I know, who cares. Could be lots of drama if the CDU/CSU lose majority.
Anyway, I am not a citizen so I can't vote. But my foid is and she will vote. The problem is that she is a white woman so she is gonna vote wrong.
I know she plans to give one of her votes for the greens. And my problem is that they are extremely bussy/train loving cute twinks that used to be journ*lists, diversity professors, and book translators before becoming politicians. And I draw the line at journ*lism.
Should I lock the door and "lose the key" or do I let a woman practice her right to vote?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Reject modernity, embrace tradition
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
As a Jewoid, the fact that this is somehow less disturbing than the original speaks in volumes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
As a Jewoid, the only thing I'm mad about is that Hitler claimed to be a eugenicist but then went on to genocide the race with the highest average IQ. He could have done so much good for the world, and he decide to waste it all on r-slurred tribalism.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well you sure have a point. But aesthetics and beauty matters too, not just intelligence.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Aesthetics are arbitrary though, in the sense of whatever is currently being sexually selected for is the definition of what "aesthetic" means. Human society is already an ongoing aesthetic eugenics program. What else are you hoping to add? Rounding up and shooting up people you consider too ugly? Don't worry, they're already not reproducing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nah that's a lie from postmodern doctrine. They'll also have you know that being obese or bald is beautiful too. There are universals, such as symmetry, smooth skin and decent face features (proportion, button nose, silky hair), and even babies sense these things.
Nah, that's just evil, just as it would be to round up the stupid people. As you say, leaving it to evolution is probably best, with heavily enforced borders at most to prevent things from getting worse.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think you're missing the point entirely. You're confusing individual aesthetics/preference for group aesthetics/preference. Eugenics does not affect individuals, it affects groups. Using eugenics to improve an objective metric (like intelligence) makes sense, because it can meaningfully change how we live. Using it to improve a rank metric (like beauty) does not. If 50% of men are too ugly to reproduce now, 50% of men will still be too ugly to reproduce after eugenics - the bar for reproduction just gets raised.
Even the ugliest man alive has infinitely smoother skin and better facial symmetry from the early hominids we descended from. Transport them back in time and they'd be the most attractive individuals around.
Why would evolution need any interventions? Doesn't sexual attraction always succeed in selecting for attractiveness, by that being the definition of what "attractive" means?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Many would argue measuring intelligence is just arbitrary and subjective too. We both would disagree with them, but that brings me on to your next point:
I disagree there, as I think beauty is objective too - just super tricky to get the full truth on it, just like it's fairly tricky with intelligence.
And you could say the same about intelligence. There'll be a new "stupid 50%" after the population has gotten more intelligent. This is why it's crucial to not go down the purity spiral too far, as the logical conclusion of that path would leave the world's population in the hundreds instead of the billions.
Yeah, it's a fair point. I think very, very long term, it will always succeed no matter what. But without a border, you're gonna have a rough short term. In theory. There's also the argument that putting up a border is a natural part of what makes us who we are, and is all part of the evolutionary pattern, so perhaps it shouldn't even be classed as an 'intervention' in a sense.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think there's merit to this. I'll concede, I too believe most attraction is ultimately functional - we desire whatever we think gives our genes the highest chance of being passed on. That's an objective metric. If something is causally linked to improved fitness, it's not arbitrary. I was more so thinking about the random variation on top, and about cases when runaway sexual selection ends up with less fit species, when I called preference arbitrary.
I was about to argue something like "but now even the stupid 50% will be capable of figuring out space colonization", but tbh I don't even know how that would improve our quality of life. We'd just adapt to it and call our scifi future lives the new normal. The hedonic treadmill strikes again.
I guess, at the end of the day, no matter how much you improve us as a species, it fundamentally won't ever make us happier as a species. The only thing intelligence leads to is a more conscious and vivid experience of that unhappiness. Rather than breeding us to be more aesthetically pleasing, you should breed us to be more blissfully ignorant and content with dating ugly people. Or just hook us up to life support and wirehead us to death. That'd probably be the objectively and subjectively least miserable experience.
Unironically just abort the human race at this point
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Now I donβt feel so guilty for liking it better than the original. And, yes, it does speak volumes. Why not a party that supports tradition and is anti-communist? Without, you know, the mass murder, starting wars, actual racial persecution, and complete elimination of freedom of speech?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sounds like a plan.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
So the Republicans?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
It does speaks volumes, just maybe not about what you think it does.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Oh do please elaborate.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well I agree with you that there are other ways the original's more disturbing that I haven't considered.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Eco-fashism
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Thats great, only thing missing is the dog on the balcony turned into a shepherd.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Holy frick, lol! That almost makes me like Nazis, If it wasnβt for the whole industrialized separate , kill, and torture innocent families thing. That, and the Wehrmacht killed my great uncle.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context