IN a recent conversation, Steven Pinker suggests that some students become radicalized when they find that there truths that are unsayable on campus. He gave some examples.
!. Capitalism is just plain better than communism
2. Men and women do not have identical life priorities, tastes and interests, or exactly the same sexuality.
3. Different ethnic groups have different crime rates
4. The great majority of suicidal terrorists are Islamic.
Deep stuff.
Seems to that this is an incomplete list. I call for suggestions from the audience: more such truths, more details, etc. With a little work we’ll provide one-stop shopping.
West Hunter 
Intelligence differences between ethnic groups have been repeatedly measured.
Even more verboten: the notion that such differences “clearly aren’t genetic”, as we are frequently assured, is quite unproven.
The GAP can never be closed, ever, no matter how hard education majors pray to a Michelle bobble head.
Efforts to close the GAP with liberal nostrums will always enlarge the GAP, rather than shrinking it…See Seattle public schools…
Nonsense, it is not so hard to shrink the gap as long as you are OK with doing it by bringing the top down, rather than the bottom up. Insistence on placing a few disruptive thugs in classrooms they have no chance in goes a long way.
“The GAP can never be closed, ever”
The GAP will never be closed the SJW way but would start to be closed from the moment media/academia stopped lying about heredity – cos where they had a choice in the matter black women themselves would choose to make more babies with the local nerds and fewer with the local gangstas.
Surely black women already have a choice in the matter. Or are you suggesting they are forced to sleep with gangsters by…whom? The government? The media? Academia? It is not only black women who prefer to sleep with gangsters than nerds, though you might be able to make the case that it is generally STUPID women, or women with high time preference, who make this choice.
The GAP can never be closed, ever, no matter how hard education majors pray to a Michelle bobble head.
Well, sterilization of all males in that population with an IQ below about 110 would go a long way towards closing the gap some.
We are not really on the cusp of ecological, resource depletion and malthusian catastrophes of at least 10 different flavours.
This.
Except that we quite clearly are, as Sailer’s famous population graph shows.
That depends, perhaps, on whether one’s definition of “ecology” includes the fertility of technology-capable populations and subpopulations.
We are, in fact, on the cusp of massive technological unemployment — a catastrophe of a kind, since we have exactly zero preparation for it.
We’re on the cusp of serious AI, which could be harmless or could be the end of mankind.
We’re also on the cusp of serious genetic engineering, which will fundamentally change the nature of humanity and possibly biological existence itself.
When one takes the long view, resource depletion and/or Malthusian consequences would have fairly mild transformative effects in comparison to what may well lurk in the future, I’d say.
It is not so much a matter of “cusp” but rather in what direction is the car heading?
The macronutrient phosphorus is not getting any easier to find, but demand for it to feed the world continues to grow. In this and other areas, there is a cusp ahead.
Some societies are objectively more moral than others.
You mean that some societies share my morals more than others? If you don’t mean that, what on earth do you mean?
There are those who assert that there is an underlying universal morality.
If there is (not taking a position either way here) they some cultures would necessarily be more conformant to that morality than others.
This would mean that in no way, shape or form could the phrase “all cultures are equal” be true at any level of analysis.
“there is an underlying universal morality”: what can that mean? Who gets to define this morality, who holds to it?
“all cultures are equal” certainly can’t be true because it is meaningless.
God, dipshit.
Lots of people agree there is objective and universal morality. Strangely, they strongly disagree what the “universal” morality is.
Lewis identified a Tao of conduct that if not universal, is extremely widespread among cultures that developed writing. Cultures do rank the items differently, yet draw from the same pool.
How do “cultures” rank things? Wouldn’t people do that?
Re-defined as “some cultures are a lot less violent than other cultures”. This is an objective thing and can be measured. Of course some people prefer human sacrifices, constant wars, and a high murder rate, so for them this may be a negative.
Like the East Asian cultures like Japan or Singapore, much more peaceful and moral than vicious, savage and gun-obssessed American culture?
Once you make it clear that exercising their natural proclivities will result in their cities burning.
You know nothing of Japan.
Christianity is objectively more moral than Islam. First world countries, i.e., Christian countries are objectively more moral than the all others.
That’s why the immigration flow is overwhelmingly AWAY from non-Christian countries into Christian countries.
If so, then things such as abolishing cannibalism and slavery would not be moral acts, since they aren’t objectively (meaning universally? cross culturally?) immoral.
They’re moral to me but obviously not to everyone. Of course not.
Native Americans, like most primitive people, were raping, murdering savages.
Not I think at all an objective assessment of New World cultures. By the way the Thirty Years War and for that matter WW II in Europe were somewhat savage.
In speaking of WW II in Europe I’m certainly not intending to imply that it wasn’t horrifically savage in China or elsewhere.
Sure. The Thirty Years War and WWII were savage. How does that change the FACT the Amerindians were raping, murdering savages? You know what else is a fact? As savage as the Thirty Years War and WWII were, the wars Amerindians had killed a higher percentage of the their populations. Lastly, whites largely tamed their savage impulses, with declining rates of violence over at least 1000 years, while Amerindians violence and savagery remained that of stone age people, i.e., horrifically more violent and savage than white cultures for over 1000 years. Their savagery only came to an end after whites ended it.
Whites were sometimes rather savage in the way they ended savagery among Amerindians.
The Thirty Years War is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of about half of the population of Germany. Polish war deaths in WW II are estimated to be about 20-25% of the Polish population.
We’re all capable of savagery, it’s the natural state for humans, but modern societies have developed social systems to prevent it. The Thirty Years War and Auschwitz were just temporary outbursts of savagery. For primitive people without police or governments this kind of savagery is common and celebrated.
Not savage enough, or they wouldn’t be extinct or living on reservations.
The White Mountain Apache Reservation in Arizona is gorgeous. As for much of the Navaho Reservation the air is very clear but otherwise you might as well be on the surface of the Moon.
Native Americans had a variety of cultures.
Yes, a huge variety.
They did show creativity in their savage barbarism,
I guess Auschwitz showed creativity in savage barbarism.
What women say they want, what they think they want, and what they actually want are almost uncorrelated.
Probably true of a lot of men.
No, women really are different in this regard: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?
The experiment described shows that women are less self aware than men about what sexually excites them, but that is only one small area of self knowledge. Women are, no doubt, ignorant about their own preferences and probable future behavior in a large number of areas. As are, no doubt men. I am not surprised that the ways in which men are self delusive are not identical with the ways in which women are self delusive. That is exactly what one would expect from evolutionary theory.
Sexual self knowledge is NOT a “small area of self knowledge”. Sexuality drives all other behaviors, meaning, in a sense, it’s the only area of self knowledge.
Are you a retard?
I think that statement could be easily (and usefully) generalized to:
“What human beings say they want, what they think they want, and what they actually want are almost uncorrelated.”
People who understand this have a lot more success at predicting the future behavior of other people (and of themselves).
That’s just a way to ignore gender differences. What is the point?
Self-delusion is universal in nature. Though it varies in different areas by groups and individuals. So a gender-neutral version of this is valid.
Well, the point is that it is true. And that even if women are more prone to this behaviour, it is prevalent enough and significant enough in the actions of men to justify a more gender-neutral preaching.
Eh, gender is likely an important factor(in my opinion) so it’s simply less informative to ignore it.
I never expected this toxic “feminism”. I could foresee Islam definitely causing a problem. Mass immigration in general seemed to have a lot of disadvantages. And I maintain things will only get worse for the latter two.
But extremism of the women, I didn’t really know it was out there. I guess it was partly because I’m not like that and neither are my female friends and relatives (well, maybe one niece, but I saw her as an outlier).
It doesn’t make sense to me. I was too busy educating myself about Islam and books on the area in general. I covered a lot of ground (especially after I retired in 2012). The subject of feminism didn’t interest me.
Landian techno-futurism is objectively better than Duginist Eurasianism.
That’s what Pericles thought.
WWII Revisionism/Historicity
This, and of course things like who runs the media, Hollywood, who’s behind communism, open borders (even the poems used to justify it), antinatalism, public debt, who’s in charge of American foreign policy, but I’m using my real name here so I don’t feel like going into details 😅
Yeah, we’re freaking awesome. Sorry, Dude; that’s just how it is.
Yup. Awesome. And y’all are modest, good-looking and deeply philanthropic with it.
They already know the details and your real name. They definitely know the details.
2.1: There are physiological differences between men’s and women’s brains.
2.2: Men dominate in STEM because they’re better at it than women.
I have a slightly different theory. Sure they might well be better at it, but I think a key strength for men is that they’re not just better at it, they’re obsessed with whatever field they get themselves into. You don’t find many women who can’t stop thinking about what they can do with Fourier transforms, but for lots of men this just comes naturally. Our natural tendency towards becoming utterly obsessed with a highly technical and arcane subject is our strength. People who are outstanding in their field tend to be obsessed with it, you basically can’t compete on a high level without that advantage.
So, in other words, men are better at STEM than women.
You mean, men are MUCH better at STEM than women, as inadvertently demonstrated in Charles Murray’s ‘Human Achievement’…
Hedy Lamarr …
That’s Hedley…
yes, the precise cause is useful info and male single focus vs female multi-tasking may be a factor
Extreme behavior of all sorts seem to be more common in men.
yes, hunting vs gathering -> obsessive focus vs multi-tasking maybe?
Where is the place where “lots” of men think about Fourier transforms? (unless your definition of “lots” is 0.1%)
I think he meant to say a lot more men that women think about Fourier transforms.
ON AVERAGE men are slightly better. And as you go out into the extreme right tail of the ability curve the difference becomes more pronounced.
Reblogged this on The Logos Club and commented:
Short post covering the recent statements of Steven Pinker concerning samizdat thought in academia. Replies are as good as the post itself. Add your own.
Native people in Canada have a much higher rate of alcoholism and addiction than other ethnic groups, and this is probably genetic,
Everybody loses their mind if you mention this fact because HOW DARE YOU NOTICE that most of them are drunks or sniffing gasoline, BUT NOW THAT YOU HAVE NOTICED, the reason they are alcoholics is because evil white colonists stole their land and put their children in residential schools and is nothing to do with genetics, and you are LITERALLY HITLER for suggesting such a thing. This is HATE SPEECH (even if you sincerely want to help the Native people and believe that studying the real facts of the situation might help find treatments for addiction.)
They’re just going through what we progressively went through a long time ago. People who had their lives ruined by the availability of alcohol didn’t make it, now most of us can handle our drinks.
Except that evolutionary effect doesn’t seem to happening.
Perhaps it’s because of modern conditions help the disadvantaged from paying the evolutionary price.
Yet it must have been working earlier, as Europeans arrived centuries earlier.
I seem to recall that in parts of western Canada alcohol was kept out, as only sober natives were capable of working the trap lines from which the Hudson’s Bay made a nice profit, selling furs in Europe.
Not sure what you mean by your first sentence, are you expressing surprise at not seeing any genetic adaptation after just a few generations of being exposed to a new selection pressure? You might well be right though that the way things work these days might counter any expected deleterious effect to fertility, there should be a study on this, if people believed in genes.
That’s the great irony of well intentioned blank slaters, they refuse to believe that these behavioural problems are genetic so they give themselves no choice but to blame the victim, even though some people are utterly incapable of becoming alcoholics and others can’t escape it, because of genes.
Help the evolution and send more alcohol.
All appeals to logic fail. You may point out that certain European ethnicities also have a higher rate of alcoholism than others, suggesting the causes are complex, possibly genetic.
But trash talking Irish & Russian drunks gets you nowhere. I can’t remember if the libs are just indifferent to the alcoholic Europeans or if they are so crazy that mentioning this is just further evidence of your clear neo-Nazi thinking.
I’ve called really obvious facts like these HBD gateway drugs. And they have to be suppressed for the same reason marijuana was.
Northern Europeans, despite centuries of temperance movements and anti-alcholism grassroots organizations, high levels of education, some of the finest institutions and social solidarity on Earth, Prohibition and other strict government policies concerning alcohol, still cannot hold their liquor as well as Southern Europeans, who lag behind them in all of these things.
And this is probably genetic. Hahahaha no, scratch that, it’s definitely genetic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827102/
I wonder how many people are going to care?
Alcoholism among the Natives in Canada is much more prevalent than among northern Europeans and Russians, though the problem among northern Europeans and Russians is considerable. (Ireland, Scotland, Scandinavia, Russia)
The southern Europeans have perhaps had several thousand more years to adapt than the northern Europeans. Farming was required to produce lots of alchohol.
I get bad hangovers after drinking relatively small amounts of alcohol compared with many of my friends. I am guessing hangovers are actually an evolutionary adaptation to prevent my ancestors from over indulging in alcohol, so not being able to hold your liquor may be a good thing.
Yup. Alcoholics usually need a lot more alcohol to get drunk.
it might be just temporary evolutionary stopgap on path where finally alcohol addiction is no stronger than e.g. sugar addiction.
Same for me – I can’t drink much without becoming ill. Maybe it is an adaptation. I hadn’t thought of that before.
the reason they are alcoholics is because evil white colonists stole their land and put their children in residential schools
True enough. If Europeans hadn’t shown up, few of the natives would be alkies.
A little late to unring that bell, though.
Philosophers and scientists galore; hundreds of cultures wasted and destroyed available for study, and nobody seems to know how to save the individuals involved. I hope somebody comes up with something soon, for our sake, if not for others.
In general Amerindians have lower mortality rates for major causes of mortality like cancer and heart disease than whites. Exceptions include alcohol related conditions and diabetes.
Is cultural obliteration measured as a cause of mortality?
Not that I know of. If it contributes to increasing mortality among Amerindians they nevertheless still have lower mortality rates in general for cancer and cardiovascular diseases. I suppose that without cultural obliteration the differences would be even greater in their favor.
I think it is a cause only insofar as addictive substances and a western diet were suddenly made available to the Natives
IQ is the obvious one that needs to go to the top of the list. I don’t see anything else that would be as important as the items on the list, though. I expect that lots of suggestions will turn out to be variations on the major themes, derivatives and the like. The myth of the noble savage and the comment on Malthusianism are the first examples of that.
Haiti IS a shit hole.
Africa is better off thanks to colonialism.
Whoops, I didn’t meant to reply to you.
I don’t agree with that one, Sub-Saharan Africans didn’t evolve to live like Eurasians, bringing them closer to it isn’t an improvement. Sub-Saharan Africa should rather have been treated like a natural reserve and left alone to do things their own way. Trying to turn them into Europeans in every way but physical is a mistake and shows a lack of appreciation for human biodiversity.
Colonialization introduced modern medicine which lead to decreased mortality and then overpopulation resulting in some cases in famine. Famine seems to have been rare in Sub-Saharan Africa before colonialization.
Exactly, we screwed up a natural balance by half-assing westernisation. And we in Europe presumably most of the time had to work hard everyday to survive for thousands of years, as until a few generations ago individuals who failed to work hard enough didn’t pass on their genes so well. Now we’re imposing the lifestyle we made and that in turn made us what we are now to peoples who are absolutely not adapted to it, and we’re scandalised at their relative lack of industriousness and how unlike us they insist on remaining! People, both those claiming to be anti-racist and those who are overtly racist, are racist in the wrong way. Sub Saharans aren’t low quality white people who either need help to become more like us or who must be hated for failing to be like us, they’re just something different and divergent from us, and trying to make them converge with us and alter their lives and their environment is a mistake. If everybody understood this we could fix and even avert a lot of problems.
“a natural balance”
Heh. Also, famine affected sub-saharan humans the same way it affected all wild animals in sub-saharan Africa. Primitive humans didn’t suffer wide spread famines the way modern societies did precisely because their primitivity prevented any serious numbers to accumulate in any significance. Fifteen people starving to death in a tribe of 150 is an order of magnitude more devastating to that tribe than one million dying of starvation in a society of one hundred million.
Famine seems to have been rare in Sub-Saharan Africa before colonialization.
It is way above my pay grade, but everything that I have read tells me that deaths from famine is a function of the political.
If a band of hunter gatherers is experiencing extreme hunger they will raid nearby groups who may (or may not) have food or access to better hunting grounds.
Whoever wins or loses in such encounters the violent deaths are ultimately caused by desperate food shortages.
Or they just wander off looking for food in other locations.
An often overlooked factor – wetnursing – caused greater spacing between childbirths, until European colonists-missionaries ceased the practice among Africans. It has been suggested that the same shift boosted white pop growth, during Europe’s industrial revolution, as well.
Africa is not better off for her colonisation, and topping it off, the scramble for Africa was a costly mistake for European powers. Just like transatlantic slavery, colonialism harmed both races.
By wet-nursing do you mean breastfeeding someone else’s baby for pay? That is generally what it means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wet_nurse
That would cause greater space between children for the wet-nurse, but less space between children for the birth mother.
Right. And the female who can employ a wet nurse, is higher status and has better genes. So less kids lower down, and more higher up.
Wasnt the natural balance maintained through famines though?
How strange that people from very poor nations would like to move as opposed to people from richer nations …
There are no Uebermenschen. Mother Nature would not waste the energy required in creating a race of them. Organisms only need to be good enough to survive and pass on their genes.
There are no Untermenschen. Those would immediately go extinct.
Some populations did go extinct pretty fast when more developed population arrived from ‘big land’
There are no Untermenschen, right, but they are lots of species and subspecies of cockroachs and only one most-of-the-time-thinking species.
“Mother Nature would not waste the energy required in creating a race of them.”
Thank you for demonstrating the ridiculous anthropomorphizing of nature stupid people do. By your “logic” no differences anywhere could ever occur because either too much energy or immediate extinction. Both conclusions are silly and you should feel embarrassed for drawing either.
“Transexuals” are still the same sex they were born with, because you can’t change a person’s sex. Their condition is best treated with therapy.
Transsexuals typically “treat” themselves by taking hormones to turn into the target gender, but what if they took hormones to become more of their own gender? Surely this must have been tried at some point. Though I can see how that approach would do little for people who identify as having two souls or as wolves.
It doesn’t seem to help. It just makes them more horny. At least that’s the trick supplemental testosterone does on homos.
Sex dysphoria isn’t just a hormonal imbalance. It’s in the brain.
that still leaves: long term hormonal imbalance which can only be fixed with long term treatment or a maybe less fixable hormonal imbalance in infancy or childhood
if hormone levels cause genes to express differently in males and females then i imagine age at exposure may be critical?
Bruce Jenner very likely used doping for years. Lynn Conway did take male hormones in an attempt to feel more male.
Didn’t help.
Michel Rouzic,
Why did you immediately change the subject from sex to gender? This is what’s known as a strawman argument.
Their condition is best treated with therapy.
Wrong. Not a shred of evidence that this works.
I agree, but both kinds desist an awful lot.
Maybe the best approach to transexuals is to ignore them, they are a trivial number of people, certainly not numerous enough to be a threat to civilization, and the amount of emotion spilled on them by both left and right is not justified.
I agree. Both left and right are obsessed with them.
I find the topic a bore. (But I wouldn’t if a close relative suffered from it.)
They’re pitiable. They must feel pretty bad, given the high suicide rate.
Out of almost 28,000 respondents, more than a third chose “nonbinary/genderqueer”
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/02/526067768/a-new-generation-overthrows-gender
There are real world consequences to teaching kids crazyshit, even if most grow out of it.
http://www.newsweek.com/transgender-women-transgender-men-sex-change-sex-reassignment-surgery-676777
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
Transsexualism might not deserve the ink wasted on it, but definitions of sanity and mental illness do. Is this really a mental illness, or is it just weird shit sane people pull off (pun intended)? Do I support the liberal position on transsexualism? No! But how does one define a mental illness as opposed to a lifestyle choice, or a culture-bound phenomenon?
A very low rate of gender confusion is possible as is the case with any birth defect.
Transexaulism can’t survive as a common trait, but can certainly happen at a very low rate as an error.
Racial and gender stereotypes are mostly true.
Definitely.
And Pinker pretty much says that in The Blank Slate.
The problem with stereotypes is that people apply them as universal rather than as as averages.
Actually the research show that most people understand stereotypes are general rules and often have exceptions.
A nation isn’t quite just the sum of it parts, but it mostly is. Send Europeans anywhere in the world and they’ll create a European nation. Bring people from the third world into your country and watch it slowly turn into a third world country itself, with all the third world problems that the third world people could bring with them and some new ones too.
Sure, but certain European groups.
I’m not sure all of the problems in Moldova or Albania are due to Communism.
Even some European nations are shitholes.
Exclude all the Roma that don’t have PHDs or a Million bucks to invest and require at least a BS in a useful field from the rest and I think we might like them as much as Norwegians.
The most significant populations are to be found in the central and eastern European states of Bulgaria, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovakia, Romania, Serbia and Hungary. In these countries, Roma make up between 7-10 per cent of the total population.Oct 28, 2013
Iodine deficiency seems to be a serious problem in Albania.
A) Differences in outcomes do not prove that discrimination occurred against the group with worse outcomes.
B) You will probably not find any task in life more meaningful than marriage and children.
C) Related to B, your brain’s reward system only exists because it promotes actions that increase biological fitness, and so consciously and primarily living for the sake of happiness is just an example of putting the physiological cart in front of the evolutionary horse.
Do you have any single fact to back that up?
Yeah.
You got C backwards. If you want the most out of the evolutionary horse, don’t second guess your genetic programming. That’s just hobbling the horse and slowing evolutionary progress!
You certainly should work with the grain of your programming much of the time, but then there’s evolutionary mismatch. Lots of activities can make you feel good without actually helping you in the long run. I think we’re adapted to enjoy eating sweet foods because honey and sweet fruit were often easier to obtain than meat, and unlikely to be poisonous: good food source. I think we’re adapted to enjoy eating fatty foods partially because some fats are essential, but partially because fats are over twice as calorie dense as carbs or protein.
So, you can set your brain abuzz with pleasure by eating ice cream, but is it actually good for you?
Of course, I’m still technically going by the script when I choose not to eat ice cream, because I’m genetically programmed to grow a big telencephalon in the absence of stuff like lead contamination or being born four months early, etc, and that forebrain determines much of my behavior- by learning and improvisation rather than instinct.
I’m having a blast while helping evolution reduce the frequency of environmentally mismatched genes. I was supposed to care about evolution, right?
Good point, but I’d guess that fat people are actually more fertile than thin people nowadays, looking solely at average number of kids.
I guess we’re veering off into the “descriptive vs prescriptive” weeds. My original comment assumed that individuals should promote their own fitness. I’d advocate deliberate selection for useful alleles as well. The two goals might work pretty well together, since humans adapted to have certain useful traits could have more means of promoting their own fitness.
#B This is the reason why there is 50% divorce rate.
The evil white race has done more to improve global living standards than all other groups combined, and by a long shot (industrial revolution, science, medicine, mechanization, etc)
I think that Pinker doesn’t have transgenderism on his list because he doesn’t quite grasp how many people have fallen for the claims associated with it (I think that, but I don’t know it for sure.) It’s a legitimate addition to the list, as it appears to be independent of the other fallacies. It’s also belongs in the category of the most fantastic new cargo cults ever invented. IQ denialism often appears to stem from knowledge avoidance, but transgenderism is voodoo. You couldn’t possibly subscribe to it as a mental default. It takes serious effort to get there.
“It’s a legitimate addition to the list, as it appears to be independent of the other fallacies.”
They all follow from the denial of heredity. Once heredity is successfully denied for IQ then gradually the virtue signalling purity spiral will lead to it being denied everywhere else – e.g. coming soon, childhood is a social construct.
many SJW are ok with denying biology for IQ, but they need it for sexual orientation.
Jews really do have a disproportionate voice in the media [understated but still true] and will get you fired for even suggesting that.
Transsexuals really are crazy.
AIDS spread like wildfire due to the unbridled promiscuousness of homosexuals and millions of lives could have been saved by a more stringent public health response.
By nearly every objective metric, Trump is a great president.
Only if you believe that the booming economy in the first year of a president’s tenure is due to his beneficence.
It would be downright unAmerican to ponder on time lags, and to wonder about the all-mightiness of the office of President.
How about the objective measure of generations to come who shall be saddled with additional debt.
No.
Trump has surrendered his foreign policy to neocons. He put Goldman Sachs operatives in charge of the economy. (Literally the very same people that /pol/ refers to with triple parentheses). His pick for the DoE has no clue what his own department does, EPA guy is a puppet of the fossil fuels industry, atty general thinks “marijuana is only slightly less dangerous than heroin” (at a time when avg. white male life expectancy is declining, due to opioids!), the FCC wants to Comcast to enrich the entire internet with its awesomeness, both Tillerson & McMaster are on record calling him a “fucking retard/moron who can’t learn shit” (paraphrasing, not verbatim).
He literally bombed Syria because his Jewish daughter cried and whined about it (as confirmed by his other two adult sons, Discount Fredo and Richie Not-So-Rich).
$110 billion arms deal with the nation that originated “radical Islamic terror”, birthplace of Osama bin Laden and Salafi doctrine. Way to honor the victims of 9/11, you Tangerine skinned dotard.
Illegal crossing are back up to 2016 levels, after a temporary decline — mostly a psychological effect, due to scared Mexicans fearing that Trump would actually carry out his campaign promises. (He hasn’t; people have caught on, and now they’re streaming back in at a breakneck pace.)
Actual Trump quote, a few months after being inaugurated: “I am [both] a nationalist and a globalist“. No wonder why Bannon was having daily meltdowns in the White House. I’d be drinking like a fish, too.
To this date, Trump cannot articulate any specific details from any of his own policies, and he talks like a fourth grader with mosaic down syndrome. (Go read his latest interview with the Wall Street Journal — he sounds even dumber than an actual retard, no exaggeration here.) How is he going to secure Congressional funding for the border wall? How is Mexico going to pay for it? How is he going to make the greatest trade deal in the history of trade deals? What’s the capital of Kandahar Province? What color nightgown did Melania wear in bed last night? He can’t even remember what his unpaid interns wrote for his own campaign website.
But on the other hand… He did make all the people we hate go hysterical with rage on twitter, the meltdowns were really hilarious.
Not bad. 6.5/10, but could do better.
Ah I have missed ye!
Me too! (sincerely, without the hashtag)
Seconded, you should get a blog Misdreavus.
Where have you been lol? I miss reading your highly-needed hbd-informed criticisms of the alt-right and conservatives.
Great comment. Nice to see you back!
America has elected vulgarians in the past (e.g. LBJ and “jumbo”).
It has also elected morons.
OK, this might be the first time that we’ve elected both a moron and a vulgarian in a single package, but hey, it’s only four years. Somehow I think we will all survive.
If you believe in democracy, more than half of people disapproving of him is an objective metric of his failure.
By that standard, Abe Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, JFK, and Bill Clinton were all failures.
Which is absurd, because Truman obviously wasn’t a failure.
It was Truman who made the decision against the advice of George Marshall and others to involve the US in the internal (and eternal) conflicts of the Middle East. One of the worst Presidential decisions of all time.
This excellent 538 article shows in a clear graph Trump is in a category of his own regarding unpopularity.https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-beating-previous-presidents-at-being-unpopular/ . There isn’t a president remotely close to being as unpopular as Trump. All he has to do is keep being his bumbling self and the normal opposition party rebound in the off year election will be a crushing defeat for the Republican party. Then we shall see what tune the republicans sing regarding their man Trump.
Trump is clearly unpopular and polarizing with a wide segment of Americans – probably a majority of them. But then he seemed those things when he was campaigning for president and he still won.
This original 538 article has been updated and is titled How unpopular is Donald Trump https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/#historical. It is important and interesting for several reasons. Not only is Trump very unpopular compared to every president going back to Truman, who is the first president tracked through polls, what is even more remarkable is the consistency of his ratings. Most presidents have large fluctuations in their popularity, not Trump. The tracking of the popularity of twelve presidents prior to Trump is fascinating in and of itself. It is hard data that eliminates our biases, something sadly lacking in political analysis.
While I completely agree with Pincher Martin that we should not underestimate Donald Trump as a shrewd politician this man is as good at pissing off 60% of the country as he is in building up the loyalty of the remaining 40%. He clearly tracks as a one term president and he does not give a shit about the long term well being of the Republican party. Staunch Republicans/conservatives may applaud the thoughts and actions of Trump so far but sooner or later the light is going to come on that this man is the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in a long long time.
From one year during which the financials have been very positive you can predict a one term president? Well that kind of puts you in the same place 538 was before the election. They gave him a small chance which was more than most, and as a significant fraction now believe he can be run out of office before his term is up this places you in the less wrong fraction just like they were. I suspect your prediction is just about as valuable as theirs was.
They gave him a ~30% chance. Not particularly “small”, actually.
If Trump can hold the Rust Belt, he will be well-positioned going into the next election. That’s true regardless of how many Californians, New Yorkers, Bay Staters, and DC Metropolitans vote against him.
The national polls weren’t wrong. Hillary beat Trump by 2.1 points, which was well within the margin of error for the final RCP average predicting a Hillary win by 3.2 percent.
What the polls got grossly wrong were the swing state results, which consistently underestimated Trump’s advantages in the Rust Belt, often by several points. The polls were widely off the mark in Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota (which Trump barely lost), and Michigan – and all of those polling averages leaned heavily to Hillary’s side of the ledger.
In other states, like Florida and New Hampshire, the polls weren’t off very much at all. But those states were outside the Rust Belt. There was something about the Rust Belt that caused pollsters to miss Trump’s appeal. Midwestern politeness, perhaps?
I like your political analysis Pincher. You keep your beliefs out of it. Certainly Trump can get reelected, even if the midterms are a train wreck for the Republican party. The historical polls show a lot of fluctuation over time and Trump could get reelected with as little as 45, 46% of the vote for reasons you have explained, he could still carry the rural states, the south, and the rust belt. He won’t get past the Russia problems by the 2018 midterms, he probably will by 2020. I am guessing that Trump is miserable in his job and won’t even run in 2020. The job is very unhealthy for him.
Trump is a great president if you are a leftist, a cynic or Chinese. A terrible president if you believe a strong conservative party based on traditional values is something America needs.
China is far more critical of the “white left” than of Trump.
Apparently Trump is rather popular in China.
Traditional values? Evading taxes, slaughtering Injuns and invading Mexico?
If he watched Fox News even more, I bet he would be even greater than he is.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248
Columbus discovered America. The extinction of the natives was a biological accident and not capitalist/colonialist malice. The Indians were horrible savages, eating the palpitating hearts of their victims. The Aztecs believed if they did not kill enough people today, tomorrow the sun would not rise. Europeans have nothing to learn from shit people’s spirituality, morality, technology, culture.
Actually a very large number of widely consumed foods, corn,potatoes,tomatoes, etc., came from the New World. Much of Mesoamerican art and architecture is very impressive.
The fact that people express nonsense about “Mayan astronomy” or “Mayan mathematics” doesn’t mean that the Maya produced nothing of value.
Looking at the period of time from neolithicisation to possessing a fully formed calendar, the Mesoamericans had advanced faster than the ANEs. These were not backwards nations, God no. At some point you have to admit, things like availability of metal ores are a natural constraint on an economy (=culture, high civilisation) and other shit is just plain subject to chance. I don’t think anyone will know the IQ of lost Mayan or Zapotec elites nowadays, but trends parallel to Europe and China had to have existed in the Americas. Right?
Even if their IQs were lower, what was stopping them from increasing. I never understand this part, can somebody explain it to me? Why are all you people assuming IQs are set in stone, and not changing from century to century?
No one assumes they were set in stone, but people have to talk like obscure cultures were. Its only because there’s a gap in knowledge: until genes for IQ can be identified in aDNA and the IQ estimated (if that’s possible), there are no fossils of IQ numbers. And living people in the Yucatan scarcely represent the lost elites of Classic Mayadom.
Heh they might have developed their own SJWs (like us), inbreeding (like Egypt) or whatever. Getting stuck in local optimum is very common
Writing in Mesoamerica was always very limited to a few elite uses, mostly monumental inscriptions and some poetic works. It had been around since the latter part of the first millennium BC but was still not in common use at the time of the Conquest.
In Mesopotamia writing was first developed by merchants and quickly became very widely used for all kinds of purposes including graffiti. The role of writing in Mesoamerica was far more limited and changed little over a long time period.
Mesoamerican civilizations were very different from Old World civilizations and they didn’t seem to be converging toward Old World civilizations. They were sui generis.
Aye agreed: much is made of contingency vs complexity in biological evolution, but the same issues are at work in the interpretation of cultures, too.
Similarly most of metals was used to make luxury items not weapons (or even wheel rims)
Their metallurgy was quite a bit behind even the metallurgy of the Ancient Near East.
The archer’s city-state that sent a few thousand troops to help Cortez came up with 4000 copper crossbow bolts in a month. Yes, high stone age with some copper, not even Bronze Age yet, but that’s not bad on the fly.
European catholic monks recorded Uto-Aztecan languages and hieroglyphics so we can study them later, with modern linguistic techniques.
You don’t like linguistics, etc?
They actually destroyed a good deal of Mesoamerican writing and certainly didn’t encourage any interest in the pre-Columbian cultures or languages.
Yes, but what I am understanding from J’s comment is that we should take no interest at all in ancient cultures who had a standard of living below 21st century Norway.
Europeans, when first met the Indians, were so repelled by their culture that they burned their artifacts and razed their temples. Yes, the maths of the Mayas and the quipu alphabet of the Incas are interesting, but nothing we can use.
Who cares what Europeans felt, they’re all faggots anyways.
Indians considered the Pilgrims to be dirty, smelly, and weakly. Which, apparently, they were.
I dunno: Andean buildings were earthquake-proof no? And one or two instances where we still don’t know how the architects pulled something off.
I’m also partial to the interpretation of Reich, that her Nazca lines were intended to be seen from the air, using available materials to create a simple hot air balloon. Such is depicted in South American art, and fans of offbeat Classics will remember Greek and Chinese experimentations with primitive heavier-than-air flight. Simple flight is not as hard as people think, but it was unknown to the Spanish.
I’m sure they used teleportation.
I was referring to the neat cut and interlocking of certain stones at Ollantaytambo, with no accompanying scratches from chiseling. In this case they might’ve used water and some kind of wire saw, but the technique was atypical and still mysterious.
Simple flight from Andes mountainsides is obviously really easy, it’s the safe landing part that’s hard. We lost a thousand smart brave men in Norfolk jackets getting that reasonably safe even from flat ground with cheap good canvas and internal combustion engines. I’d suspect lots of people over the last few thousand years did the Montgolfier thin bag with a fire underneath thing, and a few may have put two bags side by side to get semicontrolled flight as the lighter one rose faster. But they probably got killed for trivial benefits, and that’s enough fabric to put loincloths on a thousand studly spearmen or fetching shifts on a hundred hotties, and people have priorities.
Actually Tenochtitlan quite amazed the Conquistadors. The scope of Mayan mathematics has been greatly exaggerated.
“Europeans, when first met the Indians, were so repelled by their culture that they burned their artifacts and razed their temples.”
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=edYbAZ7ECEoC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=No+European+who+has+tasted+Savage+Life+can+afterwards+bear+to+live+in+ou&source=bl&ots=UcuxEoDpPW&sig=fTnNJVkOvgA9xgt1hpmeSieWcg0&hl=pt-BR&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinm6GRp5DZAhXJS5AKHQv0AI8Q6AEwC3oECDcQAQ#v=onepage&q=No%20European%20who%20has%20tasted%20Savage%20Life%20can%20afterwards%20bear%20to%20live%20in%20ou&f=false
Leif Ericsson discovered America before Columbus, who noted Jewish holy days and wrote Hebrew in his logs.
and he spoke no Italian.
Columbus probably spoke Ligurian as a youth, back in Genoa.
Columbus was most likely just what he said he was. The ” he’s one really one of us” theories are silly.
Why would he have observed (((Ligurian))) holy days, were he not a fake convert? (People did hide it…)
In any case the conquest of the New World was a race, not co-operation, between white states. Anglo-Americans celebrating Columbus appears a little daft in Old Europe, kind of like mistaking a Soviet astronaut for a US one.
There’s zero chance that Columbus was religiously Jewish. If he’d been any more Catholic, he wouldn’t have been human.
You know, I’ve actually read careful, long-winded biographies of Columbus. Is that cheating?
Well, I don’t doubt he was Genoese. But the Jewish origin theory need not suppose him from anywhere else except Genoa.
No one doubts that Columbus was religiously Catholic. It is only his lifelong obfuscation of his origins that makes him suspicious. What other secret could be hiding under the Inquisition? Anyway, the captains of the two other boats, the Pinzon brothers, were indisputably Jews. But my mentioning Columbus, I meant that it is fashionable to discuss that he discovered America. His statue was destroyed in the Republica Dominicana.
There’s nothing particularly mysterious about his origins. It’s driven by wishful thinking. As for the Pinzons, evidence?
@j, thanks for mentioning the Pinzons, context matters, does it not? Columbus was, at the very least, networking with the Jews, he spoke their language, and he even took note of their holidays proving they had some importance to him. Then there is a consistent Jewishness surrounding the life of Columbus, and this is not some fringe thing like Shakespeare denialism.
Probably the lack of enthusiasm shown by certain Jews in claiming him, as they have so many other historic figures, is because he is so easily turned into a villain nowadays. There may be a backlash against Jews as the instigators of colonialism, similar to after the publication of the NOI’s Secret Relationship, about Jews involved in the transatlantic slave trade.
All the same, European Jews were involved in the early New World colonies from the start, both as merchants and as settlers fleeing Europe. Would it be outlandish were CC a converso?
“this is not some fringe thing like Shakespeare denialism.” Sure it is.
Columbus was interested in Jewish things for the exact same reasons American evangelicals are: those things fit into his millennarian eschatology.
Never argue with a man who can say “eschatology” with a straight face.
The U.S. didn’t begin celebrating Columbus Day as a federal holiday until the FDR administration, and FDR and the Democrats passed the bill as a prototype of what we would now consider multiculturalist agenda.
Catholic-Americans, and particularly Italian-Americans, identified strongly with the Catholic-Italian Columbus and lobbied for a day celebrating his achievements. Since Catholics made up an important part of the Democratic coalition, it made political sense that the FDR administration obliged.
Greg is right, again. Columbus recruited his sailors, including his captains the Pinzon brothers, in the local port of Palos. Which is logical. He took a Jewish scholar as translator, expecting to meet the Jews in India.
Obviously there were people in America before Columbus.
Columbus was clearly not the first European to reach America.
Most Indian cultures did not eat the palpitating hearts of their victims.
Why not choose the worst from European culture and say we have nothing to learn from it?
To be presented as a unique evil, Europe has to first be set up as unique. You will never see a SJW pointing out the Saharan slave trade, demanding Arabs provide reparation to the Africans. Only honorary Euros, such as Japs and Chinese, became fair game having bought into the Western package, including 19th-20th century imperialism re: Manchuria and Tibet.
I will even wager this is part of the war against biological race in textbooks: according to authorities like Coon, swathes of the “Oriental” other-world were racially as white as Europeans. Considering some of the narratives about MENA and colonialism, the physical anthro was embarassing.
Actually, cannibalism was pretty common among Amerindians. Typically not industrial-scale like the Aztecs though.
The Conquistadors brought priests with them to convert them. In fact, some of them were very protective of the newly converted natives. One in particular started sending reports of bad behaviour back to Spain, an early SJW.
This was seized upon the various people fighting with Spain in Europe, to make them look as bad as possible.
The Conquistadors also planned to make the natives work in mines and on plantations. But they died off so quickly, a Plan B was necessary. That, of course, was the use of Africans. But what a lot of extra work and money that was.
And the Africans brought even more diseases, often quite lethal to Europeans as well as the unfortunate natives.
Among new HIV infectees, more of them are black and gay than neither black nor gay.
Prior to European colonization, the tallest structures in subsaharan Africa were constructed by termites.
Can you redpill me on “Greater Zimbabwe”?
G.Z. was built by Hebrews who declined with intermarriage with the local Blacks (now the Lemba) who have shown some Hebrew descent (Cohen Y-chromosome), as well as many traditions. The Lemba long said that they were Hebrews who moved to Yemen about 2600 years ago, then founded Great Zimbabwe ~900 years ago, but this was generally ignored.
Perhaps I should declare a special day for people to post ridiculous crap. However, today is not that day.
Prior to European colonization, the most profitable business in subsaharan Africa was selling your neighbors into slavery….
Northern European tribes during the time of the Roman Empire often raided each other for the purpose of acquiring captives to be sold to the Romans as slaves.
But tribalism in norther Europe stopped sometime after Christianity was introduced.
No it didn’t. It continues to this day.
Tribalism is the way of man.
Not at all.
Tribalism lasted long after the introduction of Christianity.
Not so. Sungbo’s Eredo, the earthworks of Ilé-Ifẹ̀, Walls of Benin. Those were easily taller than termite mounds, which usually top off at 5 meters or so.
Pre-colonial Somalia had some fortresses and castles.
Oh, and Great Zimbabwe, although nobody knows who built that.
Somalia had a hydraulic state or two, and the Aethiopid Horn area of Africa is culturally Mediterranean anyway.
more a sub-category of (3) but
– crime runs in families
– copness runs in families
Galaxies are drifting away. But so do peoples. Genetically speaking, of course.
New space is being created among galaxies and new genetic differences are being created among peoples. No hybridization can reverse this trend more than an occasional blue-shift galaxy can reverse the overall process.
I believe we are supposed eventually to collide with Andromeda. We should have a gorgeous sky.
We will collide with Andromeda, but then all the other galaxies will be even much further away than today. When let say Bacca people will be well mixed with Cacca people, almost all others will be much more alien to them than today.
I believe that Andromeda is the only galaxy other than the Milky Way and it’s satellites that is visible to the naked eye so we can look forward to much more beautiful sky.
That might happen before the sun goes red giant and fries the earth.
Be patient. It will come.
Kamran will increase the IQ in Turkey and Iran by paying the Beijing Genomics institute a fortune to try their first experiments on his countrymen. He will raise an army of Janissaries and bring hell across the face of the Earth.
And there’s nothing anybody will be able to do about lmao.
Development Theory in Economics has been an utter failure, because free markets are not necessary, and democracy is not necessarily supportive of real development- but we assumed they were necessary (Friedman’s Failure).
The biological basis for a real market development in a society requires a level of social capital be used by the society to ensure enough returns of scale to the participants to create enough real and social capital to keep the markets growing. (Takeoff)
There are more…of course.
In economies where looting and theft are available to the Elites, looting and theft will drive genuine economic activity toward the subsistence level….
“America is a nation of ideas, not people.”
“Head Start works. If we can get them early enough, we can give them an advantage that erases group differences.”
“Celebrities are bright, moral beacons – even if they dropped out of High School and believe in astrology and numerology.”
“Sports build character.”
And now a couple of hick ones from my neck of the woods:
“Don’t go to the Doctor, you might end up in the hospital.”
“One more (drink, cocaine snort, meth snort, cigarette, crack hit,or glazed donut) isn’t going to hurt me.”
Depending on the circumstances, these two might be true.
There are high-iq highschool dropouts, especially nowadays.
“One more (drink, cocaine snort, meth snort, cigarette, crack hit,or glazed donut) isn’t going to hurt me.”
Depending on your genetic heritage this might be true. Some people have greater immunity than others
“Don’t go to the Doctor, you might end up in the hospital.”
A lot depends on the doctor, in this regard. For some that I have known, it was probably true.
Men are smarter than women, especially in mathematics and STEM areas.
Men’s brains are differently wired than women’s brains in thousands of ways..
The 19th Amendment was a catastrophic mistake.
Even if men are, on average, better than women in STEM, that doesn’t make the 19th Amendment a catastrophic mistake. I likely know women who are better in STEM than you are.
“I likely know women who are better in STEM than you are.”
Was this actually posted at this site? For God’s sake…
I work with women with PhD’s in STEM fields. Some of them are very smart …
Distributions trump individual cases. Some smart women being found here and there – far, far fewer than men – does not say anything about the overall distribution.There’s more to decisions that determine the quality of votes than just intelligence. Women fall for propaganda more often, have less instinct to protect the country from invaders, less loyalty to their people, seldom keep up with important issues (or mistake media propaganda for information), aren’t interested in facts, are suckers for sob stories and drama and generally vote for whichever candidate is more sexually attractive to them. The US may not have begun down the road to today’s left-wing insanity with giving the vote to women but it greatly accelerated the process.
You make women sound pretty icky. I bet you don’t get to hang out with them as often as you’d like to!
I’m guessing you lack hard facts to back up most of your claims. Seems to me women are less likely to fall for propaganda saying we should go invade someone on trumped up charges. (E.g., weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.) You think women aren’t loyal to friends and family? Maybe they just aren’t interested in what you consider important issues, or you consider facts. Have you considered they may be more attracted to the candidate who they think would make their lives better? I do suspect few of them would either be sexually attracted to you or vote for you …
By this logic, the whole idea of voting was a mistake. The best and brightest mathematicians shall rule, not the ignorant mob that cannot even count their own fingers and toes.
All hail Terence Tao, King of the world!
The mistake extends long before the 19th. There is meager evidence that the trend to universal expansion of the franchise has improved National outcomes. I would not advocate return to race or sex based exclusions, but I think reinstatement of property/net worth tests very well might improve outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty-shilling_freeholders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage
It is a law of Nature that any social system providing free goods (let’s call it welfare) will be gamed until it is defunct.
Women want to nurture everyone, and will never be able to understand the above Law of Nature….
Not all women, for example, myself.
You may understand that and are just avoid repeating “on average.”
I think it important enough to include those words.
Also, in some differences, such as physical strength, it is absolute not “on average”.
Check out this woman, though. She’s not even fat — she’s feminine-looking, more or less. I don’t understand this. Some kind of mutant?:
https://barbend.com/jennifer-thompson-bench-press/
A mutant if she’s not doping.
There are some XX / XY disorders. But any of them that include even one Y seems to produce a male. So XXY is still a man (with problems).
48 comments in and many people seem to have misread the charge, which is to list things that are 1) other (as in not already stated by Pinker), 2) truths (as in things that are actually true), and 3) taboo on campuses (as in not things that are currently in vogue on campuses).
The most obvious one is that
5. Intelligence is real and measurable, and different individuals have widely differing innate intellectual abilities, and in the absence of extremes of deprivation these differences account for most of the different educational achievement by individuals.
It’s utterly amazing to me that any person with any scientific inclination could ever have believed that there is a universal constant that is the average cognitive level of every one of the thousands of ethnic groups into which the human species is divided.
It’s not even average group differences. Many people deny that -individual- differences in intelligence exist. There is an ad on TV now for some scam for-profit online college that says “Nature equally distributes talent, but does not equally distribute opportunity.”
Clearly our culture is fundamentally pre-scientific. People believe in magic not scientific laws.
Well said. Pinker is wrong about #1. Only a small group of fools thinks communism works nearly as well as capitalism. Maybe Pinker lives and works among a concentration of that small group of fools, but he still is wrong.
#2,3,4 and your addition of #5 are all under the subcategory of one simple rule. We are not born equal.
We don’t have to compose a list of 235 things that young idealistic college kids are full of shit about. So here is my condensed list.
1) We are not born equal.
2) Young idealistic college kids are full of shit.
KISS
keep it simple stupid
Did you miss The New York Times series in Nov 2017? Waxing sentimental over Communism. They’re a pretty big and well known news site. Are you underestimating them?
If NYT is being run by a group of fools (quite possible) then we are even worse off than we think.
They’re sympathetic to Antifa too.
Communism is more popular than you think, Dave.
Could communism become popular with widespread genetic engineering. A kind of human hive?
Dear God to think people still like communism after all the harm it has caused. Are there worse governments? I wonder what was the worst government ever attempted. Monarchy where cousins and siblings bred until they were ruled by misshapen imbeciles, that was a good one. When bloodthirsty tyrants replaced one another, at least the guy in charge was usually damned crafty. Democracy where the average voter is damned stupid and votes for someone just like himself that would be just terrible. Oh oh…..are we there yet?
Capitalism versus Communism is just US triumphalism, like the unwanted Liberty Bell in Berlin. Misconceptions about equality, universalism and the human individual were-are different in the US, but if anything are far more pervasive, perhaps even worst among anti-Communists such as the Rothbard circle. The common font is, after all, early modern myths of the Enlightenment period.
“Capitalism versus Communism is just US triumphalism,”
There are about a hundred million dead people who might just disagree with you.
Do you think that old time Russian or Chinese peasant would love modern capitalist America and would be avid free market cheerleader?
Stop using someone else dead to push your agenda. It is just like PETA using holocaust to promote vegetarianism, only even more retarded.
If you want to compare capitalism and socialism, ask the people who experienced both.
I posted lots of links to surveys and polls from post-Soviet countries, but they all, for some reason, vanished. You have to search for them yourself.
Youtube video of Satan on bathroom passed without problem, this clearly matters more 😉
Well, compiled specifically for this purpose:
JayMan’s Race, Inheritance, and IQ F.A.Q. (F.R.B.)
And of course, I have a list of links to not-to-be said truths here (and hey if folks still feel like funding me even though I was able to buy my laptop, I’m not to object):
Fund Me: Bring Back JayMan! (A List of my greatest hits)
So many opinions passing as universal truth, c’mom, if you gonna say that something is true, post at leat some books, studies or links to back that truth up.
I suspect that if the student body at Hahvahd ever caught on that Pinker wrote the an entire book of crimethink – The Blank Slate – he’d end up being drawn and quartered on the quad by nightfall. I’m only half joking; how a well-known “public intellectual” gets away with saying – in bestselling books no less! – things-that-cannot-be-said and manages to remain a respected “public intellectual” is a magic trick worthy of Houdini.
I’m currently puzzled by the MGTOW movement, “men going their own way” and not marrying at all.
I’m puzzled starting with: don’t they miss the sex?
I’m further puzzled by wondering how quickly the trend would reverse since they will leave no descendants.
And yet, as Greg has discussed at length, some how homosexuality doesn’t disappear as one would expect (if it has a hereditary cause).
“I’m puzzled starting with: don’t they miss the sex?” Are you unaware of current levels of promiscuity in this country? As the old saying goes, “Why buy a cow when milk is free!”
My observation is that most men who marry soon feel burdened with their responsibilities, first towards their wives and later towards their children. They quickly discover that married life is not at all the pleasant state that it was advertised to be. Bachelor friends observe and learn from their example. Where once western society’s institutions gave married men advantages now our feminized society has done its best to remove those advantages and replace them with additional burdens. Women have benefited to a small degree. Men have suffered to a great degree.
What we are currently witnessing to some degree in modern western societies is a form of culturally, socially, economically,and politically mediated slow-motion racial replacement.
What the fuck are you talking about? Millenials are having very little sex.
Well, I have no data on it. But from listening to them on YouTube they some seem uninterested in even casual hook ups.
Some suggested prostitutes (excuse me, sex workers). Maybe.
My son seems far more happy after marriage (and two children).
My daughter’s husband seems happy (of course I’m less familiar with him since they live in another city).
Both men appear to be very interested and involved in their children.
Just an anecdote but I put it out.
the idea is that there’s too high a price to pay (in time that could be spent learning, or in self-esteem lost in phony role-playing) for access to attractive women, who probably won’t remain yours for very long anyway — and if they bear your child you become their part-time slave (paying child support to avoid debtor’s jail) for however many years it takes for this child (who isn’t really yours) to grow up.
All I can say is that not the situation with my children and nephews and nieces.
Most women aren’t feminazis.
There is another option worth considering with MGTOWs, namely the “chase me” strategy. Curtiss managed to pull this off with Monroe in “Some Like It Hot” and you’d be surprised how effective the “I’m not interested in girls” tactic works–especialyl with girls who are used to being chased.
Internet porn became available a bit over one generation ago. That’s quite a satisfactory substitute for sex to some men, given the much lower cost and the lack of evolutionary defense against it.
Others are MGTOW but get their sex via red-pill sleeping around. That’s sustainable.
How widespread is this MGTOW movement, actually? I’ve never heard of it. Certainly people get married later than they used too… but my personal observation is that most of my successful, attractive friends are now married or in serious long-term relationships. The ones who are still single are that way not by choice, I believe. Granted, my friends are mostly of the educated, high-socioeconomic class, if that matters.
As for sex – my impression is that, for most men, being in a steady relationship is a way better way to get consistent sex than to try to sleep around. Only highly attractive and outgoing men can pull the latter off, and with decreasing success over the years. Once you’re a 40 year-old bachelor, you’re basically a loser.
There are easier ways to achieve celibacy than marriage, but at least it’s an equal deal: she will do whatever she wants, and he has to do whatever she wants as well.
But more seriously, there is no traditional obligation of marriage that isn’t enforced against men, often even after divorce; there is no traditional obligation of marriage that is enforced against women. It’s an absurd deal for men, especially considering that today’s women are 99%+ one or more of: fat, obnoxious, dimwitted, crazy, spendthrifts deeply in debt, have no housekeeping or other skills and are lousy lays. There’s no upside and lots of downside.
Just in case anyone wonders, this person is banned for being an idiot, as demonstrated.
Thank you.
“how a well-known “public intellectual” gets away with saying – in bestselling books no less! – things-that-cannot-be-said”
He is very careful, objective, and has a non-threatening manner towards sacred cows. If you watch him on Youtube you get the impression that he loves the standards that the sacred cows represent.
…until capital agglomerates into natural monopolies the size of small states and starts pushing really hard for 白左.
Even, then, would communism really be better?
Well, there’d be no race replacement under communism.
In any event, after the 1930s, communism was going in a good direction: less repression, more economic freedom, more freedom of speech, easier access to information, etc. until it eventually collapsed. It’s not necessarily that bad living under bad conditions, if things are slowly improving.
Western Europe or the US are going in the direction of more hate speech laws, less freedom of association, more internet mobs, more doxxing, more people getting sacked or harassed by the police for saying the wrong things on Twitter or Facebook, more people getting to jail for the same, more people getting beaten up by Antifa, etc. And of course ever more diversity & racial privileges for MENAs (and a bit even for Asians and Jews). Even if. objectively speaking, it’s better to live now in Germany than in Hungary in 1982, in Hungary you could expect improvement and in Germany you can look forward to a drastic deterioration of the situation.
Homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, paedophilia, bestiality, a man acting as if he believes he is a woman, a woman acting as if she believes she is a man, and all other such aberrant sexual behaviors are not “normal” unless one uses that word in some Pickwickian manner which deprives it of all meaning.
There are pronounced differences in the measured average IQs of different racial and ethnic groups. These differences are largely genetically determined. They correlate highly with various average group characteristics including morbidity and mortality, academic success, income, social status, marital stability, criminality, etc., etc. This all suggest that the differential achievement of ethnic and racial groups in all these areas is genetically determined.
Individual Jews control and hold a grossly disproportionate number of the most important and most visible positions in the USA’s entertainment and information industries, financial industries, legal institutions, and government – particularly the federal – bureaucracies. The majority of these powerful individual Jews favor policies that it seems most Jews imagine are of advantage to all Jews, e.g., the current insanely pro-Israel US foreign policy. Many of these policies are demonstrably disadvantageous to most non-Jews.
Anthropogenic global warming is a scam. The models have shown zero value at prediction. The theory behind it is absurd. The empirically observed correlations between atmospheric levels of Carbon Dioxide and other so-called “greenhouse gases” and average temperatures on the Earth’s land and ocean surface, the various levels of the Earth’s oceans, and the various levels of the Earth’s atmosphere are unclear. Even if the correlations were all clearly positive, there are dozens of factors having orders of magnitude higher impact on global climate than atmospheric concentrations of these so-called “greenhouse” gases, e.g., variations in levels of solar radiation, volcanic activity, and poorly understood natural cycles in the Earth’s climate. We are in the early stages of the current Ice Age and another glacial period could begin at any time. A purely historical/geological view of the current situation suggests that the Earth is a lot more likely to get colder than it is to get warmer. In any event, a few degrees warmer would probably be a good thing, getting us up to temperatures characterizing the “Medieval Climactic Optimum”. A few degrees colder would precipitate a world wide disaster.
The world’s current fossil energy supplies are sufficient to last for a century or more, even under current projections of energy demand. Estimates of available fossil energy resources have risen steadily over time and continue to rise. Alternative energy sources are even now readily available and can be implemented as needed in the future.
Foreign aid, is nothing but a racket run by and for the world’s elites to take money from poor persons in wealthy countries and give this money to wealthy persons in poor countries. All who participate in this scam benefit financially, even so-called humanitarian workers.
Current levels of welfare spending, e.g., national health care systems and extravagant public employee pension systems , in the developed world are probably not sustainable in the long run. Many, e.g., Britain’s national health care system and the USA’s many state and local public employee pension systems, are already failing or showing the strain. Importing large numbers of un-assimillable, immigrants with no marketable job skills, and lower IQs than the native population is not a solution to this problem.
There’s so much more, but I’ll end with a bit of politics: Donald Trump legitimately won the Presidential election of 2016 (true beyond doubt) and even in his first year in office has fulfilled more campaign promises (verifiable) and governed more effectively and more beneficially (open to argument across ideological grounds) than his predecessor.
“There’s so much more, …”
do continue
“…the current insanely pro-Israel US foreign policy. Many of these policies are demonstrably disadvantageous to most non-Jews.”
You found an opportunity to express your deepest concerns! Congratulations!
Since you latched onto a very small part of my total post, I think this exchange demonstrates less “my deepest concerns” than it does yours.
It also demonstrates that you are on the same side of leftist academia on this one.
Anthropogenic global warming is a scam. The models have shown zero value at prediction. The theory behind it is absurd.
This is empirically wrong, and your post just kept getting worse from there. Typical movement conservative stupidity.
+1
It is a scam. I think it started as mere incompetence, and then became a conscious scam partly to cover up earlier errors, but above all because the rewards proved so great.
The only thing you can usually get two scientists to agree on is that a third scientist didnt deserve that grant she just got. Anyone who thinks that you can get disparate groups of scientists to all agree on a consensus underlying theory without evidence hasn’t spent a lot of time around scientists. Look at the scams that do get perpetrated (e.g. the standard social science model). This only comes from people who dont directly study human behaviour and thus easily allow armschair commentators to blow holes a mile wide in them
“all agree on a consensus underlying theory without evidence” – happens a lot, you know that.
“Anyone who thinks that you can get disparate groups of scientists to all agree on a consensus underlying theory without evidence hasn’t spent a lot of time around scientists.”
The problem is that they are not remotely disparate.
So can you please explain the scam?
Your study is more likely to get funded and you get to go on the nice conferences if you are on the team. The cost of your bias are paid by others.
Models can be manipulated to produce a predetermined result. These have not been predictive.
Donald Trump legitimately won the Presidential election of 2016 (true beyond doubt) True.
It is also true that Trump colluded with the Russian government and his organization is partly financed by Russian organized crime families.
What many conservatives and liberals seem to fail to understand is that those two propositions do not contradict each other.
“Colluded” is one of those words that appears to have been stripped of all meaning recently. Presumably you mean something more than that the incoming leader of a superpower spoke to the leaders of another superpower. But what, precisely?
As for #3, this is a feature of #2, not a bug. If, according to HBD ideology, low IQ Blacks shall serve the higher IQ Whites, then Jews with the highest IQ of all are the rightful rulers of the world.
Kneel before your God/Evolution given master, goyishe kopf.
You’ll have to go through a lot of HBD writings before you’ll find anyone who thinks that blacks should “serve” whites…Quit strawmanning, Yiddische Kopf
In this very debate, many people said that colonialism was good for Africa. All deep cover Zionist agents?
Non sequitur. One can think colonialism was good for Africa and also think, as HBD types generally do, that blacks and whites should separate. But blacks don’t seem to want to be separated from their oppressors.
You seem to be projecting. I don’t know any HBD-fan who argues for blacks to “serve the higher IQ Whites.” I know lots of HBD-fans who argue for separation. Whites can live, create and prosper very happily without blacks or Jews around. Does the reverse apply?
“Foreign aid, is nothing but a racket run by and for the world’s elites to take money from poor persons in wealthy countries and give this money to wealthy persons in poor countries. All who participate in this scam benefit financially, even so-called humanitarian workers.”
I don’t think so.
Most people who work in the field of development aid do this out of honest idealist motivation.
And development aid has been very successful. The population in Subsaharan Africa has exploded in recent decades, which did much not happen because of endogenous economic growth, but because the help from western countries.
If you are Chuck Noris or something, and you come to a bar named the Middle East, where 22 or something customers want to kill one guy over there, what are you going to do?
You can’t let them. Even if that guy is not the nicest person you have ever met. Just the nicest in that bar. You can’t turn your back on him, or you are a lousy Chuck Noris. I mean, US.
After I create a janissary force by genetically engineering Turkish army, chinese technology, Beijing Genomics Institute, Jerusalem will be nuke. No more jews muslims christians.
I declare myself, Kamran, emperor of mankind. I am the most right-wing human on earth. You are not right-wing. You are communist compared to me.
There are bars that a prudent individual would avoid.
If you avoid a nasty bar, that nasty bar might visit you, one day. Well, those customers will pay you a visit anyway. It’s difficult to be the fastest gun in town. But still much better than not to be the fastest gun in town.
You probably believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was a serious threat to the US. No doubt ISIS will be marching into Peoria any day now.
22 guys want to kill that one guy who obviously as the premise implies did nothing wrong at all, they all just want to kill him just because, and that one guy also just deliberately killed 34 of your sailors and wounded 171 to try to pin it on one of the 22 guys so that you’d kill him for him. Obviously you become his vassal and put your life on the line over and over for him and also send him billions every year, it’s the only acceptable answer :^). “Be a good Chuck Norris, goy” |3
Well, nobody in that bar is innocent and neither are you. You can let them all 23 do what they want, and this guy may nuke several of those 22, next time when attacked.
Abandoned by all, he may be forced to. Is that what you want? No.
We will nuke him first. Nuclear program in Turkey. New religion: Kamranism. Hostility to all Jews Muslims Christians. We will gain the IQ of the white man by genetic engineering.
For the high IQ via genetic engineering, one has to have high IQ in the first place. It’s the catch 22.
We will pay Chinese to perform for us.
This is a stupid response. You can hire multinational companies for public government programs.
I’m not convinced of Communism being inferior on all grounds. Most of us here probably prefer modern Russia’s public morality over America’s – forgetting maybe, that Putin pushes the late Soviet standards as an affront to the USA, no more nor less. By the time the wall came down, which society was most rational? The one with human races in its encyclopedias, I will argue.
In what way is Putin pushing “Soviet standards” as opposed to pushing say “czarist standards”?
Because the values of Putin’s Russia are directly inherited from the last Soviets.
How so?
Well VP hasn’t changed anything much about abortion or gays, despite what Western shitlibs might tell you, since the Reds were last in power. The Soviets ceased their own culture war as early as Stalin. By the end, all but outspoken reactionaries and political neutrals were actually respected better there, than in a Weimar-ised West.
This is wishful thinking promulgated by internet rightists that imagine Russia is some bastion of orthodox traditionalism. Reading the local headlines will rapidly disabuse you of this notion:
Life in Russia is nasty, brutish, and short.
This list of headliens just makes me like Russia more to be honest.
This list is compiled from all over Russia, in all her vastness. Might as well cherry pick delightful news from around her. The stray dogs that ate the 9 year old cannot represent Russia’s human population, and even the postpartum infanticides were probably caused by depression, not immorality.
They were all from an approximately one month period. It’s just a bunch of vivid anecdotes to supplement the statistical reality that Russia is a shithole by any metric you choose.
Was there no loveliness in that same 1 month of Russian time?
Russia is an amazingly dysfunctional country, tragically scarred by centuries of serfdom and Communism. In terms of time orientation, sexual morality, drug use and casual attitudes toward violence, working class Russians resemble American blacks far more than they do the white working class populations in the US or Western Europe.
Uncle Tommin’ for the Yanks?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Ruckus
Walt Disney was the most effective subversive ever.
Diversity is not strength.
That MLK, whose birth we will be celebrating tomorrow, was not the GLOAT (= Greatest Lifeform Of All Time), as is taught in our schools, but rather a stupid and dishonest megalomaniac.
Violence has solved many things.
That the people who vote Labour have a lower average intelligence than the people who vote Conservative. Similarly the Democrats and Republicans and other comparable parties.
Education policy has been hamstrung by delusional beliefs for years. The following two facts, if stated openly in a college of education, would turn you into a pariah:
1) The beneficial effects of pre-K education (Head Start, etc) do not persist more than a couple of years.
2) Per-pupil spending, including spending on teacher salaries, has no significant effect on student performance on standardized tests. By far the most important determinant of student outcomes is the socio-economic status of the parents.
But these are both just corollaries of “IQ is highly heritable”…
Reblogged this on Nicht-Linke Blogs.
!. Capitalism is just plain better than communism
Yes. 1+1=2
Therefore, the failed US K-12 State-monopoly school system. The $600 billion+ per year K-12 credential racket is the second-largest (after China) command economy left on Earth.
Darwin was right. Evolution is real. We are descended from apes.
And not that far descended …
Azerbaijanis are the most powerful race in the world.
Few know this!
Address the prompt. The truths have to be unsayable on college campuses. Evolution is taught on college campuses, more so than anywhere else.
In many colleges, evolution is taught as a theory, even an unproved theory, not as something real that materially affects each one of us.
Most people don’t need to go to University and the vast majority of PhDs papers are worthless. In fact the vast majority of research done in universities is a waste of time and resources in that almost nothing economically worthwhile ever results. I think this is the biggest crime going on right now, we take our very best and brightest and give them make work jobs to create research that almost no-one reads and uses. Imagine if we actually gave these people real problems to solve.
Nearly all the Fields Medals awarded have been given for work that is totally or almost totally economically useless.
Good. Economics is mathematically worthless
When I say economically worthwhile, I mean that the money invested in the studying actually paid back in worthwhile knowledge, not that the research is something that makes money. There is a limited amount of money in the world, and we shouldn’t waste it on doing useless or frivolous things.
On your examples, many fields medals winners vs some maths post grad no-one will ever hear off working their butt off to get some published results that no-one but their supervisor will ever read to try to get tenure (which only a small fraction will actually get)? Is that really a good use of money and time for them and us?
And the rest of your examples, exactly how many of the hundreds if not thousands of people researching these things from PhD level to senior professors have actually made any worthwhile contribution?
There is a limited amount of money in the world
Well we won’t be seeing you at the Fed Board meeting .
Even if we accept what you have said is true, how can you predict in advance which areas of research will turn out to be economically beneficial? People thought quantum mechanics was economically useless then bam, semiconductors. Many people, even John McCain in one of the presidential debates, made fun of all of the money being spent to sequence various genomes and then, bam, CRISPR.
Saying that research should actually lead to more knowledge is rather different form saying that it should be economically successful. New knowledge doesn’t have to have any economic value and often doesn’t.
Virtually all of astronomy and astrophysics is totally useless economically as is true also of research on Higgs bosons, gravitational waves or cosmology. Most of paleontology is economically useless.
Good. You are usueless on all these grounds and more besides. Yet, we keep you around (for some reason)
History of science shows very consistently that many great discoveries were made by people chasing like mad their blind passion and zero economic returns.
@Enkypala – have you heard of opportunity cost? Sure occasionally good things come from academic research, but what if we had used these resources somewhere else – could even better things have come? There is a romantic idea about lone geniuses thinking great thoughts in ivory towers and coming up great insights. Sad to say most people aren’t that good and are engaging in churning out paper to progress their career.
Feminists have no concept of humour.
That I am an adorable boy.
My grandma voted me #1 most huggable grandson in her entire kitchen for three years running, but nobody else shares her point of view.
Americans are generally more tolerant and better educated than Europeans.
American public schools are actually better (in the sense of preparing children to be successful adults) than European public schools if you correct for racial mix.
Modern Europe has very little to offer America in terms of models for education, good government or creating economic opportunity.
It is that very same edumacation, that brainwashes them to be pathologically tolerant. Unless you are a white American who hates America, its nothing to be proud of. Would you let your kids, especially your daughters, go to a US college? Wouldn’t be my daughter after that.
“American public schools are actually better (in the sense of preparing children to be successful adults) than European public schools if you correct for racial mix.”
Do you have a source? Personally I’ve only looked at PISA results, and while White Americans scored well(better than most European countries) who can say how ex. Sweden would have scored without their new arrivals.
“Modern Europe has very little to offer America in terms of models for…good government”
Is the vice-versa true? Can good governance be found in the West at all?
“Can good governance be found in the West at all?”
The best governance (efficient delivery of services that citizens actually want, without stifling the capitalist/entrepreneurial dynamic) can be found in small countries such as New Zealand or Denmark (and outside the West: Singapore). But, in any country, politicians and bureaucrats act in their own self-interest (the core insight of Public Choice Economics), and governance is never ideal. We’ll have to wait until computers take over most administrative and judicial functions.
I believed this before living in both places, but honestly almost all institutions in America are frighteningly dumb compared to those in Europe. The number of times I have been given obvious non-sequitur responses, or responses that simply betray a total lack of understanding of their own basic business, by things like banks and insurance companies in the US is unreal. I never experienced that in Europe. The financial infrastructure is also backward. In what other developed country do people still pay by signing receipts or with paper cheques?
I’d really go the other way and say that even the US’s supposedly higher gross material living standards are fake. From my lived experience, I’d peg the US GDPPC somewhere around that of Spain. Its currency is inflated partly by the (irrational, bubble-like) desire of so many people to move to the US, and partly by the practice of the US statistical authorities that publish GDP figures evaluating US crappy goods and services as equal in value to greatly superior but modestly more expensive goods and services in other countries.
Maybe the schools are good. Evidence seems to be that schools don’t do a whole lot, so it’s hard to tell. US schools seem to focus mostly on sports, so maybe they’re more enjoyable wastes of time for many. On the other hand, college debt.
Humans are not spontaneously (or naturally) “good”. Culture, at any level, requires norms that inhibit all sorts of impulses that will otherwise tear the fabric of a society apart.
But as behaviour culture itself is natural, and if those norms are good then so is their evolutionary basis, correct?
No. That is called the naturalistic fallacy, you can look it up.
No such thing: in philosophy, nature simply means reality. Would any serious philosopher deny humans infer positions from sense data as regards nature?
Culture vs biology, nature vs nurture – a real fallacy, is false dichotomies.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that we have parts of our brain that regulate us in terms of group cooperative behavior, which is what we call morality.
“He needed killing” is often true, which is why capital punishment is a human universal.
A legitimate defense for homicide in Texas.
Eugenics work, and are desirable. We just need a humane way to do it.
Pedophiles are deservedly disliked, but their impopularity is inflated further, because gays offload teenage gay scandals on them in order to let gays off the hook. And, yes, on average gay men abuse boys more than straight men abuse girls.
Bullying is a nasty side effect of young men establishing a dominance hierarchy. In general, boys need to know who’s the top dog, otherwise they will keep quarreling.
Western societies will lose their edge, if third world mass immigration isn’t stopped and reversed. They will certainly become second rate compared to East Asian countries and the whole world will suffer an innovative decline, because nobody is able to be innovative.
Re: paedophiles and gay predators. Another great hatefact is why so fewer people cared about the recent football scandals, than they did about Jimmy Saville or Rolf Harris. The obvious reason to an evolutionary psychologist, although the moral guardians will not admit it, is sexual competition for young females. Have you noticed young male victims of equivalent birth year never seem to elicit the same protectiveness from men, should the criminal be a woman or a queer soccer coach.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_football_sexual_abuse_scandal
If a female teacher has sex with a teenage boy, no one takes it as seriously because we understand teenage males are horny. That better explains a lack of outrage about homosexuals doing it than your conspiratorial hypothesis.
People, especially males, think and act differently in groups than individually.
Genocides have happened several times in the past.
Human evolution hasn’t stopped. On the contrary, it has accelerated.
(1) There are measurable average differences in brain size of traditionally defined racial groups.
(2) Gould is a charlatan: most likely consciously manipulated and misquoted old scientist, in order to get across his point (GOuld is still being thrown at me in internet discussion included his Morton “example”)
(3) Steele & Aaronson stereotype threat study does not show disappearance on results between whites and blacks in stereotype-free scenario. Stereotype threat, if exists, has negligible results.
(4) There are huge between-sexes differences in upper-body strenghts, and distribution of strength in some measures is non-overlapping
(5) There are measurable, differences in almost any psychological traits between man and women though the difference size depends on the trait and distributions are often overlapping.
(6) Differences in traits between women in different populations does not mean those differences are culture-mediated
(7) It is possible to measure the risks of criminality at birth. While absolutely not perfect, one can theoretically abort selected individuals and achieve huge criminality reduction (also, huge reduction in size for some sub-populations)
(8) There are huge differences in outcomes between different immigrant groups.
“(7) It is possible to measure the risks of criminality at birth. While absolutely not perfect, one can theoretically abort selected individuals and achieve huge criminality reduction (also, huge reduction in size for some sub-populations)”
This is how I will increase the national IQ of my country, Azerbaijan, and we will then top the charts in all scientific examinations. We will leave Europeans (and especially Polish people) in the dust behind us.
Does the comment section of this post serve the stated purpose when at least a good half of it is utter nonsense?
Half may be an optimistic assessment.
I ponder why the vast majority of comments in popular posts go downhill so badly. It happens every time. People who go on the internet and discuss issues of the day need to simply STFU and read a lot more non-fiction. They obviously have little to no training in how to discuss issues keeping their ignorant opinions out of it. The scientific method works not only on a large scale but as an individual approach to understanding the world. I expect this will fall on deaf ears and the one comment I will receive will be as constructive as “you smell of doggy poop and your mother wears army boots.”
We haven’t had a thread this absurd since Silver Blaze. A whole lot of people here think timeless truth and personal prejudice are the same thing.
About time someone said that.
I wonder how many people in this thread have any contact with academia at all. Most of these comments are either incoherent paranoia, or things you actually are allowed to say.
Like saying you’re not allowed to criticise Gould. Huh? I can find all sorts of papers critically discussing pluralism, spandrels, punctuated equilibrium, the Morton affair, and all of Gould’s other contributions to science.
It’s one thing to say Gould is overrated, or held in too high an esteem. But saying nobody is allowed to criticise him doesn’t pass the laugh test. He’s one of the most criticised scientists of the modern age.
To the best of my knowledge, he also never denied biological race to at least exist, towing the correct line that race = population. Ditto Boas who gets flak only for his misrepresentation by Montague. Alt-right historiography of science is full of willful misinterpretations.
As for things you aren’t allowed to say, but are: eugenics is not taboo, unless one uses the word. Now what happens when they can screen out the genes for, you know… ethnocentrism, patriarchy, all those things. HBD people are so willfully naive about science and society, sometimes.
It seems to me that you are not connected to Academia at all.
There is a lot of findings which are not controversial in one domain, but they do not transfer to the people sometimes in the very same building. Sure, there are papers criticising GOuld, but still people with PhDs are using his arguments and his books as if they are absolute end-of-discussion arguments.
It’s same with IQ: there is not much controversy about that in psychometrics, but walk few hundred meters to some other faculty and you will hear people saying BS about how IQ is not a thing, how culture-dependent it is and so on. This same with many other things – you would say “hey, but there are a lot of papers showing capitalism is clearly better than communism, so it’s wrong to say this is unsayable on campus!” but that would be missing the issue: that some obvious, uncontroversial things are seen as needed proving or as controversial outside the domain.
And that is a problem.
Perhaps we assume Cochran is able to quickly weed through and discard at will.
Sometimes, you’re pretty boring Jayman
At least he keeps his dumb opinions out of the comment section. Every time the comment section is a long one it turns into jabbering nonsense.
Nixon did nothing wrong.
Compared to whom? Oh, you mean compared to LBJ and JFK? Probably correct, then.
Compared to those two, he was a saint.
Being fat is unhealthy and is due to eating too much.
This is true as far as it goes, but the difficulty of not eating too much varies greatly between individuals.
Steve Barnes likes to compare fat people to alcoholics who wear a six-pack hanging over their belt.
Is that something that is denied at the university level?
Islamophobia is objectively sensible and I would try to engineer it in any children I had educational access to. In a similar way I would try make them frightened of nazism, communism, heroin, tobacco, and a whole host of other objectively dangerous things. Islam, as a political creed, explicitly wants people converted or dead. To not be frightened of that means you havent been paying attention, or you agree with the goals.
Are the Islamophobes the people who used to spam the net with antisemitism, now converted to Judaism, or a parody of them?
mass importation of cheap labor leads to a massive increase in demand for ultra-cheap prostitution which is supplied by gangs forcing children from the bottom of the economic pile via initial friendly grooming followed by rape, beatings, torture and threats to kill their moms.
this is happening on a massive scale in every western country and has been for c. 20 years or so.
Not really. Are you high?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089
it’s not pedophilia – it’s forced prostitution
Another hatefact the right won’t touch: paedos are a scapegoat for gays, for Islam etc. I keep hearing from the paranoid alt-right, paedo acceptance comes next. But no it won’t, not when they get sacred cows off the hook…
I’m not saying he is right, but if you import lots of men who are either:
high IQ, high earner, socially influence
or
low IQ, not driven by long term consequences, and with large mafia-like extended families
to countries full of attractive white women who laugh in their faces, at some point push is going to turn to shove.
Haiti is a shithole.
Not every country can be turned into a functional democracy.
Just look at the US.
OK, some more:
Human evolution is true. No, not just that part about opposing thumbs.
Most of the great accomplishments of mankind were the work of Europe and the European diaspora.
Primitive peoples are not pacifist, spiritual beings living in peace and harmony with the natural world. Noble savages, my foot.
Matriachies don’t work in the short, medium, and long run. Patriarchies often do.
Good intentions are neither necessary nor sufficient for good results.
Some people are intrinsically more intelligent than others. The same is true for virtually every other human characteristic.
History didn’t start at WW2, and WW2 was not the Most Horrible Thing Ever To Happen In Human History.
Mediterranean/Japanese/Paleo diet are not really Mediterranean/Japanese/Paleo, and in any case won’t save you from a heart attack at age 60 if you have the genetic predisposition to it.
There are only two genders, not 59. Most of these “new genders” are just personal preferences repackaged as a thing they are not.
Western solutions often don’t work in shithole countries, despite the good intentions of the do-gooders.
Most “innovative” “educational” approaches have zero influence in educational outcomes.
Multiculturalism is not a good thing in itself, and very often imposes societal costs to a country. Remember that the most diverse and multicultural places have a remarkable tendency to be shitholes.
“Rights” are societal constructs. Some of them that can only be maintained in societies with sufficient production excess.
Most people don’t benefit much from the current school system.
Western countries are incredibly tolerant of the huge number of foreigners they accepted.
“Noble savages, my foot.”
This phrase does not refer to the noble character of primitive man, but rather to the fact that all tribesmen were hunters and could hunt whenever they wanted, which was a right reserved for the nobility in Europe, who had their own personal forests (i.e., the King’s forest, the Duke’s Wood).
“which was a right reserved for the nobility in Europe, who had their own personal forests (i.e., the King’s forest, the Duke’s Wood).” You’ve got your facts wrong. A “Forest” was an area where some powerful chap – King, Earl, Abbott – had monopoly hunting rights. Outside the “Forest” all sorts of people had hunting rights.
Yeah, and what the fuck were you supposed to hunt outside the forest, water fowl? Small hedgehogs?
All edible, were they not. Were wildfowls inedible, no one would have domesticated geese and ducks.
Edible, yes, but not exactly venison or bison.
But still a source of protein, and superior in flavour to the farmed fowls consumed today.
Deer, hare, wild boar, pheasant, partridge, grouse, …
You seem to be speaking from such depths of ignorance that you imagine a Forest was woodland and that there was no other woodland. You are being a chump.
Pineapple on pizza is the vehicle through which Satan enters the world.
The “Iron Law of Oligarchy” may not be an “iron law”, but it is at least a very strong tendency.
Equality does not mean equal outcomes, only equal considerations.
Sub-Saharan Africans are better adapted to modern urban environments that offer an overabundance of resources.
Right. So what is eugenics? You can go with a value-neutral definition, of what works best. Or, value judgements. What if all Western achievements, from Shakespeare’s lit to the Space Age, were a costly spandrel?
Eugenics is understood as the attempt to increase intelligence and life span and to improve physical and mental health. In the current era however, none of that confers a visible advantage when it comes to propagating your genes. But being aggressive and promiscuous –and not pulling out– does.
An inner city thug who already has 3 kids by the time he drops dead by a bullet in his 20s is reproductively more successful than a manager with a fistful of degrees and 0.7 children.
And SSA populations seem to be growing faster than any other populations worldwide, and that’s thanks to Western achievements, no?
Sir, how can anyone manage to have 0.7 children? Yes, I know that pedantry is a symptom of Asperger.
Maybe you’re just having a bad day.
Now for the final nail in the coffin of economics- gender equality required in economics:
Of course, it will simply improve the quality of already awful economics in terms of improving anything.
In short, the minute political considerations enter into any profession, it simply joins the oldest professions in their sycophantic ways.
In short, measurable results should matter, and well, if the tests show a bias for men, we should Harrison Berger them into equality.
Which is a pretty sad statement on how much of the world is going.
Razib is right, truth will be told in private, under the rose.
For in the world where equity is simply bought at sold at politics, then it will have no meaning to those who seek a deeper understanding.
And the funny part is so much is pretty much becoming obvious due to clear research, yet spin must wield a sword a the tide of reality.
And then they came for Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs, and Andrei Shleifer? One can only hope.
What I can’t figure is how many supposedly intelligent men and women don’t understand the problem.
For the sake of argument let’s not mention any IQ differences, as IQ is not the only part of the problem.
To get to the top is very, very hard. Most men don’t make it to the top either. The men at the top are extremely driven, they compete ferociously. They spend insane lengths of time at work.
Most women don’t the type of personality for that (and in fact, neither do most men).
If a woman wants to have a family, she’s not going to make it.
She can still be very skilled at her job. But the family will make claims on her time and energy.
None of this hard to figure out. In the days of yore, there existed a concept called “common sense.”
There are only two genders
17th century demonology had more validity than most modern social sciences and could be used to explain the latter better than vice versa.
Most people are racist, and most racists are not as racist as most people think.
Everyone is racist in some meaning of that term. That’s judging them by their actions rather than their words, of course.
Homosexuality is a disease.
Prohibition worked.
Neuropsychiatry and eugenics will be used AGAINST wayciss, but idiots keep cheering at signs they’re coming back.
What is “wayciss”?
Me and probably you. Some ppl are wayciss and some ppl are dishonest.
Oh, I get it…white kids. Yes, responsible white people and Asians have already been employing a kind of self-imposed eugenics. That’s why the gaps are getting wider.
Well, I didn’t mean that. After the Savulescu piece basically asking if it was OK to abort potential racists, the net was full of ppl saying it would. There are ppl blind to that.
Putting onto this, civilizations like the Ancient Greeks or Vedic Indians never had the unconditional acceptance of it or denial of sex roles attributed to them. For the Greeks, there’s no evidence the pederasty recorded in Classical Greece was practiced to the same level in Iliad Greece. The Manusmriti proscribed cutting homosexual fingers off and flogging them.
Assumptions of carnality between Achilles and Patroklos came later than Homer.
Indeed. The homosexuality associated with Greeks is a post-Doric habit. Even then, there were regulations to it (no anal penetration of citizens, it wasn’t acceptable for two adults to engage in it, pedophilia was discouraged, you needed the boy’s father’s permission).
“Iliad Greece” whatever it was was certainly not “Classical Greece”. Classical Greece dates from about 700 BC. What is described in Homer is a jumble of stuff from the “Heroic” or “Dark Age” period after the fall of Mycenae around 1200 BC and some stuff going back to Mycenae.
Of course the Greeks of classical times lived over a wide extent from the Western Mediterranean to the Black Sea as well as over a time span of many centuries. Presumably there was a lot of variation in social mores.
The universe doesn’t run on feelings.
Mother Nature is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and white-supremacist.
Blacks and other “disadvantaged” groups fail because of their innate characteristics, not because of prejudice.
An old one: Free men aren’t equal and equal men aren’t free.
The pursuit of equality is either stupid or dishonest or both.
Antisemitism is caused by Jewish behavior, not by gentile psychosis.
“Mother Nature is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic and white-supremacist.”
When an incoming comet collides with Earth, annihilating all humanity (including the whiteys) like the dinosaurs, then you will see how white-supremacist mother nature actually is.
Well, Mother Nature is certainly at least as white supremacist as Jason Richwine. I don’t think any white supremacists think whites would survive a collision with an asteroid larger than Chixculub, and neither does Mother Nature. But it most certainly agrees that a country exclusively inhabited by white people (well, except for some Balkan populations etc.) will be usually way better than any other country (except maybe East Asia).
White people drill the deepest holes, and construct the strongest bunkers. Of the six people currently in orbit, four are white, one is Japanese, and one is Puerto Rican.
Even if our species goes extinct, it is likely that the last human will be white.
I hope for your sake that you’re under the age of 20.
You could have said that same about any of the other attributes I ascribed to Mother Nature. But you were only triggered by “white-supremacist”. I conclude that Mother Nature’s white supremacism hurts your feelings.
What you said was illogical and SJW-ish. If you think Mother Nature would have to wipe out the entire human race to stop being white-supremacist, you agree with me even more than I do.
Mother Nature is none of those things because Mother Nature isn’t a sentient being.
The non-innovative Chinese created so may scientific inventions, so as to fill Needham’s 27 volumes of encyclopedias.
in which case the interesting question is not “why didn’t they start?” but “what caused them to stop?”
Right. This is the Needham Question, and Needham blamed Buddhism. This seems improbable to me, because Japanese Buddhism fosters critical thinking. Its like the counter-question to understanding the rise of the West, but it gets less attention from HBD blogs.
I think Needham’s problem is that he thinks that West putting a man on the moon is ‘normal’ as in not a weird thing that needs explaining, while the Chinese not doing it is a weird thing that needs explaining. He had it backwards.
Not really: China’s stagnation is as much a unique phenomenon as the rise of the West. Nearby Japan did not stagnate.
Burn millions of years worth of carbon deposits, and it has to go somewhere. Wherever might that be?
Granted. But the question is, is that good or bad? Why would anyone prefer a climate teetering on the edge of another ice age to something like the Carboniferous? Sure, we will lose most of Florida and Louisiana, but the vast reaches of Alaska and Canada and Northern Sweden and Siberia will become habitable…
Is this a serious question? Or are we living in a world of spherical cows in a vacuum?
During the Carboniferous the oxygen level of the Earth’s atmosphere has been estimated to have been 35%. That would certainly discourage smoking.
If you are alt-right, life under Islam would be dhimmitude, but its a better kind of dhimmitude.
There’s no universal, supranational right-wing or left-wing, all politics is local and highly dependent on regional history and demographics.
Or: left wing, right wing, both wing to fly.
Abortion does cause breast cancer.
There is no mind-body dualism useful to science or society.
Based on there being around 180,000 kathooey, in all of Thailand (pop. 69,000,000), the incidence of homosexuality in the west must be vastly exaggerated.
source?
The differences between races in cooperativeness and conscientiousness are as great as in IQ, and all three are highly correlated. And that a lot of the measures associating high IQ with life success (and societal success) are as much related to differences in cooperativeness and conscientiousness as differences in IQ.
It’s very possibly that the numbers for all three of these things could go up a lot in places like Pakistan — if and when they stop marrying their cousins.
There was never as much discussion as I would like, about the Big 5 scores for different human populations, being as great as those between ape species. Bad operationalisation? Or ultimate proof of a 10ky explosion?
Sorry misphrased. Some human groups, have a big number other than the supposedly universal five.
People are more affected by the death of their goldfish, than by human deaths half a world away.
Species do not objectively exist, because there is no definition of a species. Not a single species concept is consistently applicable, or agreed upon.
Yet there are three species of Tasmanian Devil …
And 1 of human. Srsly.
Gay-on-gay homicide rate is sky high.
Fat girls are unattractive. African working girls earn substantially lower pay.
Tell that to the Samoans …
Tell that in Berkeley and other campuses.
Even in Africa?
I don’t know about Africa, but dating site OKCupid releases their data from time to time. There’s a bias against black woman even among black men (although it isn’t large).
More than anywhere. Whiter girls earn big bonuses.
Negroes are significantly more infantile and effeminate than Europeans. Once you stop watching rap music and pushing “lol Scandinavians are cucks” memes you can see this.
There are both hereditary and non-hereditary components to homosexuality and tranny antics. That doesn’t mean either you’re a man born as a woman or whatever. Or that fagotry should encouraged as opposed to regulated.
White women are the most attractive women. They were bred for it.
Women aren’t as adapted for post-Neolithic society as men. They were adapted for small tribes prior to the rise of the Neolithic. Post-Neolithic societies select for lower time preference behavior, more regard for those outside of your immediate community, and perhaps most importantly importantly, both sexual control over women and more options for less “Alpha” males to reproduce since there’s a surplus of resources now. Men who wouldn’t dominate in pre-Neolithic society have more of a shot at reproducing if only from coalitions with men who do dominate it now. These men crowd out the men who don’t reproduce, making their sons’ sons more adapted. Women never went through this process to the same level as men, making them significantly mismatched with society as of Middle Egypt (see the female’s concern for her children and cliques over the male’s armies and empires).
The Indus Valley Civilization was founded by a population more akin to Neolithic Iranians. The Aryans who invaded India were like Yamnaya and similar goups in that they are closest towards Eastern to Northern Europeans of all modern populations. Hinduavtas can cry me a river
Neither the Ancient Egyptians or Ancient Northwest Africans have any notable connection to Negroes.
Christianity is from birth subversive and will never be the White Nationalist Creed.
The Confederates were no better than the Cuckservatives campaining for the right to import Mexico.
Journalists cannot offer expert commentary on topics on which they are not technical experts on account of being journalists.
I suspect a really important set of statements involves the leadership/ruling class of the country—the folks at the top of politics, the civil service, business, the judiciary, academia, the media, etc.
a. The higher you go up most power hierarchies, the more sociopathic the people become. At the top level of politics, they’re basically all sociopaths, even the ones you’ve convinced yourself are on your side.
b. The people at the top are mostly not all that smart or competent. Further, they have spent decades focused entirely on climbing the greased pole, mostly to the exclusion of everything else. They are often shockingly ignorant of basic facts about the decisions they are making. This is true in business as well as in govenment. Again, this is as true of the leaders you idolize as the ones you demonize.
c. Age-related mental decline is real and significant. 70-80 year olds making big important decisions are probably a couple decades from the time they were most able to make good ones. This is particularly important when looking at judicial and congressional decisions. Also, very old people often have very limited stamina—your favorite 70-80 year old supreme court justice is probably leaning very heavily on his or her clerks.
An expert is someone who knows so much about so little.
Race is not a social construct. This kids book on zoology from the 50s explains it nicely.
Apparently the finest examples of each race are Chris Evans, a k-pop band member, and Jada Pinkett Smith.
Soviet encyclopedias went into details about human races.
Sorry to be a pedant, but race IS a social construct. But just because it’s ‘socially constructed’ does not mean it’s “of no taxonomic significance.”
I think that everything is socially constructed, not just race. We humans superimpose categories on nature because it allows us to better understand and control it. It’s a tool. Science is just engineering.
The point is that if our “social constructs” carve nature at a joint then they’re not just “social constructs”.
Heredity of IQ increases with child’s age to young adulthood (~18 yrs old), making early environmental intervention results disappear.
See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23919982
Eskimos/Inuits cannot metabolize alcohol.
Sure they can.
They can? Or do you mean “metabolize slowly”? Why are there so many alcoholics among them, I thought this was related to metabolizing alcohol?
Some genetic variants decrease the risk of alcoholism by speeding up conversion of alcohol to acetaldehyde [more efficient ADH enzymes ], others by slowing oxidation of acetaldehyde [ less efficient ALDH enzymes ] . Both increase acetaldehyde levels. High levels of acetaldehyde make you feel like crap & thus discourage drinking.
MRI shows reasons for different capacity for handling stress between men and women and resulting risk appetites.
It took Tibetans “only” 6,000 years to evolve a variant of gene improving oxygen processing at high altitudes after splitting off Han Chinese.
They picked it up from some remnant Denisovan (or similar) population, didn’t they?
I don’t know really. What I think is critical is that by traditional view of evolution, 6,000 years is pretty short for natural selection to get the result.
That’s probably an upper bound for it. It would be very interesting to see some research just how long it took Tibetans to either evolve this gene variant or activate it if they got it from Denisovan population. If it’s like say 200 or 300 years, the environmentalists are in even deeper s*** than they seem to be in today.
Overlap on some mental traits between men and women is low:
“We found a global effect size D = 2.71, corresponding to an overlap of only 10% between the male and female distributions. Even excluding the factor showing the largest univariate ES, the global effect size was D = 1.71 (24% overlap). ”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029265
Adoption studies show near zero impact of shared environment on child’s future:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/07/some-non-effects-of-adoption/#.Wl-lHZM-eL4
Stereotype threat has been fraud:
https://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/12/30/is-stereotype-threat-overcooked-overstated-and-oversold/
Brains of men and women are literally wired in different ways:
http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/12/connectivity-the-difference-between-mens-and-womens-brains.php
Multiracial democracies are unsustainable.
Lee Kuan Yew, former PM of Singapore:
“In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I’d run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. ”
Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html
I completely agree. There is no way all these disparate groups we’re importing won’t ultimately destroy democracy. It won’t be a sudden thing, but a bit here and a bit there.
As long as they don’t change too quickly, the frog won’t notice that the water temperature is getting awfully hot.
There will be no turning back either.
IMO the future doesn’t look good. But I truly hope I’m wrong.
Agree. Good post.
Chinese will crack genetic code of intelligence because they are not held by silly social cults like West believes into nowadays.
Smart Fraction Theory: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft2.htm
There’s much truth to Dark Enlightenment.
Political views are ~40% heritable as found by identical twin studies.
A variant of IQ heritability and genetic component of IQ: Africa will not develop.
In 20-30 years the world GDP will start falling at serious rates due to IQ decline (Flynn effect reversal) AND IQ seemingly being in exponential relation with GDP:
Click to access 2006-dickerson.pdf
“As a rough rule of thumb, an increase of 10 points in mean IQ results in a doubling of the
per capita GDP.”
IOW, what exponential growth has given, exponential decline will take away.
Brains and minds of men and women are different for evolutionary reasons.
Brains and minds of different races are different for evolutionary reasons.
We are much more creatures of biology than we would like to admit.
Preference for one’s own ethnicity is not sufficient to make one a Nazi.
The main political problem of diversity is not hate, but indifference of one ethnic group towards other ethnic groups.
The nation states / ethnostates are the future, not the past of humanity.
Supra-national bodies like League of Nations, UN, EU, Soviet Union, OECD are doomed to start big and devolve into utterly unimportant and un-influential organizations or outright collapse.
The thing which really separates humans from all other animals is the ability, for good or ill, to take lots of things to extremes. This arises because humans use their unique reasoning abilities to justify to themselves, and others, their animal tendency to follow their biological behavioural traits. E.G. young adult male primates instinctively challenge the silverbacks. Young adult male humans do the same thing, but because they have the ability to reason they justify their challenges by developing whole ideologies, such as Marxist revolution, rather than simply saying “me want top spot”. So the simple passing instinct has morphed, through reasoning, into a timeless codified set of rules which end up with the Chinese communists killing 25 million during the ‘Great Leap Forward. A simple instinct taken to extremes.
Likewise, young adult female primates run to get resources, protection, and babies from “Alphas” (males who are high-status). They also work against their rivals for access to those Alphas (look up slut shaming). Unfortunately for civilization, the human female’s Alpha Sense hasn’t really adapted for post-Neolithic life. Hence the mass support for immigration among umarried (White) females (more males to compete with resident males, raising their sexual market value for their men relative to immigrant girls, seeing their rivals be raped or murdered and so have a lower SMV) lust for the likes of rock stars over nuclear physicists, higher time preference behavior (see the classic sterotype of the wife abusing her husband’s credit card).
The “ideal” societal arrangement for women from just a meeting and breeding stance boils down to:
Pressuring men who project high-status (called “Alphas”) into commitment for the offspring they produce (sons to protect them, daughters to marry off to build coalitions), resources, and protection while also punishing such men who won’t commit.
Keeping men who are lower-status but still reliable for acquiring resources in a state of servitude and desperation for female acknowledgement so that they will not just feed attention and resources to women while getting more or less nothing out of it, but also await their shot to serve as an escape hatch/meal ticket for a woman who spent her childbearing years on the slut circuit/make work circuit/finding herself circuit and has now grown too old/used up/overweight/indebted to attract a man of higher-status who isn’t desperate himself. Alternating tactics of incessant verbal attacks (to keep them down) and “man-up” shaming tactics (to keep them from slipping into the next category, where they are no longer of use to the woman) are employed.
Keeping the most repulsive men (called Wizards, Elliot Rodger, etc.) down, out, and far far away (maybe dead).
This is especially the case when considering modern welfare and government make-work jobs.
Pretty much nonsense.
Oh, were nuclear physicists considered a high example of male sex appeal now?
You don’t have to double down on being an idiot. It’s not compulsory.
Not an argument.
Too stupid to be worth an argument.
Greg may not be willing to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man, but he’s willing to belittle an unarmed man …
The problem isn’t sexism, patriarchy, or society. The problem is women themselves.
How about: most women don’t want nice guys, and being promiscuous doesn’t make you a better wife.