system. It's not uncommon in history for governments and elites to rise and fall quickly because of these non voting power tactics. I mean are you really trying to say that black and female opinions were not important in the US before they gained suffrage? I think not. Both those groups had some level of influence on the political process even though they couldn't vote. Being a dissident doesn't mean not voting either. Some dissidents still vote, we just think that it's a forgone conclusion with the current two party system. Some of us even vote for more tyranny and more debauchery in the hopes the normies* will wake up to the corrupt system they are living in and join dissident political factions. That's called acceleration. Acceleration is NOT a push for violence. It's simply a strategic push to allow more radical left wing policies and politicians into power to speed up the creation of a viable third position party that can peacefully get involved in the political process and thus oppose the two party system.

              *normies is a term we use for normal people not privy to dissident ideas and 4chan meme culture. Normies eat up everything the mainstream world sells them without critical thought. There's a women name Angela Nagel that even wrote about this internet subculture in a book called, Kill All Normies.

              https://www.amazon.com/Kill-All-Normies-Culture-Alt-Right/dp/1785355430

              Personally I don't think she did a good job and left some very important things out.

              Andrew Anglin does a better job here of describing the rise of this internet dissident culture

              https://dailystormer.su/a-normies-guide-to-the-alt-right/

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

              Thanks. I should look up these names before responding. I might note at this stage that another strategy of well-funded political groups is to make people believe that their vote and democracy do not matter. The result is that the authoritarian-oriented candidates win those elections.

              [–]send_nasty_stuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

              I might note at this stage that another strategy of well-funded political groups is to make people believe that their vote and democracy do not matter. The result is that the authoritarian-oriented candidates win those elections.

              I don't dismiss this but Brand was right in that interview. Voting in a modern context really doesn't matter. The quicker you internalize that the better. Just be weary of the black pill.

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

              I'll also look forward to reading the other sources you mentioned earlier.

              Lower voter turnout has always favored the GOP. In the UK, it's favoured Tories. The GOP, Tories and other right-wing groups are actively trying to reduce voter turnout. Brand helped them, though by using arguments that he does not support them, which is the most ridiculous argument, IMHO. People who do not understand it will think that they are not supporting the authoritarians, who however get the last laugh when they are elected.

              [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

              If you vote for corrupt assholes, why is your political opinion important?

              Personally, I think you just want to rule us up into saying that all politicians need to be lynched or something. You know there are good reasons for not voting, and you know there are solutions that do not involve voting.

              You just think we can peacefully change the world, and it's stupid. You don't convince villains to walk away, and you don't convince normies to help force villains out. It doesn't happen.

              There are better ways in dealing with these villains, and it's not by playing ball in their court that they've convinced you is fair and just.

              [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

              Don't make this personal. You don't know me.

              [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

              Neither do you know any of the people on this website, but you consistently make things personal against us, and all of our varied views.

              For some reason, I imagined you as a black lady snapping her fingers, going "You don' kno-o-o-w me."