/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2902757
Nature do not punish or reward rationality. Some traits increase survival in some circusmtances, allowing those carrying it to be more likely to spread them. That's not the same thing as rewarding rationality.
It is not rational to see faces where there is none. And yet this particular quirk is deeply ingrained in our brains because those who saw predators everywhere were more likely to avoid them even if more often than not they were just running away from imaginary threats rather than actual ones.

It seems like you're suffering from a mild case of racism.

There is no cure except amputation of your head from your body, however, you can try getting out your feelings in a safe way by playing Hearts of Iron 4. I specifically recommend playing with TNO enabled.

>You yourself would distinguish between them, correct?

my so-called "intuition" or "common sense" tells me that plants are fundamentally different and separate things from me, but a more thorough examination tells me that we have a lot of similarities and inextricable relationships with one another. humans would not exist without having particular plants to eat and the particular plants humans eat could not exist naturally in such abundance if not for humans selectively breeding and eating them.

>Based on what? On the patterns of reality itself.

and the patterns are just an illusion. our so-called "intuition" or "common sense" tells us that the sun comes up and goes down every day and will continue doing so forever, but a more thorough examination tells us that it doesn't go up or down at all and it's just the rotation of the earth and that in deep time all orbits and rotations are eccentric and temporary and it just looks like a stable repeating infinite pattern from our perspective because of how short our lives are and how limited our perceptions are, but in our normal everyday lives the knowledge of how it really works doesn't really help us and our simplistic and factually-inaccurate "common sense" explanations are good enough to help us plan and survive so we use them and rely on them.

>>2902942
>reality isnt real
K.
>>2902816
>the negative to 'racial equality' within the bounds of this overarching discussion is superiority.
No it isn't. I expressly write that differences are not the same as a hierarchy, since the division of labour allows for diversity without external competition. In a complex society (like a complex ecology), we can afford to have all sorts of differences; like how fishes cannot climb trees, but this does not disable them from swimming. It is then one's exclusion from one thing which includes them in another. There is no loss; only a mutual gain. A world without complementary purpose is one set to a universal standard, since it commands an unreal egalité. As I write, "fitness" is about "fitting in"; not dominance.
>intelligence
I.Q. measures "general intelligence", which is a complex statistic, especially within groups. The breadth of I.Q. bands typically measure "creativity", for example, and we have empirical facts that in the Gilded Age, the freed black slaves were extremely inventive people, displaying a high level of creativity. African-Americans have been pioneers of popular culture since the 20th century. We see otherwise that Scandanavians have a narrow I.Q. band, so while being more generally intelligent, they lack creativity. The "high-trust" and "homogeneous" people of the North are largely talentless, which is why they have functional societies, but not important societies. It is the same case with females; that they are more generally intelligent than males, but their narrow I.Q. band leads to a lack of genius, such as we see in males. We could see genius as a type of cognitive disequilibrium, hence really creative people are often mentally ill and/or unpleasant. The racialist ideologies on both the left and right seeks to create a global Scandanavia, and I resist this entirely.
>you are making the ultimately empty statement that there are differences
No, I am deconstructing ideological derangement. Thus I ask, why would racial differences be bad? This causes the egalitarian to ponder upon their implicit prejudices.
>fundamental ontology
Which is what?
The transsexual question is inescapably essentialist in its justifications, the same as the homosexual question. The thread between the social and biological is needed.
>surely that is a problem
It's a problem with marginal solutions (which requires a much larger discussion), but model of education itself needs reform. General education isn't for everybody. We all knew kids who would be better off somewhere else.
>i dont think there is going to be a race war
When group differences become politicised, a race war is invoked, since one group is seen to dominate another. The same way female politics is just a sex war against men. All lf this is pure vanity.

>>2903086
>>reality isnt real
What we perceive and decipher from reality =/= reality itself.

>>2903097
Don't you see the fallacy of this?
Light refraction is still real.
If "reality" is absolutely unknowable, then how is science possible?
When we type messages to each other, is this just an "illusion"?

>>2903099
You are missing the point. Knowledge is never absolute, but relative. The abstractions we build in our brains will always be an approximation of reality. As the overall knowledge increases and models and theories evolve, we get closer to the what reality might be but never quite reaching it, like the curve never reaching the asymptote.

>>2903103
When I look at this message, I see due to the photons reflecting off of the surface of my device, and so entering my eye. The eye is a pinhole, and thus by a camera obscura, the image is reversed, but re-settled by my brain's processing. My brain thus flips the raw data of my eyes to the actual reality of the world. The brain is actively processing reality. If not, give some examples of what we are mis-perceiving in the world.

>>2903105
In your own example, you literally process a reflection. An approximation. This being aggravated by the fact our senses cannot even perceive the entire spectrum of the stimuli they're supposed to cover. Ultrasonic and infrasonic vibrations are perceived as silence by example

>>2903147
All sensation is mediation, but all sensation confers reality to us.
You aren't saying that we can't know reality, but only that our knowledge is limited; precisely, but artificial instruments also allow us to perceive what is hidden from sight and sound. A reflection of photons is still a transmission of accurate information, is it not?

>>2903151
>All sensation is mediation, but all sensation confers reality to us.
From sensation we get phenomena. Not noumena. Even if multiplying sources of stimuli and experiences get us closer to what is, ultimately we'll always stuck on the side of phenomena.
>A reflection of photons is still a transmission of accurate information
No. Else there wouldn't be such thing as optical illusions. Your brain turn stimuli into data and data into information. Wheter it's accurate or not depend on paradigms, framing, context.
Treating the surrounding as a flat surface works insofar you walk around or put a ball somewhere and it doesn't roll over. Even though observing the same place from afar reveal the curve and roundness of the world, but keener instrumentation will reveal the irregularities making earth not a perfectly regular shere.

>>2903160
And to build upon that. coming back to the picture I posted here
>>2903097
Is the line actually straight or broken? You know from light diffraction that simply plunging a straw in water do not break it, that's an optical illusion, The line is actually staight. But the picture of this situation isn't actually the straw in the water. the line materializing on the screen is indeed broken.
As the chinese says, one mountain, several landscapes.

>>2903160
>>2903162
>From sensation we get phenomena. Not noumena.
From sensation we get reliable results. We receive reality.
Your philosophical gobbledygook is irrelevant. If not, tell me how.
>multiplying sources of stimuli and experiences get us closer to what is
What? When I look at something, I am seeing that thing for what it is within the visible light spectrum. I am receiving its wavelength. There are unknown aspects to it, but does that make our perception lesser, or just different? It is impossible to see in both infrared and ultraviolet, but that doesn't make one "less" or "more" than the other. It's the same.
>optical illusions
But an optical illusion is still real. It isn't spontaneous.
When a creature camoflauges, it is testing the senses of other creatures, and so illusions are taken into consideration by nature, no?
>Wheter it's accurate or not depend on paradigms, framing, context.
Notice how you are viewing knowledge theoretically, not practically. The accuracy of information is proven by our sexual reproduction and survival. If we survive, we accurately act against potential dangers.

>>2903163
>From sensation we get reliable results. We receive reality.

You see something looking like a face in the dark, you process that as someone trying to jump on you, you flee. You actually ran away from a pile of rocks and tree branchs rustled by the wind. The threat was real only in your head that is in no way accurate. Yet that's still a reliable response because the benefits of escaping a threat once outweight the inconvenience of running away from shadows every couple evenings. Unless you're supposed to watch over the area and not raise false alarms every fucking time. Then what once was reliable became a hindrance.
Reality =/= Functionality, both being dependant on context and therefore relative and not absolute. Wheter or not a using the ace against the king is a winning move depend on the rule of the game if that's not clear for you.

>>2903171
We can misinterpret things, but the function itself reflects reality.
That's why I say that survival instincts count as knowledge.
The knowledge that [falling = bad] is not just functional, but true.
The knowledge is unconscious, inherent and real.
The issue is that you seem to be isolating "reality" as something unknowable in itself, but if this is so, whence cometh knowledge? What is the relationahip between reality and knowledge to you?

>>2903173
>The knowledge that [falling = bad] is not just functional, but true.
Falling = bad isn't true by itself. Falling in the context of diving, rope jumping or parachuting isn't something to be avoided but a way to get a high.
inb4
>But it doesn't count because it's not true falling if it's controlled/secured
If someone decide to an heroby jumping of a bridge, the falling = bad become falling = good.
Context context context.

>The issue is that you seem to be isolating "reality" as something unknowable in itself.
My issue is that you consistently treat something relative as absolute.
Either reality is absolute truth, the philosophical graal of the thing in itself and it is unknowable or at best approximatively knowable. Or reality means the subjective sum of our understanding, perceptions and assumptions about the world and that means reality is relative to the observer and their context. A wasp and a human will perveive and interpret the world differently, either both fail to truly grasp what's real because of their own limitations, or both exists within their own reality, both being valid from their respective standpoint.

>>2903185
>Context
So would you say that instincts are irrational because they do not contextualise phenomena? Babies instinctively resist touching grass, but grass in itself is harmless, therefore the instinct is irrational? I would say that the heritage of an instinct acts as genetic memory, and so must encode the correctness of something, even if not immediate.
>reality is relative to the observer and their context
>both exists within their own reality
>both being valid
But we share the same reality. It is self-enclosed.
We perceive differently, but our perceptions are still real.
There are no contradictions between the differences.

>>2903086
>In a complex society (like a complex ecology), we can afford to have all sorts of differences
this is not at all necessary. horses also have a difference with cars but the former has just gotten turned to horse meat because now that their primary function is irrelevant, their only use became their flesh (outside of course where horse races are a thing, but the majority of horses could not attend them and had to die). in an increasingly post-industrial society, the knowledge economy takes the centre stage, and such jobs seem (there can of course be critiques on this point) to select for intelligence to harsher degrees. of course the idea that certain groups of people will just be turned into biodiesel when they are passed their use is a very liberal framing, nevertheless it is a framing that reflects our mode of production where those who can not adapt to the constraints of our society are left to die
>The breadth of I.Q. bands typically measure "creativity"
not sure where you are getting this from. there is also no evidence that group autism score differences can be explained by polygenic scores as has already been established so you have been retroactively refuted. that post they made has hence actually hit quite true with regards to where you have placed yourself discursively
>This causes the egalitarian to ponder upon their implicit prejudices.
i already pointed out the prejudices involved. it has never been a generic discussion about differences. we all know what differences have been deemed the most socially salient and hence ultimately what is in contention. this is like when race realists try and pretend they are not racist because "we all know blacks can run faster" - no one cares about running, let us be honest with ourselves here. what is next, violent crime is another generic "group difference" for which our hierarchical judgements are just arbitrary? come on man. notice how you try and soften the autism score point by bringing in "creativity", but notice that is just another variable that our society has clearly deemed more important than all of the rest, and there are only a finite number of such variables
>It's a problem with marginal solutions
would the reformation of the entire education system in order to accommodate group differences really just be a "marginal solution"?
>Which is what?
already pointed what it was. the ontology has been partially elaborated by judith butler who was not even thinking about trans issues at all but still nevertheless emphasized "gender performativity", and before that there was a distinction made between a "psychological sex" and a physiological one
>The transsexual question is inescapably essentialist in its justifications
are you referring to brain scan studies? the point of these was affirm a innate predisposition towards particular social roles. it was not a statement that trans women literally had biological vaginas because of neuronal patterns or whatever. there were no biological variations which were actually denied, so the reduction of it to that was absurd. i do agree that some attempts to tie justify transgenders have ultimately been problematic with regards to the ontology as it would seem to undermine its feminist non-essentialist basis, but i also dont think transsexuality should have much to do with gender at all - that to me is a superficial trace
>When group differences become politicised, a race war is invoked
if we compare the living conditions of a rich white city and a poor white town down the road in order to formulate policies, does this lead to a race war? no, that makes no sense. if i am deciding things based off of geographic area and the relative development of concrete communities, then the question of race has been bracketed. china has affirmative action and does not care for any race war. the country simply proceeds from the premise of bringing its more developmentally backwards parts out of the conditions they are in to fully complete its industrial revolution. there is no race-based slave moralizing but sober policy based upon what is necessary to raise the entire country up. it is race realists meanwhile who, as i have already pointed out, are all right libertarians looking for a way to argue against affirmative action and conclude that the state of the world is ultimately the system working as it should be
>eco ego
99% of species have gone extinct before humans came and we have brought in several mass extinction events on our own. and of course we all know the one trait that is why man became the apex super predator of the entire planet. if you want to deconstruct that go ahead but if you give credit to people's beliefs that are not ultimately grounded in actual evidence, dont complain if people are going to level preemptive arguments against your statements

>>2903188
Instinct are behavoir inherited from previous generations who lived and died in an environment differing from our own. An automatic response might once have been adequate in a given situation might become useless or counterproductive in an other.
It's especially patent in humans because we modify the environment in which we evolve -deliberately or accidentally- way faster than our overal genepool change.

>so must encode the correctness of something
What's encoded is the behaviour increasing the probability of survival in the context in which natural selection favorised said behavior. Or at the very least insufficiently hindered the survival of the individuals displaying the behavior to weed them out before they reproduced.


>There are no contradictions between the differences.
There are. Take pic rel. Do you see a six or a nine? It should be one or the other, after all something cannot be both A and non A. But contradictions can be solved in different ways depending of how you look at it.
Reality is absolute truth. There is no 6 or 9. People arguing over a circle fused with a comma on which they are forcing an arbitrary meaning.
Reality is relative to the observer. The symbol is a six if you are the character on the left, a 9 if you are the character on the right. If they were wiser, they would realize how it looks from the other's perspective and the symbol is both a 6 and a 9.

>>2899471
>Contrarian take: Read Richard Hanania.
mods should delete this thread lol. look at this final few posts, a literal retard discovering phenomenology from first principles. obviously the discussion has veered so far from anything resembling the original topic because bad faith racialists will invariably move the conversation of racial science to the metaphysical because that's always where their backwards comprehension of genetics had any leg to stand on to begin with, and they will attempt to drag everyone to this , frankly, midwit level of discussion.

>>2903193
>their primary function
I'm not an anthropocentrist so I reject this framing.
>post-industrial society
There is no post-industrial society. Industry is exported, not destroyed.
>the knowledge economy
What does this mean, exactly?
You don't need knowledge to flip burgers.
>I.Q.
You can apply the variability hypothesis to groups:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis
The extent of distribution aligns with the threshold hypothesis of sufficient creativity as well, showing that while creativity (e.g. divergent thinking) correlates with I.Q. it also loses correlation around 120 I.Q. where the levels of divergent thinking often sink below 80 I.Q. and so if we take creativity in genders and apply it to normal distribution between racial groups, it is the same. So, if I.Q. is selected to be higher in general, creativity lessens. Creativity is also shown to differ between individualist and collectivist cultures. So, "homogenous" cultures are less creative, from (i) narrow I.Q. and (ii) collectivism. A basic example is Mongolians, who have higher average I.Q. than Europeans, yet are less creative. Inventions:
<With 50,000 total patents, Black people accounted for more inventions during this period than immigrants from every country except England and Germany.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-black-innovators-who-elevated-the-united-states-reassessing-the-golden-age-of-invention/
So, average I.Q. is less important than creative potential.
>no evidence that group autism score differences can be explained by polygenic scores
Can you elaborate on what you mean here, please?
>you try and soften the autism score point by bringing in "creativity"
I am not pitiful toward the blacks, as many people are. I am not "softening" anything, but am presenting the fact that "intelligence" is a relative concept, not absolute.
>reformation of the entire education system in order to accommodate group differences
Isn't this already the failed policies of the egalitarians? I am not very considerate of group differences in this regard, but individual differences. Some kids would be better off learning a trade rather than learning maths.
>psychological sex
I don't think its coherent to separate sex from gender.
What is a sexless gender, or genderless sex?
>are you referring to brain scan studies?
No, I am referring to the discourse itself. The conviction of transsexual identity is not based in frivolous "play", but a modern myth of self-discovery. It is a confession of faith, which is why it takes a radically subjective form. If it was a "choice", it wouldn't be so dramatic, would it?
>feminism
I think the TERFs are right that transsexualism is against the feminist movement, but I am not a feminist, either.
>affirmative action
I am against all "positive discrimination", personally. I support the absolute freedom of association. The real difficulty of the Civil Rights Movement was that it was acting against an already-existing racial protectionism, but in approaching it, simply reversed the matter, rather than abolishing it altogether. Ideas of forced integration like with busing is oxymoronic. De-segregation contains the voluntary association of different races, however. An error was the adoption of Race Relations acts in the UK which projected American circumstances onto Britain.

>>2903234
>instinct
If you could get rid of instinct, would you?
>6 or 9
These are propositions, not observations.
There are no contradictions between the two.
>Reality is absolute truth.
So begs the question…
Does absolute truth actually exist?
If not, you are saying "reality isn't real"; a contradiction.
I say instead that "reality is real"; an axiom.

>>2903282
I'm not eager to get rid of a part of myself. Understanding instinct, being critical of it, following it when it's use of me, discard it when it's not. Simple as.

>These are propositions, not observations.
Now who's playing on words and engaging in gobbledygook?

>Does absolute truth actually exist?
Depend how you understand truth. You can equate absolute truth to noumena, the thing in itself, the objectivity of the reality existing independently from the observer. In that case absolute truth is something that exists out of our reach.
Or truth is a purely mental construct, depending on framing and context. Santa Claus live in the north pole is a lie when you take into consideration that Santa Claus isn't an actual person. Santa Claus live in the north is a truth in the context of what is the commonly accepted lore of the Santa Claus myth. In that case, absolute truth doesn't exists. It is always relative.

>If not, you are saying "reality isn't real"; a contradiction
That's a paradox. And "reality is real" is a tautology, not an axiom.
Both proposition results from poor framing of the subject, conflating several adjacent yet distinct concepts. Typically happening when you dismiss epistemotology and philosophy as mumbo jumbo. Then you melt truth, objectivity, existence, reality and knowledge into a vibe based "it is what it is".

>>2903386
>wordplay
If I see 9 and you see 6, we see the same thing from different angles, but there is no contradiction. The contradiction is proposing that (x) is 9, which excludes (x) being 6. They are both correct, by their condition. Logically stated, (x) = 6/9, IF (y), and so on. The medium is then the given perspective. It is true that it cannot be 6 and 9 according to the same condition, but this is like the infrared/ultraviolet example.
>absolute truth is something that exists
If we cannot know it, how do you know about it?
How can you say an unknowable thing is unknowable?
>And "reality is real" is a tautology, not an axiom.
Axioms can be tautological, like A=A.
I am demonstrating the self-identity of reality with itself.
>dismiss epistemotology
What is the epistemology which speculates about noumena?
>it is what it is
Yes - this is the unconditional nature of things.
Reality is real, no matter what we imagine about it.

>>2903277
>I'm not an anthropocentrist so I reject this framing.
it doesnt matter how you feel about the framing. we bred the horses and they died when their use for us (because that is the only thing that actually matters within the bounds of discussion) was expired
>Industry is exported, not destroyed.
yes, doesnt change the fact that is the the state of the mode of production we are living in in, and presumably if automation increased at some later point in time, the shift towards the knowledge economy would persist
>You don't need knowledge to flip burgers.
burger flipping pays minimum wage and doesnt give you much social mobility in our current economy now does it
>The extent of distribution […]
no.
>Can you elaborate on what you mean here, please?
actually looking at the actual genes that correlate with intelligence and their representation in blacks and whites, there has been nothing that suggests the achievement gap is genetic
https://r.jordan.im/download/racism/bird2021.pdf
>I don't think its coherent to separate sex from gender.
it is perfectly coherent. gender corresponds to social norms typically subjected to a particular sex, many of which do not immediately follow from immediate primary and secondary sexual characteristics. there are cultures where males perform social roles that were normatively reserved for females. hence their gender was different from their sex. we can see the explanatory merit this distinction serves anthropologically as a purely functional description
>I am not very considerate of group differences in this regard, but individual differences
why defend the vague existence of group differences and the individuation of particular groups of people then? there is no reason for you to even commit to these distinct groups within your ontology given your purported approach to politics. the result is you making uncontextualized observations without any real skin in the game with regards to concrete policy
>If it was a "choice", it wouldn't be so dramatic, would it?
the dichotomy between a gender being ontologically a social property and the transsexual phenomenon being more than a choice is a false one
>Ideas of forced integration like with busing is oxymoronic
affirmative action does not necessarily mean forced integration, and that is not china's perspective with respect to the policy. what they care about is the development of communities, not being fair to individuals

>>2903396
also to be clear i dont think intelligence is absolutely important, but i dont like the laissez-faire attitude of "yeah well of course there are group differences but we should just care about individuals and they dont actually matter from a bird's eye view .." then get confused when people preemptively correct you that with regards to the differences that actually matter in our current society, these things are not actually very obviously liable to a genetic explanation. i also see the whole ecological imagination of seamless harmony as naive. it doesnt actually reflect how things work as it stands. if that is the perspective you want to bring to the table you need to put in more work into it (a lot more) and not just take it as a given

>>2903396
>>2903405
>burger flipping pays minimum wage and doesnt give you much social mobility in our current economy now does it
Yes, and?
It's impossible to create upward mobility for all people.
I have chosen to live a pathetic life of poverty myself.
>nothing that suggests the achievement gap is genetic
Right, so regardless, let the chips fall where they may.
If there are no hard problems, we don't require extra resources.
>it is perfectly coherent
You're misunderstanding.
Is there a sexless gender? A genderless sex?
You are invoking gender as the threshold of sexual failure, and I don't disagree, but gender is still entirely relative and derivative of sex.
>why defend the vague existence of group differences
I don't "defend" anything. If group differences exist, they exist.
I am perfectly fine with differences existing. I see no problem.
>concrete policy
I don't especially believe in politicising race. Sorry.
If there is no genetic disparity, there is no need for subsidisation.
>harmony
Again, harmony is not a "policy", it is the lack of policy. Natural order.
People are different so will do different things. It's not complicated.

>>2903394
>If I see 9 and you see 6, we see the same thing from different angles, but there is no contradiction. The contradiction is proposing that (x) is 9, which excludes (x) being 6. They are both correct, by their condition. Logically stated, (x) = 6/9, IF (y), and so on. The medium is then the given perspective. It is true that it cannot be 6 and 9 according to the same condition, but this is like the infrared/ultraviolet example.
The point is it it can be both or none. The contradiction is solved by the framing. And framing you just did in your reply.

>If we cannot know it, how do you know about it?
Now that's when axioma come in handy. You postulate that there is something rather than nothing.

>I am demonstrating the self-identity of reality with itself.
That's just a claim. Not a demonstration.

>What is the epistemology which speculates about noumena?
The one that concerns itself with its limits? The one that sees science and knowledge as the study of phenomena. The noumena being what's outside of its domain and can only be matter of speculation, and as such an eternal mystery or a complete waste of time.

>- this is the unconditional nature of things. Reality is real, no matter what we imagine about it.
That's an empty sentence. You're just saying "there is something rather than nothing" with extra steps. There is something. Cool. Doesn't tell us to what extent what we know is true or if it is possible to truly know at all.

>>2903105

the eye isn't like a camera at all, it's not a lens, it's not made of transparent material, it's a completely opaque lump of frontal brain tissue that absorbs photons and uses that information to construct extremely elaborate simulated mental pictures by way of incomprehensibly complex high-level neural processing that we will probably never understand.

>>2903409
>It's impossible to create upward mobility for all people.
that is where you are wrong. also see how your stance basically on a final analysis capitulates to the politics of race realists who are content condemning large sections of the population to poverty because hey there are "differences" (while bracketing out obviously more pertinent historical factors). compare your response to the op to mine >>2899524 to see the gap in responsibility
>but gender is still entirely relative and derivative of sex
so? why does this matter concretely? if there are people that are disposed to prefer a particular social role than another, where is the denial of biology?
>If there is no genetic disparity, there is no need for subsidisation
subsidisation is still useful for encouraging the development of particular localities instead of just letting them rot away. this should be basic nation building fundamentals as opposed to the clown show that is the west
>Natural order
so if you are gravely ill you dont bother taking any medicine to treat it? our current mode of production is not "natural order"

>>2903409
>harmony is not a "policy", it is the lack of policy. Natural order.
NTA but no it is not. First of all there is no lack of policy in human societies. The so called laissez-faire is itself a policy. People do not exists in a vacuum.
Natural order itself is bollocks concept. At best you have a metastable equilibrium allowing an ecosystem to perpetuate for a time. Anaerobic life was the "natural order" until they got marginalized by aerobic life because anaerobic lifeforms "polluted" eath with oxygen until it became hostile to themselves safe from a few niches.

>>2903418
>There is something. Cool. Doesn't tell us to what extent what we know is true or if it is possible to truly know at all.
Our senses reveal reality
If you don't believe that, you live in delusion
There's nothing more to say

>>2903427
If everything is policed, what is the policy of nature as a whole?
There is none. As you say, there is equilibrium, with disturbances that balance themselves into further equilibriums. That is harmony.
>>2903422
>you are wrong
Try being deductive. Mobility is mutually excluded by competition.
If we all rise, what are we rising relative to? There must be those at the bottom for others to be on the top.
>condemning large sections of the population to poverty
Which populations? The condemnation is self-inflicted, as in my case. I am a lazy lumpen who refuses to work. I am simply one of many.
>historical factors
Which historical factors made me poor? Tell me.
Save me from myself, why don't you?
>so?
So, you cannot absolutely separate gender from sex
>our current mode of production is not "natural order"
I never claimed it was. Natural order would mean deconstructing the industrial revolution. It would be all for the best. Marx himself explains quite clearly that centralised, capitalist production requires violence.

>>2903429
Our senses perceive and… That' all they do.
From thoses perception and its ability to attribute meaning, your brain perform a reconstruction which is either reality itself or the approximation of reality, depending once again on how you define reality.
But to insist upon making the reconstruction of the outside world and the outside world itself one and the same is the surest way to make yourself vulnerable to delusions.

>>2903430
>If everything is policed, what is the policy of nature as a whole?
Nature is not policed. Society is. It is inevitable from the moment there is any degree of social organization, whether they're the result of laws or customs.

>That is harmony
No it is not. Harmony imply some degree of concord or cooperation. An equilibrium do not have to be harmonious.

>>2903436
All sensory data is factual. All sensation is real.
>An equilibrium do not have to be harmonious.
Can you give any examples?

>>2903450
>All sensory data is factual. All sensation is real.
Empty sentence once more. Because you amalgate "truth" "existence" and "real" you are basically claiming hallucinations are real.
I will however refuse to make such confusion. Instead I will make claim that there are such thing as sensory data and sensations, that they exists, but that they can be misleading , incomplete or erroneous. Which can make them not true.

>Can you give any examples?
An encysted abcess.

>>2903430
>what are we rising relative to?
relative to concrete conditions so that there arent cities with people drinking lead water and living in 3rd world conditions
>The condemnation is self-inflicted
the cia peddling drugs to black americans then starting a war on drugs to imprison large populations of the black male population destabilizing families was "self-inflicted"?
>Which historical factors made me poor?
proletarianization wherein the peasants were slowly dispossessed of their land and forced to work wages while unable to afford any substantial property for themselves, and the lack of the socialization of the economy leading to the commons being gradually neglected in favour of private profit
>So, you cannot absolutely separate gender from sex
no one claimed they are not correlated so you have not made a salient point
>Natural order would mean deconstructing the industrial revolution
so now you advocate for anarcho-primitivism or what?

>>2899246
>I have been brainwashed by rightist propaganda into believing that human ethnicities or "races" have differing skills a capabilities because of biological factors
you can disprove this by working in retail, where you learn that every race is equally retarded

>>2903473
>hallucinations
Hallucinations are "real" even if "untrue", you would concur?
>>2903482
>black americans
You seem obsessed with race, I have to say.
African-Americans aren't poor because of the war on drugs, no.
You could go back to redlining for a better example. The purposeful segregation of housing by a denial of housing subsidies leading to a lack of equity and government dependence contributes more. The poorest people in my country are all white, but live off of welfare.
>proletarianization
No, I am poor because I choose to be, as I have explained.
I prefer my free time to paid labour. That's the accounting.
>you advocate for anarcho-primitivism or what?
I'm not advocating for anything, but rather, against unnatural things.
Anarcho-primitivism is a contrived ideology against civilisation itself, and even Ted Kaczynski criticised it, instead preferring Neo-Luddism, which views the industrial revolution in particular (e.g. post-1800s) as uniquely harmful, but the rest of history as minimally legitimate. I do not begin with a critique, but know that if people were able to freely associate and cooperate, we would see the absolute decline of trade, and so industry would become derelict. Capitalism is a totalitarian state mandate on behalf of the ruling class. If we took away tension in the social body, everything would reside in its correct placement. As for what humanity decides to do after capitalism is not up to me. Hopefully we won't have WW3 before the whole system collapses.

Every time a smart, beautiful or good person dies the cosmos balances this out by also killing off an equal amount of smartness, beauty and goodness in every other race to preserve the divine mandate of shitlib equality. Only schizoid chud nazis disagree.

you guys sure do become highly motivated and talkative whenever the subject of scientific racism comes up. someone tries to talk about something legitimate like labor rights or economic sustainability on this site and it's crickets chirping, but someone talks about autism score and white birth rates and negroid skull dimensions and an entire russian novel's worth of text is generated.

>>2903826
>labor rights or economic sustainability
These topics have never been brought up to begin with.

>>2903826
>Hallucinations are "real" even if "untrue"
No. hallucinations exist but the entire point of the concept is that they aren't real.
Honestly if it was technically possiblen, there should be a worldfilter for real and reality just your posts. You just can't be trusted with thoses word you snivelling weasel.

>>2903880
meant for
>>2903822

>>2903825
funniest shit I've ever read

>>2903880
So things can exist without being real?
Existence is an aspect of reality. Reality is primary.
<Existence is the state of having being or reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
<Reality is the totality of existence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
If existence precedes reality, can existence be unreal?
And further, can non-existence have reality?

>>2903822
>You seem obsessed with race, I have to say
when you say something simply wrong and get corrected the people correcting you are obsessed
>You could go back to redlining for a better example
you are just giving more reasons why calling it self-inflicted is ridiculous
>because I choose to be
your choices are parametrized by the conditions you live in and there are plenty of people that are working hard just to make ends meet or are simply unable to make ends meet. your personal sense of voluntarism also does not generalize to large populations especially when there are clearly other historical conditions at work
>but rather, against unnatural things
society is inherently artificial

>>2903912
>simply unable to make ends meet
*simply unable to find a job and make ends meet

>>2903912
>something simply wrong
What did I say that was wrong?
>calling it self-inflicted is ridiculous
What causes people to be on welfare for their whole life? Themselves.
I think people should have the freedom to choose poverty.
It is a valid lifestyle choice to be unemployed and lazy, no?
>your choices are parametrized by the conditions you live in
Yes, and while some rise above, others sink to the bottom.
Being born poor is not a condemnation to further poverty.
>voluntarism also does not generalize to large populations
Yes it does; all people are self-determined. We all have choices.
>historical conditions at work
So everyone who is poor is a victim of someone else?
Why is it inconceivable that many people prefer poverty?
As I say, the poor whites around me are "uygha rich" all the same.
It's not a racial thing; its a disposition to economic irresponsibility.

>>2903933
>What causes people to be on welfare for their whole life?
deindustrialization, the destabilization of family unit, the fact that jobs do not pay enough (there are plenty of people who are on welfare who do actually work). all of these factors lead to small opportunities and further alienation which might manifest as "laziness" at the subjective level
>We all have choices
doesn't mean such choices exist in a vacuum from material reality. imagine a peasant being like "well i am just lazy so i am not going to work". it would basically never happen. even the attitude of just being "lazy" in this context is a process of lumpenization that presupposes prior proletarianization
>So everyone who is poor is a victim of someone else?
i dont care for moralism with regards to the actions of individuals. what i care about civilizational development