Hate Bleached Liberals(?)

Marcal91 said:

First, succeptibility to propaganda is more about education and how you were raised than genetics. Not saying it has nothing to do with it, but it's overwhelmingly more about education and about being taught what to look for. Second, being non-racist is not propaganda against your own ingroup, now there are people who will fall for propaganda and become racist against their own group, I've seen it happen, and that IS a failure in their education (not their genes).

Im sure there is some environmental effects, just like with anything but certainly isnt education. Educated people tend to be more believers of authority, where as all the most contrarian people tend to be uneducated. But we also know there are also a lot of uneducated people that blindly follow authority, too, thus education seems to play little role. On the other hand we allready found certain genes that make people more likely to be anti-authority.

That's why I added the "in the traditional sense" bit. It's not only the shit we make, it's our ability to form complex societies and care for our "weak", people that wouldn't survive alone no matter how smart they were, but that in a society they could provide valuable contributions.

Other animals also form complex societies (like ants) and there are other animals that help their weak, too. None of this is uniquely human or even a broad trait of humans. Ie some humans give zero care about helping others, while some are like those christian saints that devote their entire life to it.

fkiblaze said:

Im sure there is some environmental effects, just like with anything but certainly isnt education. Educated people tend to be more believers of authority, where as all the most contrarian people tend to be uneducated. But we also know there are also a lot of uneducated people that blindly follow authority, too, thus education seems to play little role. On the other hand we allready found certain genes that make people more likely to be anti-authority.

Educated people are believers in authority? I think you're mixing education with indoctrination. All the brightest and most educated minds have questioned or even fought authority. Obvious example is Galileo, but for a most recent example, you can also look up Ignaz Semmelweis's fight to get doctors in hospitals to wash their hands, and many other highly educated minds (not just in science, but in all fields) have had bouts with authority, even if of lesser extent, because they are knowledgeable enough to challenge false information, even if it comes from a place of authority. And before you say "that's because they're smart (genetic), not because they're educated", you'd only be partially right, but none of them would have been able to do what they did without education and investigation. And even regular educated people are likely to challenge authority if they get something wrong (politicians have been shut down by experts over and over again since politicians have existed). Hell, look at police audits, you don't need to be particularly smart to invoke your rights and challenge unlawful requests, you just have to know them (education). Being smart helps getting a better outcome, but even people who are not too bright can refuse a request to search a car.

If you are uneducated, you are overwhelmingly more likely to believe what you're told, whether it's by authority figures or by alternative sources (which, if we're being honest, becomes the authority for them), that's why you find both uneducated people who blindly follow authority and uneducated people who are "contrarians" (in reality they're blindly following someone else)

fkiblaze said:
Other animals also form complex societies (like ants) and there are other animals that help their weak, too. None of this is uniquely human or even a broad trait of humans. Ie some humans give zero care about helping others, while some are like those christian saints that devote their entire life to it.

Ants form a kind of society, but it's not that complex, and more importantly, if an ant looses a leg (or is missing one from a birth defect), the colony doesn't care for it and tries to ensure it's survival, they let the maimed ant die, and that's if they don't STRAIGHT UP EAT IT. That is the key here, that is what allows us to mostly overcome traditional evolution. And while you're right caring for others is a trait that doesn't apply to all humans broadly, IT APPLIES TO ALMOST ALL SOCIETIES. We don't all need to care for them, as long as someone does. That is the point.

Marcal91 said:

Educated people are believers in authority? I think you're mixing education with indoctrination. All the brightest and most educated minds have questioned or even fought authority. Obvious example is Galileo, but for a most recent example, you can also look up Ignaz Semmelweis's fight to get doctors in hospitals to wash their hands, and many other highly educated minds (not just in science, but in all fields) have had bouts with authority, even if of lesser extent, because they are knowledgeable enough to challenge false information, even if it comes from a place of authority. And before you say "that's because they're smart (genetic), not because they're educated", you'd only be partially right, but none of them would have been able to do what they did without education and investigation. And even regular educated people are likely to challenge authority if they get something wrong (politicians have been shut down by experts over and over again since politicians have existed). Hell, look at police audits, you don't need to be particularly smart to invoke your rights and challenge unlawful requests, you just have to know them (education). Being smart helps getting a better outcome, but even people who are not too bright can refuse a request to search a car.

If you are uneducated, you are overwhelmingly more likely to believe what you're told, whether it's by authority figures or by alternative sources (which, if we're being honest, becomes the authority for them), that's why you find both uneducated people who blindly follow authority and uneducated people who are "contrarians" (in reality they're blindly following someone else)

What you are doing is looking at anecdotes of exceptional men, ie Galileo or isaac newton, and then saying this is the general or the trend. If you look at the actual average of trend, education correlates with more likely to believe the establishment in USA, and uneducated people are more likely to be against the establishment. This is one of the many fallacies liberal do. They believe because some smart men in the past went to college, college makes you smarter, but it's the reverse. Smart people went to college in the past because they were smart. The scientists that didn't go still invented things, too. Thus the mass education of people into college hasn't actual made society smarter, it just made college more dumber. That is why college has so many idiots now as opposed to the past where only smart people went to college so the university system had prestige. That is also why republicans now say college is mostly propaganda. Obviously all this talk about propaganda is just the general simple picture, in reality there is no such thing as just "one propaganda" and there are different kinds that different people are more or less susceptible to, ie using sexy women in ads is another form, and one person who is susceptible to that form might not be susceptible to another or so on, but in general as an aggregate, more educated people tend to be more indoctrinated in the west. Alt-hype has a good article going over the studies on this.

Ants form a kind of society, but it's not that complex, and more importantly, if an ant looses a leg (or is missing one from a birth defect), the colony doesn't care for it and tries to ensure it's survival, they let the maimed ant die, and that's if they don't STRAIGHT UP EAT IT. That is the key here, that is what allows us to mostly overcome traditional evolution. And while you're right caring for others is a trait that doesn't apply to all humans broadly, IT APPLIES TO ALMOST ALL SOCIETIES. We don't all need to care for them, as long as someone does. That is the point.

Ants dont care for others in their society due to the unique nature of their genetics. Ants in a colony are all clones of eachother, so if one dies, from a genetic standpoint they dont die because they still have thousands of clones. I only used them as an example for complex society, not care. (also, it's worth pointing out ants do care for eachother, it's just appears they dont because ants fully embody complete altruism and self-sacrifice, because they live in a society composed of identical twins and thus don't compete against eachother in their society. The ants thus devotes their entire life and body to the society, so much so that their own life is meaningless, all that matters is what is best for the collective, and if the collective is better off eating them they will do that. The evolutionary competition between ants is colony vs colony, not individual ant vs ant, they are perfect communists)

And you are missing the point, not everyone cares for eachother in the same degree, as i used an example of, thus it is under the effects of evolution. For example, a bleeding heart liberal that chooses to be an idiot and wants to simp and worship blackpeople, will be out selected by the conservative white that isnt a xenophiliac.

fkiblaze said:

What you are doing is looking at anecdotes of exceptional men, ie Galileo or isaac newton, and then saying this is the general or the trend. If you look at the actual average of trend, education correlates with more likely to believe the establishment in USA, and uneducated people are more likely to be against the establishment. This is one of the many fallacies liberal do. They believe because some smart men in the past went to college, college makes you smarter, but it's the reverse. Smart people went to college in the past because they were smart. The scientists that didn't go still invented things, too. Thus the mass education of people into college hasn't actual made society smarter, it just made college more dumber. That is why college has so many idiots now as opposed to the past where only smart people went to college so the university system had prestige. That is also why republicans now say college is mostly propaganda. Obviously all this talk about propaganda is just the general simple picture, in reality there is no such thing as just "one propaganda" and there are different kinds that different people are more or less susceptible to, ie using sexy women in ads is another form, and one person who is susceptible to that form might not be susceptible to another or so on, but in general as an aggregate, more educated people tend to be more indoctrinated in the west. Alt-hype has a good article going over the studies on this.

I literally predicted and addressed your point in the parragraph you're responding to. Also, yes, in the USA education correlates to believing in the establishment, but that's because your education system comes with a heavy dose of indoctrination (to be fair, most education systems nowadays do), which works because at the start of your education journey, you are uneducated (for obvious reasons), and by giving you both education and indoctrination it makes it hard to separate one from the other. Still, those educated, are overwhelmingly more unlikely to fall for outside propaganda (even propaganda that doesn't conflict with the indoctrination)

fkiblaze said:
Ants dont care for others in their society due to the unique nature of their genetics. Ants in a colony are all clones of eachother, so if one dies, from a genetic standpoint they dont die because they still have thousands of clones. I only used them as an example for complex society, not care. (also, it's worth pointing out ants do care for eachother, it's just appears they dont because ants fully embody complete altruism and self-sacrifice, because they live in a society composed of identical twins and thus don't compete against eachother in their society. The ants thus devotes their entire life and body to the society, so much so that their own life is meaningless, all that matters is what is best for the collective, and if the collective is better off eating them they will do that. The evolutionary competition between ants is colony vs colony, not individual ant vs ant, they are perfect communists)

This doesn't address my point at all, the points is that humans protect individuals that could never survive alone, completely changing the dynamics of evorlution.

fkiblaze said:
And you are missing the point, not everyone cares for eachother in the same degree, as i used an example of, thus it is under the effects of evolution

This is word soup, "not everyone cares for eachother in the same degree, as i used an example of, thus it is under the effects of evolution", what does that even mean? Because not everyone cares for others in the same degree, that's evolution? Is that what you're trying to say? If so, ???? That doesn't make any sense. If you argument is since some people care less about others that allows people to die and evolution to exist, then you've completely missed the point I made about societies, doesn't matter if you care zero for others if someone else picks up the slack.

fkiblaze said:
. For example, a bleeding heart liberal that chooses to be an idiot and wants to simp and worship blackpeople, will be out selected by the conservative white that isnt a xenophiliac.

Ah, I see, your understanding of genetics begins and ends with looks, that explains a lot. I'm sorry I'm the one who breaks this to you, but mixed-race children still carry your genes. In fact, if we were actually still fully under traditional evolution, having children with multiple partners of multiple different races would be the the most benefitial from the point of evlution, since it increases genetic diversity and thus the chances of someone carrying on your bloodline.

Marcal91 said:

I literally predicted and addressed your point in the parragraph you're responding to. Also, yes, in the USA education correlates to believing in the establishment, but that's because your education system comes with a heavy dose of indoctrination (to be fair, most education systems nowadays do), which works because at the start of your education journey, you are uneducated (for obvious reasons), and by giving you both education and indoctrination it makes it hard to separate one from the other. Still, those educated, are overwhelmingly more unlikely to fall for outside propaganda (even propaganda that doesn't conflict with the indoctrination)

Yes, you said some ideas, but none of that makes it true. If you want a lot of studies on this, though not all, this document shows many and explains them. it is a really good primer. (i dont expect you to read it all today since it is long, but it's just a good document to save and read through over time) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oWcfPSJ6eqWC9doaoBYFeRwL6lZJJ0Kb/view

this one is also tangangentally related though not as much stuff. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pw93mOrtqaCAGrxFepdPF9BtouyA6B4A/view?pli=1

This doesn't address my point at all, the points is that humans protect individuals that could never survive alone, completely changing the dynamics of evorlution.

This is word soup, "not everyone cares for eachother in the same degree, as i used an example of, thus it is under the effects of evolution", what does that even mean? Because not everyone cares for others in the same degree, that's evolution? Is that what you're trying to say? If so, ???? That doesn't make any sense. If you argument is since some people care less about others that allows people to die and evolution to exist, then you've completely missed the point I made about societies, doesn't matter if you care zero for others if someone else picks up the slack.

It changes the environment and incentives, of course, just like with any other environment, that doesn't mean evolution changes or doesn't apply. In the modern environment the incentives are such that dysgenics is selected for. IE the most fit people in current society for evolution are the welfare queens while the least fit are the college educated liberals who have 1 kid at 35. Essentially the current environment selects for those that are best at collecting as much as they can from the system, and against those that pay the most into the system while getting the least. This is why most people on the right say the current system is evolutionary dysgenic.

Ah, I see, your understanding of genetics begins and ends with looks, that explains a lot. I'm sorry I'm the one who breaks this to you, but mixed-race children still carry your genes. In fact, if we were actually still fully under traditional evolution, having children with multiple partners of multiple different races would be the the most benefitial from the point of evlution, since it increases genetic diversity and thus the chances of someone carrying on your bloodline.

No, in fact looks is just a small part of genes. And my comment there had nothing to do with mixed race children. It had to do with transferring resources and opportunities from yourself to non-whites. But since you brought it up, no, as i pointed out in another comment of maybe thread to other people, mixed race kids can actually carry less of your genes than a stranger, this is because the simplistic explanation of inheritance isn't correct. Your kid doesn't only have half your genes. If they did they would literally be a banana, or similar fruit which has around half your genes. If you are white and have a kid with a white person, your child on average has something like 99.95% of your genes. Meanwhile an average white stranger might have 99.9% of your genes. However a black stranger can have something like 99.5% and so if you are white and have kids with a black person, your kid can have as little as only 99.75% of your genes, far less than the white stranger so in that case it would actually be better just to adopt a white kid. Now this is just an extreme example, different types of black and white people exist, but i just used one example. As for you last point, look up what outbreeding depression is. Genetic diversity is not always good and in a lot of cases bad. It is only "good" if you care about a species survival, not a person's lineage.

fkiblaze said:

Yes, you said some ideas, but none of that makes it true. If you want a lot of studies on this, though not all, this document shows many and explains them. it is a really good primer. (i dont expect you to read it all today since it is long, but it's just a good document to save and read through over time) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oWcfPSJ6eqWC9doaoBYFeRwL6lZJJ0Kb/view

this one is also tangangentally related though not as much stuff. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pw93mOrtqaCAGrxFepdPF9BtouyA6B4A/view?pli=1

It changes the environment and incentives, of course, just like with any other environment, that doesn't mean evolution changes or doesn't apply. In the modern environment the incentives are such that dysgenics is selected for. IE the most fit people in current society for evolution are the welfare queens while the least fit are the college educated liberals who have 1 kid at 35. Essentially the current environment selects for those that are best at collecting as much as they can from the system, and against those that pay the most into the system while getting the least. This is why most people on the right say the current system is evolutionary dysgenic.

No, in fact looks is just a small part of genes. And my comment there had nothing to do with mixed race children. It had to do with transferring resources and opportunities from yourself to non-whites. But since you brought it up, no, as i pointed out in another comment of maybe thread to other people, mixed race kids can actually carry less of your genes than a stranger, this is because the simplistic explanation of inheritance isn't correct. Your kid doesn't only have half your genes. If they did they would literally be a banana, or similar fruit which has around half your genes. If you are white and have a kid with a white person, your child on average has something like 99.95% of your genes. Meanwhile an average white stranger might have 99.9% of your genes. However a black stranger can have something like 99.5% and so if you are white and have kids with a black person, your kid can have as little as only 99.75% of your genes, far less than the white stranger so in that case it would actually be better just to adopt a white kid. Now this is just an extreme example, different types of black and white people exist, but i just used one example. As for you last point, look up what outbreeding depression is. Genetic diversity is not always good and in a lot of cases bad. It is only "good" if you care about a species survival, not a person's lineage.

The document in the link you provided is completely unrelated to this topic, you fail to understand my point about evolution (you said it changes the incentives, which was MY POINT, now WE create and adapt the environment to us, the ntural selection is not so natural anymore), and you believe "spreading your genes" is the same as "more total number of genes shared", instead of, you know, passing down a genetic SEQUENCE (yeah, those numbers you shared are percentage of total shared genes, but not in the particular order that makes you you). I'm just saying, if I had a mixed-race kid, a paternity test would test positive, but it wouldn't do so for a random stranger, why do you think that is? Oh, and for good measure, if you *really* believe on what you're saying, then an interracial relationship is the least incestuous one.

You are cooked, bro, I truly hope whatever this is is temporary and you eventually get better, but for now I'm done wasting my words on you.

If we could go back to hating on people who complain about images that are the point of this site, that's be great.

Marcal91 said:

The document in the link you provided is completely unrelated to this topic,

I don't see how, since that document is about all the effects of higher education, including it's effects on believing propaganda points, which was one of the points.

you fail to understand my point about evolution (you said it changes the incentives, which was MY POINT, now WE create and adapt the environment to us, the ntural selection is not so natural anymore),

the environment is part of nature and natural selection, unless you believe humans aren't animals or something. Animals change their environment yes, beavers build damns, ants build antholes, birds build nests, bees build hives, humans build cities and towns. I fail to see how this isnt part of nature or evolution. In simple terms as people on the right say "culture is part of genetics". Different animals and races produce different cultures.

and you believe "spreading your genes" is the same as "more total number of genes shared", instead of, you know, passing down a genetic SEQUENCE (yeah, those numbers you shared are percentage of total shared genes, but not in the particular order that makes you you). I'm just saying, if I had a mixed-race kid, a paternity test would test positive, but it wouldn't do so for a random stranger, why do you think that is?

You are cooked, bro, I truly hope whatever this is is temporary and you eventually get better, but for now I'm done wasting my words on you.

you dont know what a gene is then. A gene is a particular part of the sequence. ATAG for example isnt a gene, it depends on where that ATAG is. So yes im talking about a specific sequence in a specific place. Read the selfish gene. All actual evolution happens on the gene level for the most part. A paternity test doesn't test the entire genome, it tests one specific small area usually on the sex chromosome for males. (this is also why paternity tests aren't always 100% accurate only like 99.9% or something really high, so "good enough") Yes you can share that small section of dna but be completely different in everywhere else. This is similar to haplogroups.

Oh, and for good measure, if you *really* believe on what you're saying, then an interracial relationship is the least incestuous one.

Most people define incest as just immediate family, but if you want to just say it is genetic relatedness, then yes, technically marrying into your own race is like marrying your 13th cousin or something, but guess what, that is a good thing. incest is bad if its 2nd cousin or closer. 3rd cousins actually are the healthiest and most fertile.

Marcal91 said:

If we could go back to hating on people who complain about images that are the point of this site, that's be great.

Youre new to the site, but this is a common trend. Every bleachbooru thread seemingly ends up with some political argument. forum #17378

[Edit: it's best to noto feed Putin's troll. That's a task for the mods if they want to take care of them: otherwise it's best to just let the community rot away as it is supposed to be. Sorry]