But that sub provides a great place to gather all the most profoundly retarded people on the internet into a single place, /u/drunkentune is a national hero.
It's true. He can act tough all he wants. /u/drunkentune is a bitch and we all know it. He hasn't got a cock between his legs. He hasn't even a vagina. He's got a little boipucci down there. A tiny, pink, overused, boipucci.
Just to clarify for the people who still use "faggot" as an insult, the term "boipucci" is properly used to refer to a young gay man's anus, and is not mutually exclusive with having a cock
I always assumed that regulars in the badX subs were generally knowledgeable in whatever the X in question is and that they enjoyed mocking people who misrepresent/misunderstand fundamental aspects of the subject. Why would they not use their expertise to shit on retards who come into their sub rather than just hide from it? Seems like it would be more effective to ridicule the racists openly rather than ban them.
Um, thanks? :D I used to post a lot in r/badpolitics, back when they were mostly covering silly charts, but at some point that changed and it got just got too much for me.
I don't think you want praise from that person. Also, I don't think you're an anarchist or a marxist, but you're certainly not a supporter of capitalism.
I tried that once back when I was more partial to anarcho-communism (that changed later on) and didn't get banned. In fact, I think it was nice to have a calm discussion about it. Much better then what I had on badpolitics.
Tbf, that was a while ago, and I've started reading more Fredric Jameson, tho I think I might have misspoken in regards to Marxist literary criticism. What I would say now is that I'm not especially interested in doing Marxist analysis of culture, which I think is a basically Gramscian venture--and I would sooner take up the mantle of Saint Bordiga! Additionally, I think all the really interesting stuff in modern communist/marxist circles is more "big picture" so to speak, that is, concerned more with issues of urbanism, ecology, technology, and the composition of the proletariat, i.e. Endnotes.
That said, I really do like Adorno (as does Bloom), who is lovable in his curmudgeonliness, as well as Walter Benjamin, whose general ambivalence is refreshing. Additionally, I'm not opposed to looking at literature from a Marxist perspective or whatever, it's just that that's not how I approach my own writing, nor do I think it's as revealing as, say, straight-up analysis of more pressing concerns.
Besides, if they're right when they say the personal is the political (and by extension, everything), I would prefer to leave explicitly political approaches aside when reading literature (or really any form of culture)...
Finally, I would say I'm a more ambivalent Bloomian than seems the case....
Why would they not use their expertise to shit on retards who come into their sub rather than just hide from it?
Probably because you can't pure reason your way to the particulars of tribalistic leftism that the sub's userbase wants to promote, so you're going to end up opining on things that you don't actually know much about. Look at the people in that thread commenting on genetics, neuroscience, capitalism, etc.
This is sadly not a meme when it comes to crazy leftists in academia. These are just the ones stupid enough to get caught in public with their crazy views and openly violent tendencies.
Guarantee if they asked an average US soldier who was fighting on the Western front his opinion about gays or non-whites, their response would leaving xer crying into their faggy Antifa bandana for at least a couple of of hours.
The invasion of Afghanistan happened with authorization of the UN. Such wars of aggressions are illegal under international law. Similarly the US has no mandate from neither the Syrian government or the UN to operate in Syria and bomb some shit.
The professor also openly loves murder based on race. But stay ass blasted about some random service member from the Amerikkkan military.
This is completely irrelevant to the tweet and my agreement with it. So I don't know why you even mentioned it.
UN doesn't determine legal wars you fucking moron. Using that logic Russia could nuke the USA and if the USA went to war to retaliate it would be illegal since Russia can veto.
Acts of war are legal if they're in self defense or if the UN issues a mandate. If Russia or another country'd nuked the US, that would be a valid case of self defense.
They're not comparable. /r/drama is for shitting on people being personally retarded, while bad[X] subs are -- well, they're supposed to be for technical retardation. Like the difference between saying the world is flat and being the kind of person who'd believe the world is flat.
Because the badX subs are actually made up primarily of enthusiastic teenagers, laymen, and people that went through shitty programs and came out with a hard ideological lean they never learned to fully defend.
The best thing /u/drunkentune could do for badphilosophy would be to take it private. At least if people couldn't see it, people might assume the place was educated and interesting.
badhistory being an exception there, since the majority of its mods and a large chunk of its userbase being contributors to /r/AskHistorians. Of course, that sadly doesn't stop laypeople from contributing their very basic understanding of stuff in the comments and bringing down the overall quality of the sub.
really? Thats pretty weird. But I mean the moratoriums are voted on by the users. So again, its mostly the laypeople there. The mods and askhistorian users are all pretty good.
Also moratoriums are done in order to combat topics being completely overdone. There must have been a lot of posts relating to Aztecs that month, and the users got bored of it and needed a break for a few weeks.
My opinion is based completely on what was probably linked drama that I only half-way remember. I'm sticking with the blanket statement that all the bad subs suck, because I like sweeping generalizations and if I stopped counting on half-remembered controversy I'd have no opinions, but I get where you're coming from.
I do like askhistorians aside from all the empty threads where everything has been deleted. Its probably the closest thing to a truly educational sub on reddit, though its requirements can make it difficult to get answers to truly interesting/obscure questions.
But anyway, my memory of the moratorium was that it was based on the idea that discussing aztec atrocities (which are an interesting subject removed from moral considerations) was racist because it suggested the colonial forces were justified or not-so-bad. That suggested considerations that I think should be absent from any really interesting discussion of history for history's sake.
Also, Columbus was an Italian-American hero who did nothing wrong.
They got linked here a few weeks ago for arguing that women in Iran are better off now, as legal second-class citizens, than before the Iranian revolution. The sub pussyfoots around saying anything definitive and it ends up being this circlejerk upvote party where nobody actually tries to draw conclusions.
another thing from badhistory that lowered my opinion of them was the Extra History threads not that the EH guys GREATLY dramatize things for entertainment but they never come across as definitive and at least come across as a 101 class covering the barest minimum of basics and do not portray themselves as historians just people with a casual intrest in history i think.slight fanboy of extra history so take this with a pinch of salt
This isn't really true. Badhistory isn't all bad, unlike BadPhilosophy, but it's still crap. All the BadX subs are, by design. BadPhilosophy sports just as many educated users as BadHistory, if not more.
If you are are layman/whatever, you shouldn't visit BadHistory, it isn't worth it. There are far better places to go, AskHistorians included. It is also a pointless and unhealthy space, a waste of time (other BadX subs included, especially badphil). But I guess you are on Drama.
At least Drama doesn't pretend to be anything, although I guess neither does BadPhilosophy (the other BadX subs do). This whole metadrama is pot meeting kettle.
BadPhilosphy is still fucking insufferable though.
Badx subs are more like circlebroke + base sub. A safe space where everyone has a set ideology they agree on, jerk each other of about how smart they are for having the correct opinions, and never, ever, actually defend their beliefs.
Please explain the redress for a client whose attorney's delict cannot be forgiven in the context of requesting withdrawals of admissions in California. Format it as if you are writing an opposition to a motion for withdrawal of admissions and it's the last paragraph in that argument. If you can't, I will assume that you're stupid even for a humanities major.
Well sure, when one side decides to label an idea as racist and ban anyone who wants to discuss it, for example, from the linked post /u/completely-ineffable says:
if you're a racist, then you will be banned on sight. The same goes for 'race realists', HBD-enthusiasts
then of course, you bully non-racists into avoiding it and then you get to claim it's a dog whistle. You could just as easily decide that "atheism" is a "dog whistle" for islamaphobics. A few stragglers will come in every now and then and say, "wait, there really is no god though" - you ban them, then circle-jerk about how they're just "crypto-islamaphobics" or whatever.
Eventually, you bully most people into never mentioning atheism and just like that, atheism is a "dog whistle."
The big problem you have is, you're denying reality. And deep down, you know it. You know that if you actually had good arguments on your side, you would be rushing to show them to everyone.
uh huh. So, stop me when you feel I say something racist.
Genes affect intelligence. The reason humans are, on average, smarter than chimpanzees is because of something in our DNA. It's not just that humans have better schools and culture and nutrition than chimpanzees, it's because we have different DNA.
I dont know why people get so mad with my modest proposal though
Well the modest proposal was satire. If you're really proposing genocide then people get mad because murder is immoral.
It's not at all clear to me what point you thought you were making here. I bet it was really well formed in your head though, and you were really confident that it was a good one.
if you'll point out any words that confused you, I will be happy to try to rephrase at whatever reading level you're comfortable.
...or you could go back to the start of the conversation where you made a claim, "[HBD] is the same old racist shit" and then I started to work through it with you, and asked you to stop me when something specific was racist.
Racism is the belief in the total superiority of one's own race.
White people talking about IQ for example are by definition not racist, because they are admitting that both Jews (who racists tend not to like) and Asians are superior to them in that regard.
I was asked what *I* consider to be racist. If you feel that my definition is lacking, then feel free to present your case. But what you've done here is to just elude to a different definition. There's nothing here I can respond to.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
"theories of racism"
Racism is the belief in the total superiority of one's own race
Always with the redefining, right?
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
in that case nobody would be racist, you dork!
"Racists" believe that there are differences between population averages.
Nobody, not even the neonazi hacker "4chan", believes that a black physics professor is automatically dumber than a japanese crackhead welfare-queen NEET. Quite the opposite.
The thrust of my point is a s follows: racism isn't just the belief in the superiority of one's own race, it's the belief in grouping people into a hierarchy based on race. I think this definition is better because if racism is just the belief in the superiority of one's own race, you could get a Clayton Bigsby thing where a black person believes white people are the master race without being racist somehow, and that's retarded.
The article is relevant because it makes the following two points which counter your argument:
"Asian American" is not a very helpful analytical category when talking about intelligence and success. Filipino-Americans, for example, have a lower poverty rate than non-Hispanic whites, but Hmong-Americans have a much higher poverty rate. So saying "Asian-Americans" are better or worse off economically than whites is less than accurate. At least, it doesn't tell the whole story.
Under your definition you can call black people subhuman and advocate the return of Jim Crow and you won't be racist so long as you make sure to mention the Jews are superior to you. It is not a useful definition to use if we want to improve race relations.
TLDR:
If you think black people are lazy, but Asian people are superhumans, you are being racist against both groups by treating them as cartoons instead of people
it's the belief in grouping people into a hierarchy based on race
Sure, I have no arguments with that. That'd be immoral and it'd also be scientifically inaccurate for the same reason that you can't group species into a hierarchy. All extant species have been evolving for the same amount of time.
...of course, none of these definitions makes discussion of human diversity necessarily racist. So I stand by my initial claim that people who do that (label it racist) are wrong.
Well, no, not automatically. But the term "human biodiversity" specifically, besides just being weird (what does the bio- prefix communicate? Why not just say "diversity?") is really only used by people who trying to assign quick-and-dirty labels to racial groups based on superficial readings of census data.
So we're right back to "Asians are the smart race, blacks are the violent race, yada yada" only with bigger words to dress it up.
biological, as in, genetic diversity, as opposed to, for example, ideological diversity.
is really only used by people trying to assign quick-and-dirty labels to racial groups based on superficial readings of census data.
I direct you back to my first post here, where I pointed out that of course that will be the case when you bully people into silence. You could do the same thing with any idea. What I'm arguing against is /r/badphilosiphy's policy of blanket bans, rather than good arguments.
There is no difference between the denizens of /r/badphilosophy and the weaboos and Linux users who derive self-esteem from their memorization of useless trivia.
So wait, let me get this straight. A sub dedicated to sucking Sam Harris' cock brigades r/iamverysmart/r/badphilosophy, and suddenly we care? Was it a slow night or ?
What an absolute shitshow, and I mean the regulars getting heated too
Who gets heated because of some visits from a couple of morons who you dont even know? just tease them a bit, laugh a bit, dont react like the world is ending. This people are gonna drop at 50 at most with this self-righteous outrage addiction.
Funny to see AngryDM with 100 upvotes and dodging his ban with his new account though heh. He knows jack shit about philosophy, but he is good at being angry and lefty. Looks like he fits in!
Funny to see AngryDM with 100 upvotes and dodging his ban with his new account though heh. He knows jack shit about philosophy, but he is good at being angry and lefty. Looks like he fits in!
I hope his grasp on philosophy is better than his grasp on physics.
Who gets heated because of some visits from a couple of morons who you dont even know? just tease them a bit, laugh a bit, dont react like the world is ending. This people are gonna drop at 50 at most with this self-righteous outrage addiction.
I don't understand the name of that sub. Isn't all philosophy bad by definition, since it provides nothing that actually improves the world and only makes useless navel-gazers feel important?
Philosophy is the only thing that improves the world, for without philosophy we would be blind men without virtue, and was it not said that the kingdom of God was within us all? Therefore change yourself, and change the world.
To the ignorant, uninformed and uneducated, of course. Never forget that Socrates was condemned to death by popular vote; and thus was democracy shown for what it is, yet two thousand five hundred years later...the ignorant, uninformed and uneducated make the same mistakes.
Socrates was not considered to be of much positive relevance to athenian society in his time. The words "hemlock" and "almost Plato's entire motivation for writing the republic" occur here
You seem unaware that if practically every question is a "philosophical exercise", it's pretty stupid to have a field of specialization for it.
Nobody needs to waste time becoming an accredited "professional" in a skill so common that literally everybody can do it. For example, you don't see colleges offering majors in "advanced breathing," "specialized eating," or "professional pooping."
(Although technically a philosophy major might fall into that last category.)
Yes, pretty much. "Philosophy" as a field has taken us just about as far as it can, so now it's time to move on to better things, like actual non-subjective science. Continuing to contemplate a useless field once its relevance is done is exactly like Facebook-stalking your ex years after she kicked your ass to the curb - weird, useless, and the mark of a 30 year virgin.
I mean, you can insist all you want that you and philosophy had some good times, and maybe those glory days can return... but you've got to see how sad and pitiful it looks to the rest of us.
I wrote some short stories as a kid. Useless profession, writing fiction is. Burn the books, no more sales for those filthy propagandist moneygrubbers, children can write new fiction for us.
Also note how you can't call me out for bad grammar, or much of anything else. Literally catch-22. Or... whatever, I'm not sure after I burned the book.
You're playing with fire right now, I've gone through your post history, and I have to say, I don't really like what I'm seeing. I know your type, you're a third-rate brocialist and a keyboard warrior. You think you can sit here covering your fingers in liberal tears and pledging allegiance to reddit's admins as you spew shit at us? There are consequences for your actions, there always is.
You need to understand something, this stopped being just a fun /r/drama thread with sexism and racism all around, it has stopped being that for years. We live in an interconnected world, the internet is having a profound effect on real-world politics. It's called internet warfare, and it is just as vital as bashing the fash IRL. It's been around for awhile but the internet really shifted the whole game. When you say your little screenshots aren't of OUR spaces, you are attempting to slander our reputation, in essence you are interfering with our goals.
What is that goal you may ask? To rid the world of little piles of shit. like. you. So I'm going to tell you what's going to happen right here, right now.
You are going to delete every single one of your posts, every single one of them. I don't want to see a single post under your name, every single one of them is an affront to a migrane-free head.
You are going to delete your piss shit account. You can make another one, if you follow the next rule.
You are never going to post any more shit every again on /r/Anarchism. Leftism, Tankies, etc. you get the idea.
This is not a warning anymore, this is not a request, this is an order that you are going to follow to the letter. If you, for any reason, or for any motivation, do not follow these instructions right fucking now, I will make your life a living hell. Or rather, we, we will. You better hope and pray you're using a VPN, it may help stall us for long enough to get your pale little male body out of the country to wherever ass fuck brocialists like yourself go when the jig is up.
You will follow these instructions through, or we will destroy you. I dare you to do something to the contrary, I dare you. I would love to see and hear your grimace and scream as I plunge a sheepsfoot knife into your rectum. I would love to break everyone bone in your body from the feet upwards. Do you have a girlfriend (or other non-sexually-determinate free associate)? Children? Mother? father? Sibling? Friends? Don;t bother answering that, we can find out anyway. How would you like to see their faces bashed in with a metal baseball bat in front of you? How would you like that, xer? I'll stab them in their fucking penises and make you watch them choke on their own blood.
You get the picture, you have one hour to comply with this request. Don't get any smart ideas.
/u/completely-ineffable is a good example that you can be good at reasoning on specific subjects (i'm guessing model theory, mathematical logic in their case) while completely throwing reason out the window, like a retard, as soon as politics and feelings are involved.
/u/llffm just admit you only question the validity of Harris' PhD because his ideas don't align with yours and his stance on the biology of the brain don't align with your philosophical dreams.
Hey /u/drunkentune you fuck, we've already got a thread. Post here.
Or else i'm gonna jack off on a picture of Popper's bald scalp and mail it to you. And i live on the other side of the ocean, so that cum is gonna be a moldy bio-bomb by the time you open it.
As a fairly neutral observer (found both /r/drama and /r/badphilosophy today), I gotta say, you guys are losing the snark war. I mean, they've got layers of xxxtra hot bantz, and you guys are just tagging their mods over and over again and calling them faggots. Jesus, step it up.
not paying attention to them. You've spent too much time amongst the self-important and unself-aware it seems. Its about bringing them in so we can have more fun laughing at their unwarranted seriousness.
See, you make the mistake that we make fun of you for caring.
Its not caring that makes you laughable, its what you care about thats just fucking embarrassingly cringy
"We totally are not race realists. We do not believe that some races are inferior to others, we have no prejudices against a particular race (because they do not exist). That's why we open a thread to mock people who are pissed at Sam Harris (with whom we do NOT agree) for inviting a famous racist on his podcast, because we too are super non-racist people. We mock philosophy because it's fun, not because it shatters our childish and incoherent beliefs, forcing us to think clearly. We are not rationalizing our vote for Trump, it's just lulz."
Can you explain why you disagree with the scientific consensus? Do you have a degree in population genetics, behavioral genetics, psychometrics, or some other related field?
The scientific consensus is the exact opposite, race has a strong genetic basis and genetic clusters correspond almost perfectly to traditional conceptions of "race". The seminal paper in the area is probably Rosenberg et al., Genetic structure of human populations. It's been cited thousands of times and the results replicated in many other studies.
There is no such thing as a black DNA. There is no genetic characteristic which is exclusive to a single race. The concept of race is useless and can be exchanged with other, more precise, terms.
"People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."
There is no genetic characteristic which is exclusive to a single race.
Nobody made that claim, so I don't know why you brought it up or what you think that is disproving. There is no single SNP that is exclusive to golden retrievers; it doesn't follow that golden retrievers are the same as pit bulls.
but do the differences amongst humans fit perfectly into the concept of race? The answer is no, the differences are perfectly explained without the concept of race, which is inherently based on our folk and... racist beliefs about the characteristics of a certain race.
Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not.
But that belief could not exist if there wasn't a distinct group to call a race in the first place. And that isn't arbitrary, either, because even three month old toddlers already show an understanding of the concept of race.
Alright then, explain how a toddler of 3 months understands a purely sociological concept such as race, while they are generally not even capable of forming words until they're a year old. This is especially curious given the knowledge that in the animal world (animals with no concept of social constructs), nests also show ethnic preferences. Even Xenopus tadpoles and zebrafish larvae with brains the size of rice grains can already distinguish their own breeds from others. So what makes you believe that when this selection happens in humans, it's somehow not caused by a genetic preference, as is the case in all other vertebrates, but by sociological influence?
By the way, i got around to reading the original article you posted, and even that article admits that stating there are chimp races and not human races depends wholly on an arbitrary statistic cut-off. Now that's not really a damning issue if coupled with other evidence, but this seems to be the only reason for the author to claim there are no human races as opposed to chimp races. He also cites the 2002 Rosenberg paper which proposes that there were 5 different defined "racial groups", but then rejects this classification based on an insufficient Fst score, even though he already admitted that this was an arbitrary cut-off. If so, then why not revise the Fst threshold?
And what's probably a bigger issue for me is the molecular genetic aspect that it uses 'individual genetic diversity' vs "racial genetic diversity" (or group genetic diversity) without applying any qualitative properties to this diversity. So in this model, a mutation in a non-coding intron weighs as heavily as a mutation in a catalytic domain of a DNA synthase, even though the former mutation will not affect the organism in any way, while the latter would be lethal. We try to circumvent this background noise by comparing exome data instead of genome data, but this paper does not do that.
But why do you think this is based on social conditioning, instead of just a very ancient evolutionary mechanism, which is present in all vertebrates?
Also, if it's purely based on facial appearance, then that doesn't argue in favor of a social basis of race, because the appearance of a face is itself determined by genetics. The fact that even a three month old can already classify faces in racial categories would indicate that it's fare more innate and far less social.
They use aesthetics as a proxy for race. If this were not the case, then there wouldn't be a significant preference for race in these toddlers (i assume the researchers also put in "unaesthetic" people to select for that).
The fact that even a three month old can already classify faces in racial categories would indicate that it's fare more innate and far less social.
You need to distinguish between the ability to categorise, and actual biological categories. We have an ability to make distinctions based on (presumably) innate heuristics. But in many cases, these heuristics fail to correspond to any deep biological distinctions.
Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.
The existence of a few outliers does not invalidate the existence of genetic clusters. Just as the existence of golden retriever-pit bull hybrids does not invalidate the existence of golden retrievers and pit bulls as separate breeds.
Given that race can be easily inferred from merely looking at a human's DNA, to the point where we can even map the global distribution and movements of your 100 generations ancestors from your DNA... I think you're confused about what "science" and "consensus" mean.
No it doesn't, and in fact it actually goes much further than that. This 2016 survey of people who have recently published or presented research on intelligence, cognitive abilities, or student achievement found that on average they said "genes (evolution)" were responsible for around 17% of the difference between the groups the survey asked about:
Previous surveys have found similar results. People are free to argue that the strong majority position of the relevant experts is wrong, its happened before, but they should at least acknowledge it instead of pretending that the consensus is the opposite of what it actually is.
If not using the term "race" is enough to make you happy that's good I guess. It's not a pure terminology difference, populations aren't the same thing as the traditional racial categories even though some of the meaningful populations correspond to them. There's more meaningful subdivisions than that, how finely you distinguish subgroups is obviously arbitrary to a degree, and some boundaries are fuzzy. Distinguishing the science from the concept of racism in the public mind so that people don't reject it along political lines like happened with global warming would be good. But I think a lot of people would round off statements like these as being the same as racism:
The Finnish miracle refers to the top student test results in Finland (Simola, 2005). The top results in Finland have been attributed to progressive educational methods. However, traditional factors and declines in them (e.g., discipline and teacher authority) have been associated with recent drops in test results (Sahlgren, 2015). In the current study, experts attributed the top results in Finland to high educational quality (19.11%), followed by genetic-evolutionary factors (14.89%) and educational quantity (12.71%). The two educational factors combined totaled 31.87%. Educational quality was rated higher in Finland than in any other country.
East Asian countries attain high student test results in nearly all student assessment and psychometric IQ studies. Early test results from East Asia were attributed to better and more efficient instruction (Stigler et al., 1999), culture (Confucian achievement orientation; Helmke and Hesse, 2002), and evolutionary-genetic factors (Lynn, 1990; Kanazawa, 2004; Rushton, 2004). In the current study, experts attributed the high results in East Asia to genes (19.89%), education (quantity: 16.87%, quality: 14.72%), and culture (14.49%). Compared to other countries and regions, East Asia had the strongest ratings for educational quantity and test knowledge.
sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest student test results (in participating countries), a finding confirmed by psychometric IQs and Piagetian tasks (Lemos, 1974; Hallpike, 1978; Rindermann, 2013; Rindermann et al., 2014b). Similar to discussions of low intelligence in the US, the findings for sub-Saharan Africans are highly contentious, especially when factors other than the environment are examined (e.g., Segerstråle, 2000; Nyborg, 2003). Factors that have been implicated in the low results include health, wealth, evolution, political problems (corruption affecting educational means), modernization, and education (e.g., Lynn, 1990; Glewwe and Kremer, 2006). Measurement issues were also mentioned (e.g., Wober, 1969; Wicherts et al., 2010). In the current study, experts attributed the low results in sub-Saharan Africa to genetic-evolutionary factors (18.58%), followed by educational quality (12.27%), health (11.73%), and educational quantity (11.60%). The two educational factors together had the strongest rating (23.87%), and health had a high rating compared to other regions and countries (12%). While genes were rated as the most important single factor, there was considerable diversity of opinion: 10 of 60 experts gave genes a rating of zero (17%), and the standard deviation in ratings for genes was the highest of all factors (SD = 24.88; all other factors: SD < 10). Similar to other countries and regions, sub-Saharan Africa had low ratings for discrimination and methodological problems (sampling error, test bias, test knowledge).
Convincing people "sub-Saharan Africans do worse than other groups on average in part because of their genes" isn't racist might be a hard sell. Maybe the definition of "racism" can be shifted more toward "racial discrimination" or "racial hatred" so that merely believing in statistical genetic difference doesn't qualify. It might be easier to just say "Yes, racism is correct, but that doesn't mean discrimination or other injustices perpetuated by racists are justified". Or emphasize how an average difference isn't deterministic and there's still lots of variation within the categories. Or focus on high individual heritability and the recent advances in behavioral genetics as the important thing, especially since it's a genuinely really big deal that people are largely unfamiliar with. I don't know.
Jews in the West show high student test results and also exceptional intellectual, scientific, and cultural achievements (e.g., Haag, 1969; Lipset and Raab, 1995). In the current study, experts attributed the high test results of Jews to genes (28.36%), which were rated more strongly than the two educational factors combined (quantity: 10.79%, quality: 13.38%; combined: 24.17%). Genetic factors had the highest rating compared to all other groups and countries. However, as in the cross-country analyses, there was disagreement about the importance of genes, with variability in ratings being higher for genes than for other factors (SD = 33.10; all other factors: SD < 16).
At least it's hard to accuse the researchers of being neo-Nazis.
populations aren't the same thing as the traditional racial categories even though some of the meaningful populations correspond to them.
that's almost the whole point. Race is a very inadequate term to use to classify humans. People use it very vaguely, and mainly use it to describe aesthetics, that's why it's wrong and useless as a scientific word. If you want to discuss genetic differences between humans it is always better to talk about populations. It would really be a step towards eliminating racism, continuing to use the word inevitably reinforces racist stereotypes.
Everything you quoted is not racist, if it's all true. As you see, you can explain differences in IQ without using the term "race". It all has to do with geography, nutrition, education, and genes; but not race.
This is strange to me because I'm accustomed to thinking that believing in group differences like "sub-Saharan Africans are on average less intelligent in part because of their genes" is the literal definition of the word "racism". Even if you qualify it with "this isn't the only factor, it only explains around 19% of the variance" or "this is also true for divisions like Finns/non-Finns that didn't already have the stereotype" or "that doesn't mean we should discriminate".
I'm not really complaining, but I think your way of looking at it is uncommon. If you mention the part about genes playing a significant part in population group differences on /r/badphilosophy I'm pretty sure they'll call you racist and ban you. For that matter mentioning it in real-life could carry some significant risks of social ostracism as well, depending on where you live.
If you divide humans into folk racial categories you can't explain the difference in IQ which i presume exists between people living in Congo and african-americans.
Not if you hold that race is literally the only thing that matters, no. But the controversial part is when you say that environmental effects aren't 100% of the difference between populations, that a part of it is genes and won't disappear even if you change education and nutrition and upbringing. Like how for "Jews in the West" (90% Ashkenazi in the U.S.) they estimated 28% of the difference was genetic, which makes sense because while there are also cultural traditions that can make better education more likely, obviously there's a much smaller environmental difference between groups in first-world countries getting first-world educations. They didn't ask about African-Americans, but presumably they would have the same dynamic where the difference shrinks but genes play a larger role in the part that remains. And that all seems incredibly taboo and racist to me, though it's hard to tell which definitions of "racism" hold the most sway with the general population.
Anarchy is freedom, it been at the core of the discussion since you tried comparing anarchism to statism. You're free to believe in central economic planning, communism/socialism etc in anarchy... heck, you can choose to believe waving your little flag means something and that taxation isn't theft. Have a blast, start a commune, jerk off onto flags... do as you please so long as leave rational people alone and don't try to inflict your stupidity on them.
Colloquially, religion refers to belief in a god or gods, but the more broad and proper definition is simply a particular system of faith and worship. Statists have faith that the government and only the government is capable of certain functions in society, so not a god perse, but it's a belief in a divine power. Government is setup just like a church as well and for good reason- it works. With religious symbols (flags, seals), religious texts (laws, constitutions, declarations), religious prayers (pledges of allegiance, national anthems, calling ones representative, voting), tithe (taxation), religious schools (public), arbitrary sins (victim-less crimes) and an entire hierarchy from the Pope (president) down to the cardinals, bishops and pastors to keep people engaged... it's a 1:1 clone. In medieval times, they literally overlapped, where the state enforced the religion and fear of eternal judgement enforced the law. There's numerous articles across the internet if you dive more into it, but there's also a book called "The Most Dangerous Superstition" that dives into some of the history.
My position is simply the absence of coercion, confidence in preferable outcomes via the market vs. central planning is a non-issue as anarchy doesn't preclude others from collectivizing. Atheist are generally fine with people being religious until they start lynching them or blowing them up because they're sinner-infidels, anarchists are fine with dumbasses so long as they're powerless. Basically, when the government arrests someone for a victim-less crime, it's effectively doing the same thing as some evangelical shooting up an abortion clinic.
In my ideal world, you're free to be a dipshit brainwashed little communist... yet here in your world you need to kill everyone that doesn't agree with you because your ideas are bad.
I would rather listen to r/gamerghazi than read your insipid, moronic, caveman IQ filled sub. The entire existence of that sub is to be the biggest strawman possible, and you want to criticize r/drama?
Name one time we doxed someone.
Name one time where someone on this sub sent a serious death threat that wasn't in jest.
Be a man and listen to some Rick Ross, Big Sean or some shit. Listen to some actual quality. Not a fucking hasbeen who keeps repeating 90's styles and has critics sucking his cock.
LOL @ a 'philosophy' sub banning "apologists of racists". I wonder how many authors in this bibliography would be banned?
I guess this is just the one philosophical issue that cannot be debated. There is one exact inherently correct answer. That's usually how philosophy works right?
Also, you keep referring to yourself as a conservative, but i've never seen you defend clasically conservative stances, or posit conservative opinions. Could you give an example of some of your most conservative opinions?
Also, you keep referring to yourself as a conservative, but i've never seen you defend clasically conservative stances, or posit conservative opinions.
I don't often speak about political matters.
Could you give an example of some of your most conservative opinions?
The one I linked? ofc not, I just wanted any collection of philosophers talking about race because you can bet there will be some problematictm views in there that would never be allowed in badphilosophy, despite being expressed by far more accomplished thinkers than the philosophy101 students populating that sub.
You want me to read an entire encyclopedia article just to link you the bibliography? Jesus, remind me never to send you a definition of a word or I'll be spending my weekend reading aadvark to zygote.
An irrelevant troll who inspired a ton of edgy teenagers without doing anything useful vs one of the most influential people of all time? If you say so.
Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one 'idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.
“I can see the cups on the table,” said Diogenes, “but I can’t see the 'cupness'”.
“That’s because you have the eyes to see the cup,” said Plato, “but”, tapping his head with his forefinger, “you don’t have the intellect with which to comprehend 'cupness'.”
Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, “Is it empty?” Plato nodded. “Where is the 'emptiness' which precedes this empty cup?” asked Diogenes.
Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato’s head with his finger, said “I think you will find here is the 'emptiness.'"
321 comments
n/a SnapshillBot 2017-05-07
You're not shit next to me. My genes are just light years superior to yours and I don't even need to look at you.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
n/a wolfdreams01 2017-05-07
Sounds like the bot has been reading Sam Harris too...
n/a lifesbrink 2017-05-07
Oh noes u/atnorman, don't go private! Reddit would lose so much if it lost the last bastion that is badphilosophy!
n/a crimsonchibolt 2017-05-07
how many times did it take to type that.
n/a lifesbrink 2017-05-07
At least 1 billion.
n/a dexceit 2017-05-07
what does he mean by that question
n/a lifesbrink 2017-05-07
shrugs
n/a crimsonchibolt 2017-05-07
i sorta forgot meself
n/a Khaelgor 2017-05-07
Inb4 r/truebadphilosophy
n/a LiterallyAnscombe 2017-05-07
/r/badtruebadphilosophy
We won that one too.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Just go private, /u/drunkentune . You know you want to
n/a TheGreatGod42 2017-05-07
/u/drunkentune you bitch. Go ahead and go private. I dare you, you little faggot.
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-05-07
But that sub provides a great place to gather all the most profoundly retarded people on the internet into a single place, /u/drunkentune is a national hero.
n/a fizolof 2017-05-07
Philocide when
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Day of the toga soon, brother
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
Who you think it will come first?
Personally I say platonists, then radical feminists, then conservative virtue ethicists, then thomists.
Maybe Kantians too
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
Nietzscheans will survive by hiding behind the bike sheds with the rest of the teenagers.
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-05-07
togahemlockn/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-07
Post phussy.
n/a TheGreatGod42 2017-05-07
It doesn't matter. /u/drunkentune hasn't the balls to go private. He is a pussy.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
Is that true /u/drunkentune? are you gonna let that bitch talk shit about you?
n/a TheGreatGod42 2017-05-07
It's true. He can act tough all he wants. /u/drunkentune is a bitch and we all know it. He hasn't got a cock between his legs. He hasn't even a vagina. He's got a little boipucci down there. A tiny, pink, overused, boipucci.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
Wait, let me clear this up so I dont get angry at u
You are not insulting bussy right?
n/a TheGreatGod42 2017-05-07
All i'm saying is, Girl Penis > Boi Pucci
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
Just to clarify for the people who still use "faggot" as an insult, the term "boipucci" is properly used to refer to a young gay man's anus, and is not mutually exclusive with having a cock
n/a lultopkek 2017-05-07
I always assumed that regulars in the badX subs were generally knowledgeable in whatever the X in question is and that they enjoyed mocking people who misrepresent/misunderstand fundamental aspects of the subject. Why would they not use their expertise to shit on retards who come into their sub rather than just hide from it? Seems like it would be more effective to ridicule the racists openly rather than ban them.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Because deep down, they know that the racists are entirely correct.
n/a StingAuer 2017-05-07
WRONG.
n/a ThatDamnedImp 2017-05-07
Deep down, they believe that the racists are right.
Liberals are just racists who believe in the White Man's Burden.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
A lot of /r/badphilosophy are Marxist.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
A lot of badX
I think except BadLit? such a fun and pretentious sub
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
Uh...
Apparently /r/badpolitics is more anarchist than communist, but that doesn't really preclude Marxism.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
BadEcon then? I think you get an autoban for marxist apology
Like god intended
n/a Lawd_Frieza 2017-05-07
BadHistory isn't marxist iirc
n/a -Schizoanalyst 2017-05-07
https://www.reddit.com/r/badpolitics/comments/613owu
I was op of this post, badhistory is also pretty leftist. Which is not a bad thing.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
/u/-jute- is such a cool dude!
Hope you are doing well my german friend
Also in that thread:
Goddammit when are people going to stop talking so much shit about economics? this is wrong on so many levels
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
/u/-jute- is such a cool dude!
Hope you are doing well my german friend
Also in that thread:
Goddammit when are people going to stop talking so much shit about economics? this is wrong on so many levels
n/a -jute- 2017-05-07
Um, thanks? :D I used to post a lot in r/badpolitics, back when they were mostly covering silly charts, but at some point that changed and it got just got too much for me.
n/a -Schizoanalyst 2017-05-07
I don't think you want praise from that person. Also, I don't think you're an anarchist or a marxist, but you're certainly not a supporter of capitalism.
n/a -jute- 2017-05-07
Are they far right or something?
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
Badhistory also keeps politics out of things pretty well.
n/a 0729370220937022 2017-05-07
Marxist apology is totally allowed on BE. One of the mods is even an anarchist.
n/a -jute- 2017-05-07
I tried that once back when I was more partial to anarcho-communism (that changed later on) and didn't get banned. In fact, I think it was nice to have a calm discussion about it. Much better then what I had on badpolitics.
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
Who?
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
There was a thread on /r/haroldbloom in which /u/joycedevivre75 and I think a few other guys said as much.
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
Joycey is the only one i can think of, but i dont browse /haroldbloom
Bleuch
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
You better not be impugning my husbando
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
What?
n/a joycedevivre75 2017-05-07
Tbf, that was a while ago, and I've started reading more Fredric Jameson, tho I think I might have misspoken in regards to Marxist literary criticism. What I would say now is that I'm not especially interested in doing Marxist analysis of culture, which I think is a basically Gramscian venture--and I would sooner take up the mantle of Saint Bordiga! Additionally, I think all the really interesting stuff in modern communist/marxist circles is more "big picture" so to speak, that is, concerned more with issues of urbanism, ecology, technology, and the composition of the proletariat, i.e. Endnotes.
That said, I really do like Adorno (as does Bloom), who is lovable in his curmudgeonliness, as well as Walter Benjamin, whose general ambivalence is refreshing. Additionally, I'm not opposed to looking at literature from a Marxist perspective or whatever, it's just that that's not how I approach my own writing, nor do I think it's as revealing as, say, straight-up analysis of more pressing concerns.
Besides, if they're right when they say the personal is the political (and by extension, everything), I would prefer to leave explicitly political approaches aside when reading literature (or really any form of culture)...
Finally, I would say I'm a more ambivalent Bloomian than seems the case....
n/a cimarafa 2017-05-07
BadEcon is liberal/centrist.
n/a Nikolaju 2017-05-07
Definitely not /r/badeconomics. And /r/badlinguistics doesn't really touch the topic.
n/a Will0saurus 2017-05-07
nice
n/a gutza1 2017-05-07
"SRS is a brigade sub, we don't bully other people."
You ****ing hypocrites.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
No, we do bully people, although we don't brigade people.
Also, if you're not old enough to say "fuck", then you're also not old enough to use reddit.
n/a gutza1 2017-05-07
Maybe I just prefer to censor myself.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
And i prefer to bully others, but that's apparently too much for you. How hypocritical!
n/a gutza1 2017-05-07
Since when is bullying a good thing? You know what, go **** yourself. Asshole.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
I fuck myself every night, baby
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
srs people aint saints either man
n/a Steel_Meme_Dreams 2017-05-07
You know you can cuss on the internets you fucking moldy cunt snorkeling shitwad.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-07
You are proof we need bullying because clearly you weren't bullied enough as a kid.
n/a lifesbrink 2017-05-07
Keep Yourself Safe!
n/a Sarge_Ward 2017-05-07
This sub is a bullying sub though. Therefore we're not hypocrites.
n/a lunchza 2017-05-07
Delete your account and your life
n/a HodorTheDoorHolder 2017-05-07
Give me your lunch money, dweeb 👊
n/a xjapxn 2017-05-07
Some people are bullies, get over it
n/a HAHApointsatyou 2017-05-07
Pinging users is fine. Asking for a ping brigade is not. Stop being stupid.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Better?
n/a HAHApointsatyou 2017-05-07
Reapproved. I removed your other comments where you did the same thing, btw. Edit those and I'll reapprove them too.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Nah they can stay removed as far as i'm concerned.
n/a justcool393 2017-05-07
This comment has been removed by the admins.
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-07
Probably because you can't pure reason your way to the particulars of tribalistic leftism that the sub's userbase wants to promote, so you're going to end up opining on things that you don't actually know much about. Look at the people in that thread commenting on genetics, neuroscience, capitalism, etc.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Wasn't he actually a philosophy professor too?
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
Yes
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
So the /pol/ doxx was correct?
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
Oh I was going off the doxx. I see no way how it couldn't be him.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
That is very very sad
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
This is sadly not a meme when it comes to crazy leftists in academia. These are just the ones stupid enough to get caught in public with their crazy views and openly violent tendencies.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/03/30/drexel-professor-mosul-tweet/
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
Wait a minute
I know two lefty profesors here
/u/mrsamsa is that you?
or you /u/mediaisdelicious?
Dont disappoint me guys :(
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
But remember, "Reality has a left wing bias." The fringe are fucking zealots with no semblance of what reality is.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
I must applaud /pol/ for doxxing him, and how it startled other anarchokiddies to know that their masks aren't 100% identity protection.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
The first good thing coming from that god forsaken shithole
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-07
muh muh pol is bad meme
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
People on that thread were comparing antifa college kids with American soldiers fighting nazis in WWII
hohohohohohoho
Pathetic
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
For a change they were not talking about how heroic Soviets are at least.
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-05-07
Guarantee if they asked an average US soldier who was fighting on the Western front his opinion about gays or non-whites, their response would leaving xer crying into their faggy Antifa bandana for at least a couple of of hours.
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otD52qwC9xw
n/a youtubefactsbot 2017-05-07
bot info
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
wait, they actually said that? Where?
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
I've heard it said unironically so many times i lost count.
n/a ahbslldud 2017-05-07
Originally said by Colbert at the White House Correspondent's dinner while roasting Bush iirc
n/a Horace_Barrett 2017-05-07
What's wrong with that tweet?
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
Ok.
n/a Horace_Barrett 2017-05-07
I have no respect for anyone who joins the armed forces of a country that's involved in multiple illegal wars.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
I don't give a shit about your opinions. What multiple illegal wars?
n/a Horace_Barrett 2017-05-07
Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq in particular.
They still support the very institution.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
Afghanistan? Oh, ok, i was certain you were retarded, but now I'm sure of it. Syria is also absolutely laughable.
n/a Horace_Barrett 2017-05-07
The invasion of Afghanistan happened with authorization of the UN. Such wars of aggressions are illegal under international law. Similarly the US has no mandate from neither the Syrian government or the UN to operate in Syria and bomb some shit.
This is completely irrelevant to the tweet and my agreement with it. So I don't know why you even mentioned it.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
UN doesn't determine legal wars you fucking moron. Using that logic Russia could nuke the USA and if the USA went to war to retaliate it would be illegal since Russia can veto.
n/a Horace_Barrett 2017-05-07
Acts of war are legal if they're in self defense or if the UN issues a mandate. If Russia or another country'd nuked the US, that would be a valid case of self defense.
n/a CirqueDuFuder 2017-05-07
Ok. 9-11 was a thing. This is shit trolling.
n/a Clark_Savage_Jr 2017-05-07
He taught some ethics course IIRC.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
I bet my ass he was a virtue ethicist
n/a El-Tigre-Braum 2017-05-07
the sad unironic fact is that /r/drama is the best badx sub just it's badeverything
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
They're not comparable. /r/drama is for shitting on people being personally retarded, while bad[X] subs are -- well, they're supposed to be for technical retardation. Like the difference between saying the world is flat and being the kind of person who'd believe the world is flat.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
Exactly, we shit on people for being insufferable, not because they lack knowledge in some specific areas of knowledge.
We are the good guys!
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-05-07
We see through the lies of the Jedi!
n/a kpopwasamistake 2017-05-07
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin (pbuh)
n/a nanonan 2017-05-07
Badx subs are made up of smug wankers that aren't half as smart as they think they are.
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
Im definitely more than half as smart as i think i am, my ex told me so as a back handed compliment!
n/a warlordzephyr 2017-05-07
It's because that represents a whole bunch of work and you come to the sub for fun.
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
Maybe not for the actual phil. grad students, but the vast majority just fit into the ideological echo chamber.
n/a DoctorFahrenheit 2017-05-07
Because the badX subs are actually made up primarily of enthusiastic teenagers, laymen, and people that went through shitty programs and came out with a hard ideological lean they never learned to fully defend.
The best thing /u/drunkentune could do for badphilosophy would be to take it private. At least if people couldn't see it, people might assume the place was educated and interesting.
n/a Sarge_Ward 2017-05-07
badhistory being an exception there, since the majority of its mods and a large chunk of its userbase being contributors to /r/AskHistorians. Of course, that sadly doesn't stop laypeople from contributing their very basic understanding of stuff in the comments and bringing down the overall quality of the sub.
n/a DoctorFahrenheit 2017-05-07
I can remember some shit from bad history. Something like a moratorium on mentioning the brutality of the Aztecs.
n/a Sarge_Ward 2017-05-07
really? Thats pretty weird. But I mean the moratoriums are voted on by the users. So again, its mostly the laypeople there. The mods and askhistorian users are all pretty good.
Also moratoriums are done in order to combat topics being completely overdone. There must have been a lot of posts relating to Aztecs that month, and the users got bored of it and needed a break for a few weeks.
n/a DoctorFahrenheit 2017-05-07
My opinion is based completely on what was probably linked drama that I only half-way remember. I'm sticking with the blanket statement that all the bad subs suck, because I like sweeping generalizations and if I stopped counting on half-remembered controversy I'd have no opinions, but I get where you're coming from.
I do like askhistorians aside from all the empty threads where everything has been deleted. Its probably the closest thing to a truly educational sub on reddit, though its requirements can make it difficult to get answers to truly interesting/obscure questions.
But anyway, my memory of the moratorium was that it was based on the idea that discussing aztec atrocities (which are an interesting subject removed from moral considerations) was racist because it suggested the colonial forces were justified or not-so-bad. That suggested considerations that I think should be absent from any really interesting discussion of history for history's sake.
Also, Columbus was an Italian-American hero who did nothing wrong.
n/a carthoris26 2017-05-07
They got linked here a few weeks ago for arguing that women in Iran are better off now, as legal second-class citizens, than before the Iranian revolution. The sub pussyfoots around saying anything definitive and it ends up being this circlejerk upvote party where nobody actually tries to draw conclusions.
n/a crimsonchibolt 2017-05-07
another thing from badhistory that lowered my opinion of them was the Extra History threads not that the EH guys GREATLY dramatize things for entertainment but they never come across as definitive and at least come across as a 101 class covering the barest minimum of basics and do not portray themselves as historians just people with a casual intrest in history i think.slight fanboy of extra history so take this with a pinch of salt
n/a Snowball_I 2017-05-07
This isn't really true. Badhistory isn't all bad, unlike BadPhilosophy, but it's still crap. All the BadX subs are, by design. BadPhilosophy sports just as many educated users as BadHistory, if not more.
If you are are layman/whatever, you shouldn't visit BadHistory, it isn't worth it. There are far better places to go, AskHistorians included. It is also a pointless and unhealthy space, a waste of time (other BadX subs included, especially badphil). But I guess you are on Drama.
At least Drama doesn't pretend to be anything, although I guess neither does BadPhilosophy (the other BadX subs do). This whole metadrama is pot meeting kettle.
BadPhilosphy is still fucking insufferable though.
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
My programme wasnt bad to be honest
n/a King-Achelexus 2017-05-07
I think you got it flipped around, they're subreddits for people completely clueless on these subjects.
n/a mrmcdude 2017-05-07
Badx subs are more like circlebroke + base sub. A safe space where everyone has a set ideology they agree on, jerk each other of about how smart they are for having the correct opinions, and never, ever, actually defend their beliefs.
n/a pizzashill 2017-05-07
Bad economics is probably the only sub where the people are knowledgeable.
n/a -jute- 2017-05-07
Because it gets boring after a while, I suppose.
n/a yurnotsoeviltwin 2017-05-07
That stops badphil from going private. It does nothing to stop badphil from threatening to go private.
n/a 80BAIT08 2017-05-07
/u/atnorman oh no don't go private? How will we laugh at you then!?
n/a atnorman 2017-05-07
I assume the same way you always do, ignorantly and often incoherently.
n/a Cleverly_Clearly 2017-05-07
Explain what an ignorant and incoherent laugh sounds like, Socrates.
n/a sombresobriquet 2017-05-07
He really /r/iamverysmart-ed himself into a corner here.
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
You didn't really think that comeback through, m80.
Try again please
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-07
I USE BIG WORDS TBHHBBTBTT
n/a atnorman 2017-05-07
>incoherently
>big word
That was kind of a self own there, let's be real.
n/a theRagingEwok 2017-05-07
not using meme arrows correctly
n/a Nomadlads 2017-05-07
RIP CSS
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-07
My philosophy is that people who say "owned" need to be gassed in order to advance humanity.
n/a princessCuck 2017-05-07
Please explain the redress for a client whose attorney's delict cannot be forgiven in the context of requesting withdrawals of admissions in California. Format it as if you are writing an opposition to a motion for withdrawal of admissions and it's the last paragraph in that argument. If you can't, I will assume that you're stupid even for a humanities major.
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-07
Oooh big words, can you explain what they mean mr smarty pants?
n/a deere442 2017-05-07
is your name actually Norman? hahaha man you must've got bullied
n/a atnorman 2017-05-07
Nah, it was my last name.
n/a King-Achelexus 2017-05-07
What the hell is HBD?
n/a cisturbance 2017-05-07
Human Bio Diversity. It's a dog whistle for racists, the same as alt-
whiteright is a dog whistle for white supremacists.n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
Well sure, when one side decides to label an idea as racist and ban anyone who wants to discuss it, for example, from the linked post /u/completely-ineffable says:
then of course, you bully non-racists into avoiding it and then you get to claim it's a dog whistle. You could just as easily decide that "atheism" is a "dog whistle" for islamaphobics. A few stragglers will come in every now and then and say, "wait, there really is no god though" - you ban them, then circle-jerk about how they're just "crypto-islamaphobics" or whatever.
Eventually, you bully most people into never mentioning atheism and just like that, atheism is a "dog whistle."
The big problem you have is, you're denying reality. And deep down, you know it. You know that if you actually had good arguments on your side, you would be rushing to show them to everyone.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
no no, they are morons man
is all the same old racist shit, is nothing new mate
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
uh huh. So, stop me when you feel I say something racist.
Genes affect intelligence. The reason humans are, on average, smarter than chimpanzees is because of something in our DNA. It's not just that humans have better schools and culture and nutrition than chimpanzees, it's because we have different DNA.
Still with me?
n/a KT-47 2017-05-07
ergo mayocide. QED
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
Yeah I know
This is why I have been proposing a redneck genocide
I dont know why people get so mad with my modest proposal though
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
Well the modest proposal was satire. If you're really proposing genocide then people get mad because murder is immoral.
It's not at all clear to me what point you thought you were making here. I bet it was really well formed in your head though, and you were really confident that it was a good one.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
wat?
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
if you'll point out any words that confused you, I will be happy to try to rephrase at whatever reading level you're comfortable.
...or you could go back to the start of the conversation where you made a claim, "[HBD] is the same old racist shit" and then I started to work through it with you, and asked you to stop me when something specific was racist.
n/a 39flws 2017-05-07
SHANK THE YANK
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
I'm not really sure what you actually consider racist.
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
Racism is the belief in the total superiority of one's own race.
White people talking about IQ for example are by definition not racist, because they are admitting that both Jews (who racists tend not to like) and Asians are superior to them in that regard.
n/a alibix 2017-05-07
Racism isn't only about superiority.
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
I was asked what *I* consider to be racist. If you feel that my definition is lacking, then feel free to present your case. But what you've done here is to just elude to a different definition. There's nothing here I can respond to.
n/a alibix 2017-05-07
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. "theories of racism"
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
/u/ProgressiveFragility posted a response to that here
n/a alibix 2017-05-07
that comment is just a definition of racism. I didn't state is as fact. It specifically says at the start of the definition 'the belief...'
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
k. I think that one is even less restrictive than mine. Literally nobody fits that definition. At least a few people fit mine.
And nobody talking about human biodiversity fits either definition.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
Always with the redefining, right?
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-07
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
in that case nobody would be racist, you dork!
"Racists" believe that there are differences between population averages.
Nobody, not even the neonazi hacker "4chan", believes that a black physics professor is automatically dumber than a japanese crackhead welfare-queen NEET. Quite the opposite.
n/a xjapxn 2017-05-07
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/04/andrew-sullivan-is-still-racist-after-all-these-years
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
Did you intend to post that link in a different thread. It doesn't seem to relate to this one.
n/a xjapxn 2017-05-07
I disagree. Read on, you'll find something relevant.
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
Without an argument to accompany your disagreement, I see no reason to care about it.
I did.
Nope.
n/a xjapxn 2017-05-07
C'mon work with me here, I don't wanna effortpost today
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
Take a few days off then. When you feel up to the task of arguing your own goddamn position, you can come back.
n/a xjapxn 2017-05-07
sigh
The thrust of my point is a s follows: racism isn't just the belief in the superiority of one's own race, it's the belief in grouping people into a hierarchy based on race. I think this definition is better because if racism is just the belief in the superiority of one's own race, you could get a Clayton Bigsby thing where a black person believes white people are the master race without being racist somehow, and that's retarded.
The article is relevant because it makes the following two points which counter your argument:
"Asian American" is not a very helpful analytical category when talking about intelligence and success. Filipino-Americans, for example, have a lower poverty rate than non-Hispanic whites, but Hmong-Americans have a much higher poverty rate. So saying "Asian-Americans" are better or worse off economically than whites is less than accurate. At least, it doesn't tell the whole story.
Under your definition you can call black people subhuman and advocate the return of Jim Crow and you won't be racist so long as you make sure to mention the Jews are superior to you. It is not a useful definition to use if we want to improve race relations.
TLDR:
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
Sure, I have no arguments with that. That'd be immoral and it'd also be scientifically inaccurate for the same reason that you can't group species into a hierarchy. All extant species have been evolving for the same amount of time.
...of course, none of these definitions makes discussion of human diversity necessarily racist. So I stand by my initial claim that people who do that (label it racist) are wrong.
n/a xjapxn 2017-05-07
Well, no, not automatically. But the term "human biodiversity" specifically, besides just being weird (what does the bio- prefix communicate? Why not just say "diversity?") is really only used by people who trying to assign quick-and-dirty labels to racial groups based on superficial readings of census data.
So we're right back to "Asians are the smart race, blacks are the violent race, yada yada" only with bigger words to dress it up.
That's how I see it, anyway.
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-07
i'm making a wild guess here, but probably to contrast with "cultural diversity".
n/a lcasebc 2017-05-07
biological, as in, genetic diversity, as opposed to, for example, ideological diversity.
I direct you back to my first post here, where I pointed out that of course that will be the case when you bully people into silence. You could do the same thing with any idea. What I'm arguing against is /r/badphilosiphy's policy of blanket bans, rather than good arguments.
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
Weird definition of "racism", most people i know just stick with "bigotry based on race"
n/a SlavophilesAnonymous 2017-05-07
Good idea.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
The guy just made me side with BP
n/a allahfalsegod 2017-05-07
Doesn't that imply other species of human? Where can i meet a homo erectus or neanderthal? Now i think that could be fun. Fuck them.
n/a CucksLoveTrump 2017-05-07
I'll show you my homo erectus
n/a Works_of_memercy 2017-05-07
Human biodiversity, what cheeky racists decided to call their stuff in an attempt to confuse the "diversity is good" people.
n/a King-Achelexus 2017-05-07
Clever.
n/a cruelandusual 2017-05-07
There is no difference between the denizens of /r/badphilosophy and the weaboos and Linux users who derive self-esteem from their memorization of useless trivia.
n/a skivian 2017-05-07
hey now, some of that useless linux trivia might actually help them get a job one day.
n/a The_Reason_Trump_Won 2017-05-07
Lolll
n/a cisturbance 2017-05-07
So wait, let me get this straight. A sub dedicated to sucking Sam Harris' cock brigades
r/iamverysmart/r/badphilosophy, and suddenly we care? Was it a slow night or ?n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
If you're smart, you'd start pinging people from /r/badphilosophy, because they often show up to defend their ideas.
You gotta make the drama yourself, brohan.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
What an absolute shitshow, and I mean the regulars getting heated too
Who gets heated because of some visits from a couple of morons who you dont even know? just tease them a bit, laugh a bit, dont react like the world is ending. This people are gonna drop at 50 at most with this self-righteous outrage addiction.
Funny to see AngryDM with 100 upvotes and dodging his ban with his new account though heh. He knows jack shit about philosophy, but he is good at being angry and lefty. Looks like he fits in!
/u/atnorman /u/irontide your sub sucks because of half of the mods too, not just lurkers
/u/completely-ineffable take a valium!
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
I hope his grasp on philosophy is better than his grasp on physics.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
I had the displeasure of witnessing his grasp on philosophy
I think he was accusing moral anti-realists of being fat fascist-like neckbeards. Nor that he knows what moral antirealism is, though
He is really dumb as a brick, and ten times as smug as the worst stemlord.
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
it probably hit a bit too close home
n/a wolfdreams01 2017-05-07
I don't understand the name of that sub. Isn't all philosophy bad by definition, since it provides nothing that actually improves the world and only makes useless navel-gazers feel important?
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
Philosophy is the only thing that improves the world, for without philosophy we would be blind men without virtue, and was it not said that the kingdom of God was within us all? Therefore change yourself, and change the world.
pleb
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-07
sounds like the kind of BS that useless navel-gazers say in order to feel important.
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
To the ignorant, uninformed and uneducated, of course. Never forget that Socrates was condemned to death by popular vote; and thus was democracy shown for what it is, yet two thousand five hundred years later...the ignorant, uninformed and uneducated make the same mistakes.
n/a Dial_A_Dragon 2017-05-07
Yeah, ah, so can can I get a quarter pounder and a medium thickshake?
n/a Elite_AI 2017-05-07
I don't know. Can you?
~philosophy~
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-07
hahahahahahaha
that as well sounds like the kind of BS that useless navel-gazers say in order to feel important.
socrates was 2500 years ago, when philosophy was still relevant.
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
Socrates was not considered to be of much positive relevance to athenian society in his time. The words "hemlock" and "almost Plato's entire motivation for writing the republic" occur here
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
that is why anarchism is stupid, and why fascism is the only way
n/a Gnarled_Root 2017-05-07
You seem unaware by asking that question that you are engaging in a philosophical excercise
n/a wolfdreams01 2017-05-07
You seem unaware that if practically every question is a "philosophical exercise", it's pretty stupid to have a field of specialization for it.
Nobody needs to waste time becoming an accredited "professional" in a skill so common that literally everybody can do it. For example, you don't see colleges offering majors in "advanced breathing," "specialized eating," or "professional pooping."
(Although technically a philosophy major might fall into that last category.)
n/a Gnarled_Root 2017-05-07
Im glad we've finally been liberated from those esoteric philosophisers. We've got science to tell us the truth.
n/a wolfdreams01 2017-05-07
Yes, pretty much. "Philosophy" as a field has taken us just about as far as it can, so now it's time to move on to better things, like actual non-subjective science. Continuing to contemplate a useless field once its relevance is done is exactly like Facebook-stalking your ex years after she kicked your ass to the curb - weird, useless, and the mark of a 30 year virgin.
I mean, you can insist all you want that you and philosophy had some good times, and maybe those glory days can return... but you've got to see how sad and pitiful it looks to the rest of us.
n/a son1dow 2017-05-07
I wrote some short stories as a kid. Useless profession, writing fiction is. Burn the books, no more sales for those filthy propagandist moneygrubbers, children can write new fiction for us.
Also note how you can't call me out for bad grammar, or much of anything else. Literally catch-22. Or... whatever, I'm not sure after I burned the book.
n/a DivineDecay 2017-05-07
You're a fucking moron.
n/a Civilityisgolden 2017-05-07
W E W
E
W
They banned me for asking what if they were wrong
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
The sub always had banhappy behaviour, so that's not unusual.
You can get revenge by exploiting their insecurities and pinging their names in this very thread.
n/a StalinWasAnAnarchist 2017-05-07
Tbh I think you just got banned for being annoying.
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
You're playing with fire right now, I've gone through your post history, and I have to say, I don't really like what I'm seeing. I know your type, you're a third-rate brocialist and a keyboard warrior. You think you can sit here covering your fingers in liberal tears and pledging allegiance to reddit's admins as you spew shit at us? There are consequences for your actions, there always is.
You need to understand something, this stopped being just a fun /r/drama thread with sexism and racism all around, it has stopped being that for years. We live in an interconnected world, the internet is having a profound effect on real-world politics. It's called internet warfare, and it is just as vital as bashing the fash IRL. It's been around for awhile but the internet really shifted the whole game. When you say your little screenshots aren't of OUR spaces, you are attempting to slander our reputation, in essence you are interfering with our goals.
What is that goal you may ask? To rid the world of little piles of shit. like. you. So I'm going to tell you what's going to happen right here, right now.
You are going to delete every single one of your posts, every single one of them. I don't want to see a single post under your name, every single one of them is an affront to a migrane-free head.
You are going to delete your piss shit account. You can make another one, if you follow the next rule.
You are never going to post any more shit every again on /r/Anarchism. Leftism, Tankies, etc. you get the idea.
This is not a warning anymore, this is not a request, this is an order that you are going to follow to the letter. If you, for any reason, or for any motivation, do not follow these instructions right fucking now, I will make your life a living hell. Or rather, we, we will. You better hope and pray you're using a VPN, it may help stall us for long enough to get your pale little male body out of the country to wherever ass fuck brocialists like yourself go when the jig is up.
You will follow these instructions through, or we will destroy you. I dare you to do something to the contrary, I dare you. I would love to see and hear your grimace and scream as I plunge a sheepsfoot knife into your rectum. I would love to break everyone bone in your body from the feet upwards. Do you have a girlfriend (or other non-sexually-determinate free associate)? Children? Mother? father? Sibling? Friends? Don;t bother answering that, we can find out anyway. How would you like to see their faces bashed in with a metal baseball bat in front of you? How would you like that, xer? I'll stab them in their fucking penises and make you watch them choke on their own blood.
You get the picture, you have one hour to comply with this request. Don't get any smart ideas.
n/a StalinWasAnAnarchist 2017-05-07
No :)
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
lmao i just went through your post history and you're apparently an Stirnerist anarchist teenage weeaboo. It all fits.
Stay in school kiddo.
n/a StalinWasAnAnarchist 2017-05-07
Ｓｈｉｔ， ｙｏｕ’ｒｅ ｏｎ ｔｏ ｍｅ ｶﾞｸｶﾞｸ((（n;‘Д‘))ηﾅﾝﾀﾞｶｺﾜｲﾜｧ
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
Does your mom know you're being edgy on the internet?
n/a StalinWasAnAnarchist 2017-05-07
Haha yes
I send her my posts every day :)
Does yours????
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
does she also point out that Stirner's philsophical work is stupid and retarded because he failed to take into account automatization?
n/a StalinWasAnAnarchist 2017-05-07
Look, you're just boring
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
am not
n/a Telen 2017-05-07
W E W
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
The other guy is an anarchist, so i'm still far less edgy.
Also, funny enough, that copypasta was originally written by an anarchist.
n/a ieatedjesus 2017-05-07
How the fuck are you going to stab someone with a sheepsfoot shaped blade? They dont have a point you dumbass.
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
I didn't write that copypasta, that was originally an anarchist
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-07
/u/completely-ineffable is a good example that you can be good at reasoning on specific subjects (i'm guessing model theory, mathematical logic in their case) while completely throwing reason out the window, like a retard, as soon as politics and feelings are involved.
n/a happyorangejuce 2017-05-07
I was under the impression Sam Harris was a pop musician. Who the fuck are these people?
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
lmao when I first saw his name I thought the same thing
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
/u/llffm just admit you only question the validity of Harris' PhD because his ideas don't align with yours and his stance on the biology of the brain don't align with your philosophical dreams.
n/a TotesMessenger 2017-05-07
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Hey /u/drunkentune you fuck, we've already got a thread. Post here.
Or else i'm gonna jack off on a picture of Popper's bald scalp and mail it to you. And i live on the other side of the ocean, so that cum is gonna be a moldy bio-bomb by the time you open it.
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
Nah.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
Just let you know that we actually appreciate being brigaded so the more people you redirect here, the better
n/a princessCuck 2017-05-07
Haha, how's it feel to know that you can't ban everyone who disagrees with you from everywhere?
n/a pepperouchau 2017-05-07
post bussy
n/a theres_always_a_way 2017-05-07
As a fairly neutral observer (found both /r/drama and /r/badphilosophy today), I gotta say, you guys are losing the snark war. I mean, they've got layers of xxxtra hot bantz, and you guys are just tagging their mods over and over again and calling them faggots. Jesus, step it up.
n/a xKillerDreag 2017-05-07
/u/SplendideVilles
Lol, we make fun of you for typing dumb shit and thinking you're revolutionary.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
/u/splendidesvilles why did you just type the same thing as /u/gutza1? why bother making an alt?
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
I wrote it first you retard
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
wow, ableist much?
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
I have many retarded friends, so no
n/a Ardvarkeating101 2017-05-07
I'm sure they appreciate being called retards
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
the preferred nomenclature is mentally dismantled, you ableist bigot
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
/r/drama is the most childish sub, no doubt.
n/a Ace4929 2017-05-07
>/u/SplendidesVilles
>Thinking /r/drama has an ideology
Are you retarded, son?
n/a ieatedjesus 2017-05-07
Your comedy chevrons prove it
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
/u/Prince_Kropotkin pls ban this man from LWOE
n/a Nomadlads 2017-05-07
He should be banned from /r/rarepuppers for his shit.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-07
No, /r/badphilosophy is about 400 times funnier then most of the people here. Your shtick is tired and boring.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
That might've offended me if the first part of your sentence wasn't blatantly wrong.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
I know this place is low effort lately, but this is really, really false
Humor based on philosophy, or math for that matter, is terrible terrible humor.
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
False, i laughed my head off at my own modal logic joke just yesterday in the bar
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
awful opinion
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-07
you have to keep me around though because of all the drama I produce
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
you'll be our town retard
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
The psuedo-academic leftariat over on badpedosophy aren't funny. All they know is snark, and snark gets old very quickly if you aren't a teenager.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-07
This sub is mostly edgy slurs and people desperately trying to people to pay attention to them via pinging.
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
not paying attention to them. You've spent too much time amongst the self-important and unself-aware it seems. Its about bringing them in so we can have more fun laughing at their unwarranted seriousness.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-07
https://i.imgur.com/NiXFpLX.jpg
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
See, you make the mistake that we make fun of you for caring. Its not caring that makes you laughable, its what you care about
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-07
https://i.imgur.com/NiXFpLX.jpg
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-07
What's the difference between being edgy, nihilistic and a misanthrope?
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-07
The latter two are usually subsets of the first.
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-07
Do you think Stirner is mostly just all edge and very little philosophy? I can somewhat understand misanthropy.
n/a Prince_Kropotkin 2017-05-07
I think there's something there, re: union of egoists etc, but I haven't really delved too deeply.
n/a Ace4929 2017-05-07
And don't you forget it
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
Youve got to be shitting me, marvellous
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-07
/u/Thurgood_Marshall, why are you such an edgy teenager? You look no different from the mentally ill r/anarchism user base.
That thread is pathetic, it's circle jerking over "r/drama is so reactionary and fascist".
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-07
/u/caustic_enthusiast is trying too hard to sound like another edgy r/anarchism user.
n/a Thurgood_Marshall 2017-05-07
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/06/you-got-me.gif
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
post a picture of your scrotum, i bet they are tiny and hairless from the estrogen and testosterone blockers, like little effeminate pearls
n/a gutza1 2017-05-07
"We totally are not race realists. We do not believe that some races are inferior to others, we have no prejudices against a particular race (because they do not exist). That's why we open a thread to mock people who are pissed at Sam Harris (with whom we do NOT agree) for inviting a famous racist on his podcast, because we too are super non-racist people. We mock philosophy because it's fun, not because it shatters our childish and incoherent beliefs, forcing us to think clearly. We are not rationalizing our vote for Trump, it's just lulz."
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
Are you lost, my friend?
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Lol, you even linked my post to SRS. Typical hysterical badphil user.
n/a dogtasteslikechicken 2017-05-07
Can you explain why you disagree with the scientific consensus? Do you have a degree in population genetics, behavioral genetics, psychometrics, or some other related field?
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
the one which asserts that the concept of race has no biological basis?
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Sociology =/= science
If you look at GWAS studies or exome sequencing studies in papers like Nature Genetics, then you'd see they always correct for race and ethnicity.
n/a dogtasteslikechicken 2017-05-07
The scientific consensus is the exact opposite, race has a strong genetic basis and genetic clusters correspond almost perfectly to traditional conceptions of "race". The seminal paper in the area is probably Rosenberg et al., Genetic structure of human populations. It's been cited thousands of times and the results replicated in many other studies.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
no not at all.
There is no such thing as a black DNA. There is no genetic characteristic which is exclusive to a single race. The concept of race is useless and can be exchanged with other, more precise, terms.
"People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23684745
n/a dogtasteslikechicken 2017-05-07
Nobody made that claim, so I don't know why you brought it up or what you think that is disproving. There is no single SNP that is exclusive to golden retrievers; it doesn't follow that golden retrievers are the same as pit bulls.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
but do the differences amongst humans fit perfectly into the concept of race? The answer is no, the differences are perfectly explained without the concept of race, which is inherently based on our folk and... racist beliefs about the characteristics of a certain race.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
If you try to explain that without the concept of race, then you cannot invoke racism, because that is also based on race.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
No it's based on the belief in the validity of races
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
But that belief could not exist if there wasn't a distinct group to call a race in the first place. And that isn't arbitrary, either, because even three month old toddlers already show an understanding of the concept of race.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
LOL
/r/badphilosophy
Is this your real and serious opinion? It smells like it is.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
Alright then, explain how a toddler of 3 months understands a purely sociological concept such as race, while they are generally not even capable of forming words until they're a year old. This is especially curious given the knowledge that in the animal world (animals with no concept of social constructs), nests also show ethnic preferences. Even Xenopus tadpoles and zebrafish larvae with brains the size of rice grains can already distinguish their own breeds from others. So what makes you believe that when this selection happens in humans, it's somehow not caused by a genetic preference, as is the case in all other vertebrates, but by sociological influence?
By the way, i got around to reading the original article you posted, and even that article admits that stating there are chimp races and not human races depends wholly on an arbitrary statistic cut-off. Now that's not really a damning issue if coupled with other evidence, but this seems to be the only reason for the author to claim there are no human races as opposed to chimp races. He also cites the 2002 Rosenberg paper which proposes that there were 5 different defined "racial groups", but then rejects this classification based on an insufficient Fst score, even though he already admitted that this was an arbitrary cut-off. If so, then why not revise the Fst threshold?
And what's probably a bigger issue for me is the molecular genetic aspect that it uses 'individual genetic diversity' vs "racial genetic diversity" (or group genetic diversity) without applying any qualitative properties to this diversity. So in this model, a mutation in a non-coding intron weighs as heavily as a mutation in a catalytic domain of a DNA synthase, even though the former mutation will not affect the organism in any way, while the latter would be lethal. We try to circumvent this background noise by comparing exome data instead of genome data, but this paper does not do that.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Aesthetics
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
But why do you think this is based on social conditioning, instead of just a very ancient evolutionary mechanism, which is present in all vertebrates?
Also, if it's purely based on facial appearance, then that doesn't argue in favor of a social basis of race, because the appearance of a face is itself determined by genetics. The fact that even a three month old can already classify faces in racial categories would indicate that it's fare more innate and far less social.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
they don't though. They prefer certain aesthetics and that's it. They do not believe that there are 5 biological races.
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
They use aesthetics as a proxy for race. If this were not the case, then there wouldn't be a significant preference for race in these toddlers (i assume the researchers also put in "unaesthetic" people to select for that).
What's troublesome about that?
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
How do you know?
It's troublesome that races are real but you can't figure out how many they are
n/a Council-Member-13 2017-05-07
You need to distinguish between the ability to categorise, and actual biological categories. We have an ability to make distinctions based on (presumably) innate heuristics. But in many cases, these heuristics fail to correspond to any deep biological distinctions.
n/a dogtasteslikechicken 2017-05-07
Perfectly, no. But close enough. Tang et al. for example:
The existence of a few outliers does not invalidate the existence of genetic clusters. Just as the existence of golden retriever-pit bull hybrids does not invalidate the existence of golden retrievers and pit bulls as separate breeds.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Lol no, where did you read it?
n/a dogtasteslikechicken 2017-05-07
What else could it possibly be? As wikipedia tells us:
Of course traits, ancestry, and genetics are three words describing what is effectively the same thing.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Just answer this: how many races do exist?
n/a dogtasteslikechicken 2017-05-07
Five. Following Rosenberg et al., Clines, Clusters, and the Effect of Study Design on the Inference of Human Population Structure:
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
What happens when to races breed?
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
cough Lewontins fallacy cough
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Explain
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewontin%27s_Fallacy
educate yourself
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
How many races do exist?
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
How many colours exist?
n/a ProgressiveFragility 2017-05-07
Given that race can be easily inferred from merely looking at a human's DNA, to the point where we can even map the global distribution and movements of your 100 generations ancestors from your DNA... I think you're confused about what "science" and "consensus" mean.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Source?
n/a sodiummuffin 2017-05-07
No it doesn't, and in fact it actually goes much further than that. This 2016 survey of people who have recently published or presented research on intelligence, cognitive abilities, or student achievement found that on average they said "genes (evolution)" were responsible for around 17% of the difference between the groups the survey asked about:
Survey of Expert Opinion on Intelligence: Causes of International Differences in Cognitive Ability Tests
Previous surveys have found similar results. People are free to argue that the strong majority position of the relevant experts is wrong, its happened before, but they should at least acknowledge it instead of pretending that the consensus is the opposite of what it actually is.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Where does it mention race?
n/a sodiummuffin 2017-05-07
If not using the term "race" is enough to make you happy that's good I guess. It's not a pure terminology difference, populations aren't the same thing as the traditional racial categories even though some of the meaningful populations correspond to them. There's more meaningful subdivisions than that, how finely you distinguish subgroups is obviously arbitrary to a degree, and some boundaries are fuzzy. Distinguishing the science from the concept of racism in the public mind so that people don't reject it along political lines like happened with global warming would be good. But I think a lot of people would round off statements like these as being the same as racism:
Convincing people "sub-Saharan Africans do worse than other groups on average in part because of their genes" isn't racist might be a hard sell. Maybe the definition of "racism" can be shifted more toward "racial discrimination" or "racial hatred" so that merely believing in statistical genetic difference doesn't qualify. It might be easier to just say "Yes, racism is correct, but that doesn't mean discrimination or other injustices perpetuated by racists are justified". Or emphasize how an average difference isn't deterministic and there's still lots of variation within the categories. Or focus on high individual heritability and the recent advances in behavioral genetics as the important thing, especially since it's a genuinely really big deal that people are largely unfamiliar with. I don't know.
At least it's hard to accuse the researchers of being neo-Nazis.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
that's almost the whole point. Race is a very inadequate term to use to classify humans. People use it very vaguely, and mainly use it to describe aesthetics, that's why it's wrong and useless as a scientific word. If you want to discuss genetic differences between humans it is always better to talk about populations. It would really be a step towards eliminating racism, continuing to use the word inevitably reinforces racist stereotypes.
Everything you quoted is not racist, if it's all true. As you see, you can explain differences in IQ without using the term "race". It all has to do with geography, nutrition, education, and genes; but not race.
n/a sodiummuffin 2017-05-07
This is strange to me because I'm accustomed to thinking that believing in group differences like "sub-Saharan Africans are on average less intelligent in part because of their genes" is the literal definition of the word "racism". Even if you qualify it with "this isn't the only factor, it only explains around 19% of the variance" or "this is also true for divisions like Finns/non-Finns that didn't already have the stereotype" or "that doesn't mean we should discriminate".
I'm not really complaining, but I think your way of looking at it is uncommon. If you mention the part about genes playing a significant part in population group differences on /r/badphilosophy I'm pretty sure they'll call you racist and ban you. For that matter mentioning it in real-life could carry some significant risks of social ostracism as well, depending on where you live.
Not if you hold that race is literally the only thing that matters, no. But the controversial part is when you say that environmental effects aren't 100% of the difference between populations, that a part of it is genes and won't disappear even if you change education and nutrition and upbringing. Like how for "Jews in the West" (90% Ashkenazi in the U.S.) they estimated 28% of the difference was genetic, which makes sense because while there are also cultural traditions that can make better education more likely, obviously there's a much smaller environmental difference between groups in first-world countries getting first-world educations. They didn't ask about African-Americans, but presumably they would have the same dynamic where the difference shrinks but genes play a larger role in the part that remains. And that all seems incredibly taboo and racist to me, though it's hard to tell which definitions of "racism" hold the most sway with the general population.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
*with a lower IQ, that's different.
Btw i don't think they dispute genes playing a role in intelligence, they dispute race being a factor
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
Nah, IQ correlates with everything you'd expect it to if it were measuring intelligence
Learn2psychometrics
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Which IQ test?
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
any with heavily loaded G-factor
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
Lol social science isn't real science bruh
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Define science
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
Anything using the experimental method and replication to determine empirical truth
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
Was this comment's truthness scientifically proved?
n/a Ad_Hominemus 2017-05-07
9 out of 10 scientists agree its proven
n/a DistortedLines 2017-05-07
What did you mean by this
n/a Unicorn_Abattoir 2017-05-07
Anarchy is freedom, it been at the core of the discussion since you tried comparing anarchism to statism. You're free to believe in central economic planning, communism/socialism etc in anarchy... heck, you can choose to believe waving your little flag means something and that taxation isn't theft. Have a blast, start a commune, jerk off onto flags... do as you please so long as leave rational people alone and don't try to inflict your stupidity on them. Colloquially, religion refers to belief in a god or gods, but the more broad and proper definition is simply a particular system of faith and worship. Statists have faith that the government and only the government is capable of certain functions in society, so not a god perse, but it's a belief in a divine power. Government is setup just like a church as well and for good reason- it works. With religious symbols (flags, seals), religious texts (laws, constitutions, declarations), religious prayers (pledges of allegiance, national anthems, calling ones representative, voting), tithe (taxation), religious schools (public), arbitrary sins (victim-less crimes) and an entire hierarchy from the Pope (president) down to the cardinals, bishops and pastors to keep people engaged... it's a 1:1 clone. In medieval times, they literally overlapped, where the state enforced the religion and fear of eternal judgement enforced the law. There's numerous articles across the internet if you dive more into it, but there's also a book called "The Most Dangerous Superstition" that dives into some of the history. My position is simply the absence of coercion, confidence in preferable outcomes via the market vs. central planning is a non-issue as anarchy doesn't preclude others from collectivizing. Atheist are generally fine with people being religious until they start lynching them or blowing them up because they're sinner-infidels, anarchists are fine with dumbasses so long as they're powerless. Basically, when the government arrests someone for a victim-less crime, it's effectively doing the same thing as some evangelical shooting up an abortion clinic. In my ideal world, you're free to be a dipshit brainwashed little communist... yet here in your world you need to kill everyone that doesn't agree with you because your ideas are bad.
n/a gutza1 2017-05-07
What the **** am I looking at.
n/a CaliggyJack 2017-05-07
/u/caustic_enthusiast you visit r/badphilosophy
I would rather listen to r/gamerghazi than read your insipid, moronic, caveman IQ filled sub. The entire existence of that sub is to be the biggest strawman possible, and you want to criticize r/drama?
Name one time we doxed someone.
Name one time where someone on this sub sent a serious death threat that wasn't in jest.
You fucking can't. Moron.
/u/drrocket8775
Kendrick Lamar is shit fucking kys
n/a drrocket8775 2017-05-07
goteem 😏
n/a CaliggyJack 2017-05-07
Be a man and listen to some Rick Ross, Big Sean or some shit. Listen to some actual quality. Not a fucking hasbeen who keeps repeating 90's styles and has critics sucking his cock.
n/a drrocket8775 2017-05-07
okie dokie :^)
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
DAE /r/drama is better than /r/badphilosophy becuase we don't care about Sam Harris legitimizing racists on his show?
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
This isn't CB2. Also there is literally nothing wrong with being racist.
n/a SplendidesVilles 2017-05-07
the average IQ surely is similar
n/a Ultrashitpost 2017-05-07
That's because you're dragging it down :(
n/a mtg_liebestod 2017-05-07
Charles Murray deserves to be a lot more legitimized than his Middlebury undergrad protestors seem to believe.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
To be fair, no one in the real world knows who sam harris is
Guy is a total nobody
n/a son1dow 2017-05-07
please, Zoolander is a classic.
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
What's wrong with being racist?
n/a Chicup 2017-05-07
/u/atnorman
And nothing of value was lost.
n/a aenigme 2017-05-07
Subbed.
n/a freet0 2017-05-07
LOL @ a 'philosophy' sub banning "apologists of racists". I wonder how many authors in this bibliography would be banned?
I guess this is just the one philosophical issue that cannot be debated. There is one exact inherently correct answer. That's usually how philosophy works right?
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
Did you read the SEP article?
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
why are you lurking here Drunkentune-Sama :3
Also, you keep referring to yourself as a conservative, but i've never seen you defend clasically conservative stances, or posit conservative opinions. Could you give an example of some of your most conservative opinions?
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
People keep pinging me.
I don't often speak about political matters.
I could, if I wanted. But this is /r/drama.
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
You're just a liberal, aren't you? It's okay, you can be honest. We're all pieces of trash here.
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
Nah.
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
I'd still appreciate if you could dispel the rumors about your political stance.
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
I helped run two clubs at university: Young Republicans and the Gun Club. I consider the rumours dispelled.
n/a Holdin_McGroin 2017-05-07
I thought you were a conservative, not a monster.
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
Ours was more directed towards getting speakers on Oakeshott and Hayek. I didn't vote for the Republican party then, and I certainly wouldn't now.
n/a wokeupabug 2017-05-07
How many bicep flexing jokes were involved in running the gun club?
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
Not as many as I wanted. We mostly went skeet shooting at a nearby range.
n/a wokeupabug 2017-05-07
Ulrich? This must have been back in the Scream days.
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
Screech? Nah, I have never been saved by the bell.
n/a wokeupabug 2017-05-07
But this drama sure is being saved by a bell... curve. I.e., Charles Murray's book.
And boom, that's how you do a callback, folks.
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
Laugh track, freeze frame and scrolling credits.
n/a freet0 2017-05-07
The one I linked? ofc not, I just wanted any collection of philosophers talking about race because you can bet there will be some problematictm views in there that would never be allowed in badphilosophy, despite being expressed by far more accomplished thinkers than the philosophy101 students populating that sub.
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
Of course you didn't read the SEP article. Of course.
n/a freet0 2017-05-07
You want me to read an entire encyclopedia article just to link you the bibliography? Jesus, remind me never to send you a definition of a word or I'll be spending my weekend reading aadvark to zygote.
n/a drunkentune 2017-05-07
I haven't requested you read it; I'm just agreeing with you: it's obvious you didn't read the article.
If you decided to read it, you'd likely retract what you said.
But you won't.
n/a AlcoholicMood 2017-05-07
You should give it a read, is not too long
n/a PostModernismKills 2017-05-07
Idiot.
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
/u/atnorman, this humiliation is good for you guys, /r/Drama is to /r/badphilosophy what Diogenes was to Plato.
n/a atnorman 2017-05-07
An irrelevant troll who inspired a ton of edgy teenagers without doing anything useful vs one of the most influential people of all time? If you say so.
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
uh-oh, you keep acting flippant towards philosophical works like that, and i'll link to /r/badphilosophy
n/a atnorman 2017-05-07
Behold! Akilroth's argument.
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
we were having an argument??
think you need a backrub bud, you're acting pretty tense
n/a throwawaypopartagain 2017-05-07
No need to knock Diogenes, Shakespearean fools exist for a reason
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-07
So a better philosopher.
n/a Akilroth234 2017-05-07
n/a Deity_Of_Darkness 2017-05-07
lol I love Diogenes. Lucian of Samosata was a brilliant satirist, writer and should be designed a troll of the Classical world.
n/a PostModernismKills 2017-05-07
"I'm more irreverent than you! This means I am cooler on the internet!"