|
BarbarianElephant posted:Do men actually enjoy sex at all or is it just about proving to other guys how much pussy they can attract? lol
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Do men actually enjoy sex at all or is it just about proving to other guys how much pussy they can attract? Genuinely unsure with a lot of the alt-right, they seem to spend far more time complaining about sex than I can believe they do having it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
with PUAs it's 100% about showing off to other men your own sexual market value
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Maybe you should gently caress men if you care about them so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Maybe you should gently caress men if you care about them so much. It's so weird how otherwise progressive people can have such a blindspot towards these aspects of toxic masculinity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Just like people pick and choose and misinterpret bits of their religion they will absolutely do the same with science. It doesn't matter if it was a hack fraud race scientist who's been long since discredited, if it confirms some sort of racist belief, they'll latch on it. Clearly the new studies are just politically correct propaganda to scare us into not being racist, just like climate change is trying to scare us away from capitalism. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on this. Facts which contradict social justice ideology are thrown out by many progressives. For example, they won't even admit that affirmative action policies for college admissions lower admission standards for disadvantaged minorities, which is pretty obviously true. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad policy, but it certainly is something that happens and to deny it is dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It's so weird how otherwise progressive people can have such a blindspot towards these aspects of toxic masculinity. Come again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Come again? "Haha, if ur insecure about ur masculinity, u must be one of them queers"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Conservatives don't have a monopoly on this. Facts which contradict social justice ideology are thrown out by many progressives. George W Bush is an Ivy League graduate, and Donald Trump. standards are pretty lax for white folk clearly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:"Haha, if ur insecure, u must be one of them queers" I may have been being insincere? Also I would entirely settle for just trolling horrible people with their insecurities than actually trying to explain to them why they're wrong, I think it would be both more effective and less tiring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:George W Bush is an Ivy League graduate, and Donald Trump. This is good to bring up. Obviously, admission standards are lowered for legacies or for athletes. Progressives have no trouble admitting that. But when it comes to the subject of Affirmative Action policies, many will swear up and down that standards are not lowered for disadvantaged minorities. It is like they are throwing out facts that contradict their political ideology . . .
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is good to bring up. Obviously, admission standards are lowered for legacies or for athletes. Progressives have no trouble admitting that. But when it comes to the subject of Affirmative Action policies, many will swear up and down that standards are not lowered for disadvantaged minorities. It is like they are throwing out facts that contradict their political ideology . . . it depends what you mean by standards, someone getting a lower GPA from a disadantaged inner city high school is quite possibly smarter than someone with a very high GPA from a nice suburban high school in an affluent neighbourhood.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
yeah lol if we start pretending grade inflation at affluent schools isn't a thing so that we can stick it to dumb minorities
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:it depends what you mean by standards, someone getting a lower GPA from a disadantaged inner city high school is quite possibly smarter than someone with a very high GPA from a nice suburban high school in an affluent neighbourhood. If you go to a disadvantaged inner city high school (I've worked in one) and even made it to community college you have accomplished more than any kid from a suburban high school in an affluent neighborhood(where I grew up) could ever hope to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Do men actually enjoy sex at all or is it just about proving to other guys how much pussy they can attract? Nobody enjoys sex. We just do it to further our species.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I may have been being insincere? It would also be resigning on any pretense of progress being an attainable goal. Furthermore, the alt right people get criticized for their own jokes because it's not possible to be ironic about these things - you are what you say. Why don't you hold yourself to the same standard? Are you so confident that you can't become a problem because you are enlightened? Well, that's the alt right mentality in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:Private schools and entrance to gifted and talented programs usually use something like an IQ test. IQ tests do tell you something (though only in terms of very significant differences in scores; i.e. a person who has an IQ of 120 is probably generally smarter* than someone with an IQ of 80, but not necessarily smarter than someone with an IQ of 110), but the key problem is that it does not really measure innate intelligence. There are many factors other than school funding that determine a child's outcomes in terms of aptitude, such as their parents/home life, fellow students, etc. Merely giving a school equal funding does not solve these problems (though it certainly helps). The obvious conclusion to reach from school funding not causing equal outcomes between races is not "welp guess it does nothing" or "welp guess black people are innately less intelligence", but rather "there must be other environmental factors black people are more widely exposed to that affect educational outcomes." Also, think of it this way - the fact that there's a difference in IQ scores between races should, in and of itself, prove that IQ scores do not measure innate intelligence (for the aforementioned reason that noticeable differences in intelligence caused by race is pretty much impossible genetically). *Also, I'm only using "smarter" in the most general sense here. One big problem with IQ scores is that they're just composites of a number of sub-scores (IIRC two sub-scores than are split up into several sub-scores themselves). Someone can have a high IQ score will be very stupid in a specific type of thinking, or vice versa (granted, I don't think significant variation among sub-scores is that common, but it definitely does exist). And then there's the fact that IQ scores can be improved through teaching the types of questions they present. Basically, while IQ tests may serve as some sort of measure of aptitude, this does not mean that 1. they represent *innate* aptitude or that 2. the sort of aptitude they measure is relevant to any particular occupation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So why would you choose the identity "white" why does that particular category have meaning to you? Why is that what you are choosing to be? I'm White and multi cultural American identity doesn't appeal to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:I'm White and multi cultural American identity doesn't appeal to me. America is by it's very nature multicultural
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:George W Bush is an Ivy League graduate, and Donald Trump. In GWB and Trump's day, Ivies were not the striver schools they are today. A lot of which Ivy you would go to was decided by which religion you were. That being said, Wharton undergrad is incredibly elite and as far as business school goes there's nothing better at the UG level. silence_kit posted:This is good to bring up. Obviously, admission standards are lowered for legacies or for athletes. Progressives have no trouble admitting that. But when it comes to the subject of Affirmative Action policies, many will swear up and down that standards are not lowered for disadvantaged minorities. It is like they are throwing out facts that contradict their political ideology . . . Legacy admissions are not what they used to be if you are an average person. I know lots of boomers that banked on their idiot kid going to Brown or Dartmouth, but the legacy box didn't work and they had to send their kids to a college for rich idiots like USC or Tufts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:I'm White and multi cultural American identity doesn't appeal to me. What do you have more in common with, say, a rich New Yorker with Italian ancestry (or insert some other location/ancestry very different from yours) than a black person from the same location and socioeconomic group as you? The reason people are pointing this out is that "white" doesn't really have anything specific linked to it culturally. You can point to specific countries or even economic strata that have some degree of shared experience, but that isn't really true for white people. (To preemptively address a "well then why does it make sense for black people to care about black ancestry", the key difference is that the overwhelming majority of black Americans come from the same background - that is, their ancestors were brought over here as slaves. As a result, they have a shared cultural background in the same way as a French immigrant might have shared background with another French immigrant. But "white" is far too broad of a demographic to be able to point to any specific characterists other than "not a minority.")
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Communist & fascist are ideologies, not identities, and American is a legal status of citizenship. rudatron posted:But I think you're confused, race isn't an illusion because it's socially constructed, language is social constructed after all, it is an illusion because it is wrong. It presents itself as natural, while being totally unnatural. It makes claims of causative associations between skin color and behavior, all of which are lies. The only reason it is 'real', is because idiots believe it. If we should organize society, we should organize it on truth, not lies. As to your second point that's more wishful thinking than scientific fact, if anything evidence points the other way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:America is by it's very nature multicultural It wasn't really founded on or run in the manner of modern multiculturalism. TheNakedFantastic fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:What do you have more in common with, say, a rich New Yorker with Italian ancestry (or insert some other location/ancestry very different from yours) than a black person from the same location and socioeconomic group as you? Ytlaya posted:The reason people are pointing this out is that "white" doesn't really have anything specific linked to it culturally. You can point to specific countries or even economic strata that have some degree of shared experience, but that isn't really true for white people. You could make same argument that any culture is more divided by class than it is united by similarity. All these arguments against White identity are predicated on undermining racism rather than reality, they're not logically consistent with how other cultures/identities operate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
^^^ How in the world does a white person in France share more culturally with a white American than a white and black American do?TheNakedFantastic posted:They are identities for many people, but ok I can accept the separation there. How we define race is not consistent and is also based only on the traits that are directly related to stuff like skin color or facial appearance. It also makes no sense to consider white and hispanic to be two separate races but also consider all African ethnic groups to be "black", given the greater genetic diversity between groups of the latter. Where to draw the line is completely determined by society and has no material basis. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It would also be resigning on any pretense of progress being an attainable goal. No it is possible to be sarcastic about things but the alt right weridoes aren't, they're actually just literal horrible people, nothing ironic about it. Yes I think I'm better than Davis "I have nothing against white nationalism" Aurini.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:Not really. Sure, the national governments are run by local populations, but usually an ideological or ethno-religious group holds absolute control over the state apparatus while people who oppose them (both groups and individuals) are repressed and potentially made enemies of the state. I'm willing to believe fewer people are being killed since the end of the cold war, but they have certainly not become less violent, and death tolls can be highly suspect depending on the source (or whether they were recorded to begin with). MizPiz posted:Saying that post-colonial exploitation isn't significantly different from America or the European powers just shows ignorance to the events in third world regions. The modern world doesn't fit neatly into colonial and post colonial leftist analysis, it's substantially different in power relationships between nations and peoples. There's a reason revolutionary movements in the third world are mostly dead and populism is strikingly different in character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:Whenever I hear racists bring up the It's more that everyone EXCEPT sub Saharan Africans (outside of a tiny "backflow" group) has Neanderthal DNA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:38
|
|
argument I just point out that
|
Baronjutter posted:No you see just like we evolved different skin tones for different climates, we evolved different levels and types of intelligence and physical ability too. Europe had harsh climates and something about the ice age so problem solving rather than laying in the sun relaxing all day, which is why women like jewellry because it's like picking berries. I read it all in the title of a clickbait pop-science article I didn't actually read. There isn't any scientific basis for claiming absolute or even meaningless levels of inequality between ethnic groups. In fact it doesn't make sense in materialist analysis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:We're much more genetically closely related lol no
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Absenting sickle cell anaemia are there even any significant gentic differences between people of different skin colours?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Absenting sickle cell anaemia are there even any significant gentic differences between people of different skin colours? There are different prevalences of susceptibility to a wide variety of diseases (Cystic Fibrosis, Takayasu arteritis, Tay-Sachs, coccidiomycosis, many others) between ethnicities, and a few other quirks like East Asians often missing an ethanol metabolism enzyme that makes you flush when you drink, but that's about it. You're more closely genetically related to a big fraction of every other ethnicity than you are to mythical genetic mean of your own ethnicity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ How in the world does a white person in France share more culturally with a white American than a white and black American do? Ytlaya posted:How we define race is not consistent and is also based only on the traits that are directly related to stuff like skin color or facial appearance. Ytlaya posted:It also makes no sense to consider white and hispanic to be two separate races but also consider all African ethnic groups to be "black", given the greater genetic diversity between groups of the latter. Where to draw the line is completely determined by society and has no material basis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Bass Concert Hall posted:There are different prevalences of susceptibility to a wide variety of diseases (Cystic Fibrosis, Takayasu arteritis, Tay-Sachs, coccidiomycosis, many others) between ethnicities, and a few other quirks like East Asians often missing an ethanol metabolism enzyme that makes you flush when you drink, but that's about it. You're more closely genetically related to a big fraction of every other ethnicity than you are to mythical genetic mean of your own ethnicity. You're substituting a more distant mean and then claiming genetic ancestry is meaningless for large populations. This interpretation is about politics not science
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:You're substituting a more distant mean and then claiming genetic ancestry is meaningless for large populations. This interpretation is about politics not science What does genetic similarity have to do with politics? My statement is true. Please stop incorrectly invoking scientific principles to justify your cultural identify.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Absenting sickle cell anaemia are there even any significant gentic differences between people of different skin colours? Skin colour, eye colour, skull shape, epicanthel folds, chemical production, height, disease susceptibility (both genetic and exogenous sources), probably behavioral tendencies on some level, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Skin colour, eye colour, skull shape, epicanthel folds, chemical production, height, disease susceptibility (both genetic and exogenous sources), probably behavioral tendencies on some level, etc. I said "significant" and was also sort of trying to suggest "other than what you find between people of the same skin colour".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Bass Concert Hall posted:What does genetic similarity have to do with politics? My statement is true. Please stop incorrectly invoking scientific principles to justify your cultural identify. It's an extremely dishonest statistical interpretation to further your absolutist statements in support of a political position. It's quite easy to determine the relatedness of two people from genetics and Europeans are indeed more closely related to each other than other groups in any reasonable model.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Bass Concert Hall posted:There are different prevalences of susceptibility to a wide variety of diseases (Cystic Fibrosis, Takayasu arteritis, Tay-Sachs, coccidiomycosis, many others) between ethnicities, and a few other quirks like East Asians often missing an ethanol metabolism enzyme that makes you flush when you drink, but that's about it. You're more closely genetically related to a big fraction of every other ethnicity than you are to mythical genetic mean of your own ethnicity. In fact, a random group of Chimpanzees has more genetic diversity than the entire human race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
However bringing up genetics in support of the existence of "race" as a social construct is foolish because the genetic concept of "relatedness" has absolutely no bearing on race as a social construct. I would argue that is rather dishonest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 00:26
|
|