For discussion of politics, religion, and other content not fitting the rest of the site
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 380)
BB Code
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, TXT
  • Maximum file size allowed is 11742 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 440 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 151125413161.jpg - (109.84KB , 1280x720 , [aniKoi] Yuusha ni Narenakatta Ore wa Shibushibu S.jpg )
380 No. 380 [Edit]
What are some thing you believe that most people wouldn't agree with, or would possibly get upset about if you told them how you really feel about it?
156 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 1040 [Edit]
Socialism works when you have a small, hard-working, law-abiding, intelligent population. Eurofags are only mistaken in their delusional belief that everybody can meet these criteria.

Post edited on 16th Jan 2021, 12:18pm
>> No. 1041 [Edit]
Socialism existing in the first place is a defacto state of having failed. The nordic model is also not compatible with every, or most, cultures, even within europe. It requires that every single citizen be prepared for a level of self-sacrifice that would require a ludicrous level of trust and homogeneity, to the point that an ethnostate wouldn't be good enough to ensure that it functions anything other than just barely. If even a small percentage of your population thinks "nah, it's not for me", then you've got a problem. It's also just against the nature of humans to defer their ambitions and all but the most insignificant of self-interest for the sake of maintaining a fragile state. Even if you could make it work to a degree beyond just functional, why would you want to? If you're actually competent, you're going to want to be able to make your own decisions about what you do with your money, your property, or your time, and that is going to far outweigh any desire for a safety net. The only workaround is to condition people from birth to see that and only that way of life as the ideal.
>> No. 1042 [Edit]
File 16108886878.jpg - (206.14KB , 850x508 , sample_4f9bd07e5931bb6e891e60e0d3b56bd6.jpg )
>Even if you could make it work to a degree beyond just functional, why would you want to?
I only said it would work. I personally wouldn't care much about making my own decisions if I had nice things around me. Clean streets. Pretty architecture. Trees and flowers. Good food. Excellent public transit. A sense of belonging. Everybody should have this kind of lifestyle. There shouldn't be any homeless people. They shouldn't exist.
>> No. 1043 [Edit]
We just have to figure out how to compress ourselves into 2D beings.
>> No. 1044 [Edit]
I like being the agent of my own decisions, even if that means being poor. I was homeless for a good while once in my late teens and early twenties, living out of my car, and I think I actually enjoyed it a little bit. I don't care much for nice things if they're only available to me if I get along. I've seen the income and tax brackets for the Netherlands, they say they like it there too but someone who makes 25,000 a year gets only like 5000 less after taxes as someone who "makes" 50,000. Guess I'd rather die standing on my own feet, as stupid as it sounds coming from an autistic loser. I'm just not very good at the whole cooperating thing, pretty much the only time I'll behave and follow the general culture is on imageboards. And even then I have a hard time staying in line, I have a hard time not going off on some unwarranted rant or making posts that run the risk of attracting the wrong crowd. To me a state where everything was provided and I made no decisions on the basis that I had to always stay in line would be hell. When you're the owner of your own personal power (power in this sense being a loose term for any kind of resources, energy, or force you control), you don't need to stay in line. I like the idea of only answering to myself, and I'm not saying I'm some dumbass libertarian, I'm saying I'll try to keep some handle on my own power no matter the system I'm in. A system where it isn't possible to be the owner and decider of your own power is worth less to me than a single crackhead.
>> No. 1045 [Edit]
Well, you said yourself that you're "defective". You can't help that. I don't think you see what I see. Things could be so beautiful and simple if people were only better.
>> No. 1046 [Edit]
I think both socialism and extreme-libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism?) work only in the presence of that "small, hard-working, law-abiding, intelligent population" you mentioned. But then such a population would be fine almost under any system of law. With a more realistic heterogeneous population where bad-actors abound and people are not merely rational agents but will gladly compromise in the long-term for short-term gains, both systems fall apart. Socialism for the reasons already discussed in this thread, and anarcho-capitalism for the reason that the majority of people are brainless and easily manipulated by advertising so that market forces – the primary (and only?) element ensuring fairness in a pure libertarian society – are irrelevant. In a rational world Facebook would be long out of business due to its shady practices and data-mining; and yet people simply don't care, and in fact facebook (along with other similar companies) grow stronger each year buying out more and more of their competitors.
>> No. 1047 [Edit]
I think I know what you see. I think I even understand why you see it. I'm not saying it's not appealing from a certain perspective, and I'm well aware that many people genuinely understand the system that realistically would be created and that those people believe that this would be anywhere from a utopia to just a nice and simple and secure way of life that accounts for the people who otherwise would fall through the cracks, and provides a limited yet secure life. What I'm trying to tell you is that not enough of it lines up with my moral values for me to also value it. I'm also not an anarcho-capitalist, or even a libertarian, don't get me wrong. But primarily I think government taxation should go towards actual public projects like roads, bridges, etc, and that government regulation in business should only be as far as preventing monopolies and rooting out clear abuse where it lies- not managing the salaries from the seat of the federal power or providing a vessel for unions to hold the country hostage. I think also that the benefits of having a fallback in case you "fail" are outweighed by the cons of having heavily increased government monitoring of your life and a limited use of the funds that are made available. If someone is down on their luck, their family should help them out. If their family can't or won't, if they're too mentally ill or old too work, then in that case the government should try and find a way to help them. But at the end of the day I think someones life is their own responsibility and it's up to them to solve their problems. I'm also aware that for a lot of people, their lives have problems they didn't create and didn't ask for. I'm one of those people to a degree. But at the end of the day there IS no one else who can really decide what you will do, there is no one else to make something happen that you want to happen. It may be grim, but only what you have in your power is really in your power. If that is limited, it is still the only thing you can rely on. Assistance from everything and everyone else should be treated as good luck and a rarity at best. Not for the sake of others, but for yourself, you are the only person you can control. It's why I'm an advocate for owning weapons, not because I believe that I DESERVE the right to own weapons, but because I know that if I want certain outcomes, I need personal power. Anarchy will never be achieved. It's not something that you should even wish for. I just believe in self-responsibility, and that entails not being stuck out in the cold by an uncaring world, what it really means is using your own power to achieve the results you want. That may not be much, you may not have much power. But in the end, what else can you control except for that which is in your power? Then, if you desire an outcome, it is unreasonable to not look to your own power to do it, because no one and nothing else is for certain.
>> No. 1052 [Edit]
They also topping the list when it comes to things like the human development index so it can easily be shown to work.

>If even a small percentage of your population thinks "nah, it's not for me", then you've got a problem.

Why? These states have law and order and strong systems of welfare, so what could a few people deciding that actually do? Be unemployed and on welfare?
>> No. 1053 [Edit]
The "human development index" was pretty much tailor made to make "development" reflect the social market economy though.
>what could a few people deciding that actually do?
I guess you've never lived near the projects before. And to me it sounds like you're advocating for a strong police state to make sure no one objects strongly to socialist policies, which is pretty funny when you think about it. And pretty realistic too.

Either way I just don't see what's so appealing about welfare, especially considering the staggering tax rates. Not that American corporate capitalism is much better, but if I had to choose between them at least corporate capitalism gives you the option of not being tied into the system and society quite as much. I mean who is the welfare state for besides the poor? I'm not poor, so I don't want it. Anyone who isn't poor or shortsighted isn't going to want it.
>> No. 1054 [Edit]
It's not, it's based on life expectancy, education and average income.

And what will the people in these projects do? Actually less than they would in the US as in this case they will have a strong welfare system to keep them off the streets. I'm not saying they will not cause crime but the motivation for it is lessened.

A strong police force is necessary regardless, I mean just look at the US, you have nut jobs causing chaos on both sides of the spectrum and huge amounts of crime caused by the poor that would not be such an issue in a welfare state. I would argue a strong police force is more necessary in the US than in Socialist states(and that they a stronger one too).

Personally the benefit of welfare to me is not having to work. High income tax is a problem but it scales with income anyway, yes you get taxed 50% of your income over 100k here, so yes it would be bad if that was the case and I was making that much but I would hardly be in the poor house because of it.

>but if I had to choose between them at least corporate capitalism gives you the option of not being tied into the system and society quite as much.

Does it though? I can be and I am completely removed from society. If you have to work then you are going to be tied to society and the rules of that society, you are going to have to behave in a manner that lets you keep that job, you are going to have to follow the norms of society. I don't have to play that game at all.
>> No. 1055 [Edit]
vim is overrated as a text editor, let alone coming close to the functionality of an ide. People who mindlessly champion vim have never spent much time using a modern editor; if they spent as much time fully learning its keybindings as they likely did learning vim, they would likely be as efficient in navigating around as they are in vim. Not to mention that people often leave out the bazillion janky extensions that you need to add in order to have a decent experience.

That said, I will say that among terminal-only text editors it is very good; but unless you've ssh'd into a headless machine I see no reason why you'd want to avoid the plethora of other good gui editors.
>> No. 1056 [Edit]
But in your case you only are free to do whatever you want as long was what you want coincides with what society wants. For example in a lot of welfare systems you can be disqualified if you possess a certain amount of property or do certain things. If the money is yours, if it is really under your power, then it can't be "disqualified" from you without using force. Maybe you don't really care to own property, and don't really have any ambitions beyond relaxing. That's fine, for you, but I do have some ambitions and I have certain things I want to do that I can't do in the kind of country northern europe tends to produce. If I was in the ntherlands right now, my income would fall in the bracket high enough that I would be paying over 50% in taxes, accounting for exchange rates. As it is I can easily afford to live where I live and save up quite a good bit as well, and I'll be using that money to buy some property in about 7 years. But if I took home what I would get in the netherlands I wouldn't be able to afford to even live within reasonable driving distance of my job. I don't value being a wageslave anymore than you do, but to me I see this as a way of earning my freedom. Once I'm done, and I have carefully planned this, I'll be as free as you can be on this earth. That's worth more than living on the good graces of the state to me. That's the real reason I don't want a social welfare state. You might be unburdened and you might be relaxed, but you've given up a considerable amount of power over your own life. I don't care whether it's right or wrong or logical or not, that's just something I simply won't do. It's not even a matter of asking for permission for the power over my own life, if I can hold that power then I won't let it go. I can't understand people who do otherwise.
>> No. 1057 [Edit]
>But in your case you only are free to do whatever you want as long was what you want coincides with what society wants.

The same could be argued of working as well, although as mentioned before it applies to working to a greater degree. Society has no expectations of unemployed people that is the point(well some nations and systems might ask that you seek employment but they may not even enforce that). If society stopped valuing the industry you are employed in, if your employer stopped valuing you, if the industry became automated, if the industry moved overseas, if you were not PC enough for the industry or any other thing could end your employment and it's all at the whim of the economy and society. What could society the whims of society do to effect the unemployed? Short of a revolution in which case you have bigger problems, not much.

>For example in a lot of welfare systems you can be disqualified if you possess a certain amount of property or do certain things.

True, but that amount of money here is $500,000 and that does not include the value of your own house that you live in, so it's not like you are being forced into poverty to be on welfare and even if the limit was $10,000 you could still live freely just not save up money.

>Once I'm done, and I have carefully planned this, I'll be as free as you can be on this earth. That's worth more than living on the good graces of the state to me.

Yes but you have to be a slave to do it. And also you still are living on the good grace of the state and economy. The economy could crash and force you to work again, your investments could become devalued or depending on the nation you are in the government could enact some plan that requisitions assets or made assets worth less or some other shenanigans like that. Sure it is unlikely that the government will do that but it is equally unlikely that the government will cut welfare, it is more likely that the economy will crash(well that is guaranteed, how bad it does it, what sectors are severely effected and how soon it recovers are what matters).

Having said all of this. I can see where you are coming from and I would like to live off of my own investments too. I don't like the idea of living off the charity of the government or others in general. But it's just not worth the time and effort of working to accrue enough to retire off to do it for me. I would be wasting a good portion of my life just for the feeling that I am living on my own wealth.
>> No. 1058 [Edit]
See I do understand where you are coming from and I agree to an extent and I even thought of the possibility of welfare myself, but there are things I actually want to do with my money, not just sit around on it. But I have a bunch of projects in mind that will require money.
>True, but that amount of money here is $500,000 and that does not include the value of your own house that you live in, so it's not like you are being forced into poverty to be on welfare and even if the limit was $10,000 you could still live freely just not save up money.
Here it's $2,000, I think.
>> No. 1101 [Edit]
I despise transsexualism. It's not only an obnoxious ideology, but actively harmful. I suppose it's been there for a few years now, but I've noticed it a lot more recently.

There's a lot of things about it that are awful. The 'sex/gender is a spectrum' horseshit, infinite pronouns that all make no sense to encompass every 'gender', the cult-like mentality where if you dare criticize or say that maybe mutilating yourself and taking hormone supplements for years just to delude yourself into thinking you've become the opposite sex is a good idea.
But most of all, it's the people who egg them on into 'transitioning'. The people who convince them that anyone saying 'no' is just a filthy nasty bigot who shouldn't be listened to. The people who reinforce this mentality instead of caring for them and convincing them to seek some sort of therapy to stop feeling like they're some sort of freak for being born with certain sexual organs. I don't know how you can possibly tell someone considering this sort of thing that it'd be a good idea for them. "Yes, you should definetly take months/years worth of supplements, consider mutilating your genitals, and ignore anyone who tells you otherwise. And above all, make sure you're prideful about the fact that you're essentially doing sterile self-harm."

And maybe these people can end up passing off as men or women. People have done that without any sort of attempt at sex change at all. But when that high wears off, when they age, when their minds inevitably change about the whole thing, when the voices that've been egging you on for those years of your life suddenly quiet, when it inevitably becomes obvious that all they've been doing their whole lives is just an advanced form of cross-dressing, then what are they going to have? Their going to have their damaged bodies, living with nothing but pain.

And then they'll either kill themselves, or live the rest of their lives in regret. Many already have killed themselves, or have had it become apparent to them the damage they've irreversibly done to themselves in the chase of trying to find their 'true identity', when they should've just been seeking therapy. Even worse if they were just doing it for some fetishy bullshit.

I've also seen other things that remind me too much of this hopefully very temporary phenomenon. Among them are 'headmates', aka people pretending to be schizophrenic, which probably isn't healthy to do for prolonged periods of time but probably isn't as harmful as transsexualism, and people who've intentionally made themselves incontinent out of what I assume is sexual desire. I'm not 100% sure.
>> No. 1107 [Edit]
File 161371887149.png - (387.01KB , 589x1200 , nun 1.png )
My hatred for women has slowly been expanding into the 2d world. People act like 2d is pure and can do no harm but then yanderes exist, yangires exist, manipulative girls exist, gyaru sluts exist, you have entire genres in Japanese media centered around doing some kind of terrible thing if not a series of terrible things. I don't know how people can tell me I'm the dumb one and 2d is objectively better when plenty of characters do the same things real women do. Maybe it isn't as common but they still do it and quite often. Obviously I notice the good ones but I notice the bad ones too and I feel like I'm one of few who does. I want to be wrong but I'm not the type of person to forget things I hate so easily.
>> No. 1109 [Edit]
There are terrible 2D girls just like in 3D, the difference is that the best 2D girls are always something that doesn't have an equally good 3D counterpart. These characters aren't necessarily perfect people either, its more that they have some specific quality that 3D just entirely lack. Like being emotionally disciplined, or valuing loyalty enough to make a real effort. Not that 3D don't value loyalty at all, but they can be swayed by some pretty easy shit just because their emotional receptors are always on.
>> No. 1110 [Edit]
2D is whatever you want it to be.
>> No. 1111 [Edit]
Don't care. Trying to help some people is pointless. I also like its potentially destructive effect on 3d woman.
>> No. 1112 [Edit]
File 161383478192.jpg - (1.47MB , 1039x1492 , Fate Sabre 159.jpg )
Monarchless states are the bane of the world and nearly all of the worlds problems can be attributed to them.
>> No. 1113 [Edit]
I prefer tits to ass. I've always loved boobs
>> No. 1114 [Edit]
File 161394405876.jpg - (14.22KB , 191x185 , huh.jpg )
That's not even an unpopular opinion. Everyone with a working sex drive likes boobs, usually more than ass.
>> No. 1115 [Edit]
>usually more than ass
confusingly enough
>> No. 1116 [Edit]
Maybe he comes from the middle east or wales(though that's sheep not asses I guess).
>> No. 1117 [Edit]
I don't know, I've always preferred ass as a rule. I can't stand the dumb obese nigger shit or twerking being shoved everywhere, but a properly shaped ass just really does it for me.
>> No. 1118 [Edit]
File 161454697477.png - (3.30MB , 3500x2485 , 81ed8556479e66e39eb12f0910bc0de0.png )
I can only assume this will open a can of worms but I don't like hentai. Obviously I do read some and even enjoy it but I never feel good about it after the fact, my mind just feels weird and I feel like I end up coming close to having forgotten some of the things I just read after I go on a long hentai reading session. Some of the fetishes I personally feel are horrible and other times downright retarded. Hentai ends up feeling like a step into the darkest corners of people's heads to show just how depraved characters and the artist can be. None of this would be so bad if I didn't have to spend so much time looking for my fetish that unfortunately is very obscure so there isn't much on that. It's also annoying to me how people sometimes simp for their favorite fetish, it's silly and annoying.

Post edited on 28th Feb 2021, 1:19pm
>> No. 1119 [Edit]
Feeling guilty or ashamed of your sexuality isn't an unpopular opinion pretty much anywhere if you're a guy. What's unpopular is being a shameless, unapologetic sexual deviant.

Post edited on 28th Feb 2021, 1:51pm
>> No. 1120 [Edit]
I have noticed a lot of people into 2D seem to feel distressed about hentai and their fetishes. Just try to relax and have fun.
>> No. 1121 [Edit]
Theres always a worse fetish that makes you feel normal, also theres no reason to discuss hentai/fetishes.
Just try not to overthink it.
>> No. 1122 [Edit]
If it makes you feel any better, most hentai actually is fairly vanilla or close to it. The really bad and disturbing ones are a minority.
>> No. 1240 [Edit]
Border patrol and the coast guard seem underappreciated. Nobody really talks about them much, they don't get free stuff, and nobody is that offended if you say something bad about them. The military is always praised for "protecting us", but don't they have less of a role in that than the ones who actually defend borders?
>> No. 1241 [Edit]
The #StopAsianHate thing feels like a cheap attempt to piggyback on BLM but the situation is obviously different, even if I disagree with BLM there is a point there. SAH feels like a mix of cause junkies and perhaps the CCP because of a lot of their stuff is about anti Chinese sentiment in the west but there is a reason for that other than racism
>> No. 1242 [Edit]
File 161695905483.jpg - (466.91KB , 850x1202 , sample_6b5d202d986d82f6a6d84fad00da53d9.jpg )
While I don't think medical science and biomedical engineering has advanced to point where surgeons can actually change a person's sex, I've gotten to kind of liking the whole trans thing because it's destructive to woman. If anybody can be a woman, being a woman has no significance. There would be nothing special about them, and women's special status is something I resent.

What I don't get is why this view isn't more popular on imageboards. A lot of people here have their issues with women, but also hate the trans thing, something which is harmful to them. What's the logic behind that? They do talk a lot about the harmful effects it has, but I guess I don't really care. Maybe my malice and lack of empathy has gone full circle?

Post edited on 28th Mar 2021, 12:24pm
>> No. 1243 [Edit]
I actually don't hate women any more than I hate men in fact I hate men more. Sure there are terrible women(and that seems to be what the imageboard crowd fixate on) but there are terrible men too, I would say they are both bad but with the difference being that women are less inclined to be driven by base impulse unlike men and that they on average swear less and do other revolting things less.

People complain about women losing their feminine graces and this is true to a large degree but then men have lost what it was to be a man as well so it's a moot point. The majority of both of them have degraded.

It's an immature train of thought, it could lead to other problems later on as well so it's good that people are not following it. If you are following this thought pattern that because a group hates something then even though you hate it too you are now going to like it it opens up a whole new can of worms and never ends, you will basically start likening things solely because x doesn't like them and disliking things solely because x does. So not only are you having your thoughts dictated to by the group but in an even more unhealthy manner.
>> No. 1244 [Edit]
File 161698506930.jpg - (95.00KB , 850x638 , sample_98ff3bc418e2ab2c825359bb98ca2d6b.jpg )
I dislike both too, but women more so because they're more different from me and get preferential treatment in many areas. I wouldn't say they're any less driven by "base instinct"; I would say the opposite actually.

I don't care about feminine graces. I dislike feminine thinking and behavior as a whole and would like women to be far more masculine and unemotional in the way they think and act.

>because a group hates something then even though you hate it too
It's not about "because they hate it", it's about it being harmful to them. Trans people don't effect me personally, so I couldn't care less about them outside of this. I don't think I ever hated them, I just reject their ideas about sex.
>> No. 1245 [Edit]
I don't know, modern man is fairly different from me as well.

>I wouldn't say they're any less driven by "base instinct"; I would say the opposite actually.

Well if you look at pretty much any metric they aren't. According to studies from both Japan and the west men are twice as likely to cheat as women are, men are also far more likely to end up in prison and the vast majority of people there are in it for base reason of one kind or another there is also a humongous industry built on the lust of men. The common response to the porn industry point is 'well of course women can do 'it' whenever they like' but this is part of the problem with the mentality of the imageboard folk, they are not actually comparing like to like. They are comparing attractive females to themselves when they should be comparing attractive females to attractive males and themselves to ugly and obese women. Could an obese woman walk up to a male model and get it from him? Hell no. There should be a porn industry as big or bigger for women than there is for men but this simply is not the case and even what porn is made for women is completely different than what is made for men, the most popular female pornography was a book.

Women think differently than men do and that is the other issue with imageboard folk, they assume that women think like they do and have the same desires. This is completely false.

I don't actually think it could be harmful to them, harmful to what about them exactly? You mentioned a special status but again, it's something that imageboard folk exaggerate. In fact if they have a special status it's because men like them are giving it to them in the first place.

Post edited on 28th Mar 2021, 7:59pm
>> No. 1246 [Edit]
Do me a favor and quote people in your first reply to them so I don't waste my time responding to you.
>> No. 1247 [Edit]
>with the difference being that women are less inclined to be driven by base impulse unlike men and that they on average swear less and do other revolting things less.
Is this a humor skit? Women may, arguably, be driven less by sex. But base impulses like emotional logic drive women to a much greater extent than men. I don't think I've met a woman who doesn't heavily weigh emotional reasons over logical reasons when making decisions, even practical decisions like where to work, rent, what living standards they can afford. Your description of women sounds like a fantasized and flanderized version of women based on old idealized versions of women that were never true in any era. If nothing else, women are fucking retarded more so than men, as stupid as men get women are able to surpass all expectations. t. 4 sisters
>> No. 1248 [Edit]
Companies should not be allowed to move labor overseas under any circumstances, or if they do they should be required to re-locate their legal basing to whatever countries they now use, and a heavy tariff should be imposed on companies that have left their home country. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government punishing businesses that have chosen to become foreign entities to their nation. In fact, no government should be considered with the welfare of anyone but their own citizens. A company that is no longer of the country should be treated as an outside force to be dealt with as an outsider.
>> No. 1249 [Edit]
With the way the world works, these businesses would rather cut themselves off from the US than stay if they felt too much pressure. You'd have to physically restrict the travel of company heads to force them to stay.
>> No. 1250 [Edit]
It's fairly evident. I will agree they are more emotional on average though, they are more emotional yes but less driven by base impulse as weird as that sounds. Although maybes it's not so strange, being driven by base impulse does not necessarily imply that you are driven by emotion or vice versa. You could be cold and logical in your pursuit of s*x for example yet still have that be the driving force in your life, likewise you could be driven by emotion to find it repulsive and so actually avoid it.

I've got sisters too.
>> No. 1251 [Edit]
Automation is going to take many jobs anyway so even manufacturing internally won't help in the long run. Automation might bring manufacturing back to first world nations anyway(it is to a degree already, see Tesla and Lucid Motors), if the factory is running on a skeleton crew anyway then having it be in a first world nation doesn't change much.
>> No. 1252 [Edit]
I'm not talking strictly about the U.S. As for restricting company heads, that's definitely an option. Why shouldn't a country restrict the travel of people who are going to actively harm it? It's probably worse in the long run to let companies move overseas than it is to let, say, some international spy or criminal escape to asylum. If it's okay to detain military traitors, it should be more than okay to detain economic traitors too. International businesses shouldn't be tolerated by any sane nation until we're at a point where global cooperation and peace between nations is ensured. Don't take this as me being obsessed with hyper-nationalism or anything of the sort. I don't have any interest in hunting down anti-patriots or some silly shit. I just think that from a purely realpolitik point of view, letting businesses leave your country is worse than almost anything else. Because it takes away the most important part of sovereignty, your ability to have a self contained economy. The U.S. could not win a war of industrial attrition like WW2 again, no matter how advanced it's tech is.
>> No. 1253 [Edit]
Emotion itself is the basest of impulses. Women run on almost nothing but emotion. Also, while men may think and act about sex more, women have far less self control when they do confront it. Maybe you were lucky and had nice sisters and they all had nice friends, but I heard enough horror stories from my loose lipped siblings and their friends (that they bragged about too) to make me never want to even be acquaintances with a 3D woman. Men are base, crude, and usually lack much self control, but at least most of them from my experience have some level of self-awareness about their behavior. Women think their shit don't stink.
>> No. 1254 [Edit]
Why do people say that race "doesn't exist"? I see people say things like it has no genetic basis, but things like blonde hair, blue eyes, pale skin, height, nose shape, jaw shape, skull shape, eye shape, general build, teeth health, toenail health, diet, etc. can all be predicted genetically and are genetically inheritable, making up distinct groups that can be readily told apart on both visual, and genetic levels. I will not get into intelligence, because it's hard to determine how much is culture and how much is genetic. Now, I admit I'm not a biologist, and I'm aware that simply producing fertile offspring is enough to conclusively determine that all humans are at least within the same species, most likely all very close to each other genetically as well. However, to say that race is not genetic or that it cannot be distinguished genetically is just a blatant flasehood. Sure, we might consider those distinctions surface level and superficial, but they are distinctions nonetheless. At the very least, you can define groups based on those superficial traits that can be told apart genetically, and in fact we can tell from DNA samples which specific part of a continent you came from. Race gets a little more muddy the further you go back, but within the last at least 2000 years or so, there can be made distinctions between several obvious races of human.

To say that "race" is unscientific, when the distinctions used by people to determine race are indeed genetic and have served well to make distinctions for the purposes of determining ethnic background, is just silly. Science is a tool to describe reality objectively and nothing less, and objectively, the distinctions we call races exist on a genetic level. To argue that it's not exactly the same as a breed or a sub-species is moving the goalpost. So why CAN'T we use the term race to describe those genetic differences and the different pools of people found within them?
>> No. 1255 [Edit]
File 161728655717.jpg - (555.21KB , 1000x709 , f7102edb53a8363974dbba4085a4a53c.jpg )
Firstly, species itself isn't actually "real" in that it's a taxonomical concept we invented for our own convenience. What divides one species from another, is a list of arbitrary criteria with lots of edge cases. It works well enough, but the difference between living organisms is more like a gradient than sharply divided lines. The same goes for race, even more so since we're the same "species". It's easier to categorize people by race geographically than genetically.

Race is the idea that humans can be categorized, which was usually done using the most obvious phenotypical differences. If you wanted to do it genetically, it's hard to pick actual criteria for dividing races. People would have to come up with something and agree upon it. Genetically, people lie on a gradient of variations of genes/traits, number of copies of specific genes, gene regulation, epigentics, and other stuff I can't list since I'm not an expert by any means.

If you were to just look at Africa, you could say there's hundreds of different races living there, and nobody would be able to correct you since the criteria separating races hasn't been formalized.
>> No. 1256 [Edit]
While you're correct that there are a lot of border cases, and I would have mentioned the gradient nature of it if I was writing a longer post, there are still more of people in a definable category than not. Genetically defining race would certainly be a challenge, but I'm sure if you took a sample of every group in the world from, say, 400 years ago, you would see definable gradient "edges" where it shifts from one to another very rapidly, which would serve as a useful distinction of "race". Besides, even the edge cases as they exist today are more of a trick of the logical part of the mind that desires "perfect" truth, or distinction, or division or whatever. The reality is that the fact that most people can be classed into one broad race is good enough. There are also natural land barriers that separate a lot of populations on more definite grounds, like for example the Sahara, or the Mediterranean, or the Caucasus. Edge cases tend to be the exception rather than the rule. It feels like saying that definable colors don't exist because the color wheel is really a gradient, but specific "strong" zones have been picked out because it's convenient for determining and describing color. We do the same for most species anyway considering that if you go back 100million years out ancestors were all rodents or something like that, you have to choose a border somewhere. Usually that border was chosen as regions where language shifts quickly, as that indicates a cultural border and thus, before the age of mass transport, most likely a racial one.
>> No. 1257 [Edit]
The economies of most nations benefit heavily from global trade and doing that kind of thing is a sure way to stop that. Foreighn investment in the US would quickly dry up and it would only encourage companies to leave or never set up there to begin with. Nobody is going to want to do business in a country that is liable to arrest them if they try to move overseas and people won't invest in a company that is forced to pay more for labour and is thus less competitive.

Maybe. Though I would not say they have less control, men are famous for not having self control in that way and also most women actually don't get much enjoyment if any from s*x.

You are relying on anecdotes. Even so, do you have 4 brothers as well and do they bring their friends over? You would find they talk about the same if not worse only you probably have a bias in that you are dealing more with women and not men(and a small and related group at that, background would play a lot in this and as they are all related and all have the same upbringing they would all act in a similar manner and associate with like-minded people).

It wouldn't be that hard, we already have haplotypes and we already do use them to categorise.
>> No. 1258 [Edit]
File 161729392655.jpg - (98.47KB , 850x961 , sample_4e7b03892b3c97a272b25c7b5b09dd02.jpg )
>there are still more of people in a definable category than not
No, because the categories themselves haven't been defined yet. People can't belong to nonexistent categories. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you're putting the cart in front of the horse. There also has to be a clear purpose to categorization in the first place, like there is with species, sex and the color wheel. That purpose plays a role in defining the categories to begin with. The only purpose in formalizing race is political, which nobody agrees upon. Even in medicine, if you want to take genetics into account when giving a person tailored drugs or something, it's better to be as specific to the individual as possible than take their "race" into account.

Post edited on 1st Apr 2021, 9:20am
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Report post

[Home] [Manage]

[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]