User Controls
teh retraded thred herppppp slober fuk glum editshin
-
2017-04-09 at 7:45 PM UTCubbnan
-
2017-04-09 at 8:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny In any case, all the causative forces of my class are social, not material. I make the wages I make for the same reason most people do: I was born into the culture that serves as the primary qualification for the position in society, any other credential is largely a side effect of that fact.
Only thing you were born into was a good head on your shoulders and parents dedicated to teach you proper work ethic. A nigger from Africa doesn't do as well as you do because they literally do not have the mental capacity to do so.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-04-09 at 9:06 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Only thing you were born into was a good head on your shoulders and parents dedicated to teach you proper work ethic. A nigger from Africa doesn't do as well as you do because they literally do not have the mental capacity to do so.
We clearly have different ideas on the degree to which upbringing influences adult character traits, but honestly this seems to hurt your world view a lot more than mine. Let's suppose, for argument that indeed "niggers from africa are mentally incapable of maintaining western style white collar jobs", abilities in humans are naturally and immutably divergent. If you're unwilling to subsidize natural deficits then you're left with saying those born with less ability, or into cultures that don't have value systems that set you up for success in the modern world, are just shit out of luck. They lost a natural lottery at birth and are just fucked, their failure is inevitable. Conversely your captains of industry are there by birthright. Any sane notion of fairness seems to break apart and you're left with "welp, the world is unfair, sure glad I wasn't born totally fucked, too bad for them".
At least with a tabula rasa outlook you can maintain the illusion that the poor are actually somewhat responsible for their situation. -
2017-04-09 at 9:11 PM UTCHey, you guys know that thing called adoption? Yeah, turns out niggers from Africa can be successful when given to average families in the US. That kinda discredits the whole genetics argument.
-
2017-04-09 at 9:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny We clearly have different ideas on the degree to which upbringing influences adult character traits, but honestly this seems to hurt your world view a lot more than mine. Let's suppose, for argument that indeed "niggers from africa are mentally incapable of maintaining western style white collar jobs", abilities in humans are naturally and immutably divergent. If you're unwilling to subsidize natural deficits then you're left with saying those born with less ability, or into cultures that don't have value systems that set you up for success in the modern world, are just shit out of luck. They lost a natural lottery at birth and are just fucked, their failure is inevitable. Conversely your captains of industry are there by birthright. Any sane notion of fairness seems to break apart and you're left with "welp, the world is unfair, sure glad I wasn't born totally fucked, too bad for them".
Originally posted by Dargo Hey, you guys know that thing called adoption? Yeah, turns out niggers from Africa can be successful when given to average families in the US. That kinda discredits the whole genetics argument.
Here's 400 pages saying you're wrong.
https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_2008_The_Global_Bell_Curve_-_Race_IQ_and_Inequality_Worldwide.pdf
Also, even if the average nigger has IQ of 90, you can still get a good job in construction or whatever. You don't need to be smart to carry a hammer and pound on nails. And in the West you can make a decent living doing just that. So the argument that the poor are just poor because they're stupid is void. Stupid people can do manual labor, and should. Us smarter folk will do the rest. -
2017-04-09 at 9:20 PM UTC
-
2017-04-09 at 9:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Here's 400 pages saying you're wrong.
https://www.ttu.ee/public/m/mart-murdvee/EconPsy/2/Lynn_2008_The_Global_Bell_Curve_-_Race_IQ_and_Inequality_Worldwide.pdf
Also, even if the average nigger has IQ of 90, you can still get a good job in construction or whatever. You don't need to be smart to carry a hammer and pound on nails. And in the West you can make a decent living doing just that. So the argument that the poor are just poor because they're stupid is void. Stupid people can do manual labor, and should. Us smarter folk will do the rest.
Wrong about what lol? You literally said:A nigger from Africa doesn't do as well as you do because they literally do not have the mental capacity to do so.
So which is it? Is african poverty a product of lower mental abilities or isn't it? -
2017-04-09 at 9:24 PM UTC
-
2017-04-09 at 9:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny So which is it? Is african poverty a product of lower mental abilities or isn't it?
Originally posted by Dargo Lower mental abilities + shitty culture + too much foreign welfare.
Boom. Settled.
Basically. Although shitty culture is a product of lower intelligence i would say.
AND, you can't run a country on just construction workers. -
2017-04-09 at 9:45 PM UTCOK, so how exactly is that supposed to challenge my original assertion that we are largely born into our economic class?
Malice seemed to think the relative ease with which I've moved through my society posed some issue to my position that social mobility in modern america is extremely limited. I responded by saying that just as limited social mobility keeps the poor poor, so to does it pin me to my comfortable position. Poverty isn't a product of personal moral failures of the lower class just as my (relative!) means are not a reflection of personal virtue. They're symptoms of the economic class we're born into. -
2017-04-09 at 9:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny OK, so how exactly is that supposed to challenge my original assertion that we are largely born into our economic class?
Malice seemed to think the relative ease with which I've moved through my society posed some issue to my position that social mobility in modern america is extremely limited. I responded by saying that just as limited social mobility keeps the poor poor, so to does it pin me to my comfortable position. Poverty isn't a product of personal moral failures of the lower class just as my (relative!) means are not a reflection of personal virtue. They're symptoms of the economic class we're born into.
The answer is partially both. Obviously, the class you are born into shapes the number of opportunities you will have to grow and prosper. The thing in America though, is that while in a lower class you have less opportunities, you still have some. You simply have to be more on top of things and take advantage of the resources at your disposal. And guess what? If you follow through and do make something of yourself from a lower class, you'll ultimately be stronger than the guy who never had to lift a finger. -
2017-04-09 at 10:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I think it aligns with a postmodernist model of wealth distribution in capitalistic societies quite well. My position in society was inherited rather than earned. Despite a number of setbacks, both self-caused and external, it was piss easy for me to regain my parents' position in the upper middle class even without any transfer of material wealth from them to me. My class isn't a function of my bank account but an inherited cultural artifact. I was indoctrinated, entirely without choice, into the american middle class culture: one which conflates intelligence with moral worth, that values education, property rights, and work ethic highly but which makes limited concessions to these things, and which sees itself as justified by its ability to file itself into certain positions in society.
An amusing ideological contradiction that exists in my caste and distinguishes us from the one immediately below: we have this notion of work ethic, like it's good to work hard and always give it your all, the career almost always comes before personal gratification. We attach moral weight to the fact that we work for, and moreover "earn" a living through personal merit (at least this is how the story goes). Yet we see investment as an acceptable practice, despite the fact that it's income that's not gained by selling labor, which is the hallmark of our kind. If you go down a little bit on the economic ladder excess income isn't invested, if you go up a little bit investment starts to become a primary economic activity. It's hilarious to see how this plays out, in cases where my kind mobilizes upwards they start to experience some mild social ostracization, when your primary source of income is no longer selling your labor you start to be somewhat mistrusted, while if you have no investment income you're seen as capricious or short sighted (again, playing into the intelligence/moral worth thing), because honestly it's just common sense that you should have investments.
In any case, all the causative forces of my class are social, not material. I make the wages I make for the same reason most people do: I was born into the culture that serves as the primary qualification for the position in society, any other credential is largely a side effect of that fact.
"it's dey culture" What a pathetic trite excuse. This has been disproven, and central aspects of culture can arise from genetics, theoretically, so you may be committing a fallacy.
What kind of culture did uneducated Chinese peasants working manual labor and facing discrimination via statist mechanisms have that allowed them to still be underrepresented for crimes? You can see success from East Asian groups that were sizeable minorities in some areas, such as the Japanese in Brazil or Chinese in Malaysia.
Do you really feel they had that strong of an impact on you? Because in studies, it's the non-shared environment, which is an unknown variable,largely, rather than mommy and daddy that account for the the non-genetic component. -
2017-04-09 at 10:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny OK, so how exactly is that supposed to challenge my original assertion that we are largely born into our economic class?
Malice seemed to think the relative ease with which I've moved through my society posed some issue to my position that social mobility in modern america is extremely limited. I responded by saying that just as limited social mobility keeps the poor poor, so to does it pin me to my comfortable position. Poverty isn't a product of personal moral failures of the lower class just as my (relative!) means are not a reflection of personal virtue. They're symptoms of the economic class we're born into.
"pinned him to his position" As if he was inescapably being swept along by the current of life, his cultural programming, and his own internal constitution had nothing to do with it. Gave me a good chuckle.
Leftists always seem to have a problem with the idea of man not being moldable as they'd like, with aspects of human nature/reality that interfere with their utopian ideals. -
2017-04-09 at 10:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Malice Leftists always seem to have a problem with the idea of man not being moldable as they'd like, with aspects of human nature/reality that interfere with their utopian ideals.
Yet at the same time man is infinitely malleable as he can even supersede biology and choose his own gender.
That, or there is no reason for man to change, because in the name of diversity, all cultures should be celebrated. Even the ones that execute homos and shit in the street. -
2017-04-09 at 10:22 PM UTCtrivial arguments about gay liberal human stuff
get on my level
i am objectively the smartest person on this forum -
2017-04-09 at 11:34 PM UTC
Originally posted by Malice "it's dey culture" What a pathetic trite excuse.
No utheoretically, so you may be committing a fallacy.
No, no, anything but someone accusing me of committing a fallacy!What kind of culture did uneducated Chinese peasants working manual labor and facing discrimination via statist mechanisms have that allowed them to still be underrepresented for crimes?
A culture that places value on docility and conformity with a long history of stable aristocrat/peasant divide, and then selection pressures that moved those most willing to be exploited overseas would seem to go a long way to explaining it.Do you really feel they had that strong of an impact on you? Because in studies, it's the non-shared environment, which is an unknown variable,largely, rather than mommy and daddy that account for the the non-genetic component.
One's parents directly? To an extent of course, but not exclusively. But parents go a long way in deciding their children's environment, their peer group, and peer groups are a critical part of socialization, acquisition of social traits. I didn't learn to talk and behave the way I do just out of thin air. This goofy wordy style of prose is not encoded in DNA anywhere, writing isn't even an evolved behavior (most historical members of our species were incapable of it). -
2017-04-09 at 11:39 PM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo The thing in America though, is that while in a lower class you have less opportunities, you still have some. You simply have to be more on top of things and take advantage of the resources at your disposal. And guess what? If you follow through and do make something of yourself from a lower class, you'll ultimately be stronger than the guy who never had to lift a finger.
Ah, we have this really great term for that! It's called "slave morality".
Originally posted by Malice Leftists always seem to have a problem with the idea of man not being moldable as they'd like, with aspects of human nature/reality that interfere with their utopian ideals.
You like to think that, but it's a just a comforting lie. Like I already said, my world view can deal with divergent natural abilities quite well. I tend to think much of what constitutes us is cultural, but that's incidental, if it turns out to be entirely false it will be a little disappointing but poses no real thread. Your silly meritocratic play land has a real issue to deal with if it wants to confront genetic differences while maintaining its air of justice. -
2017-04-10 at 12:23 AM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-04-10 at 1:21 AM UTCYOU CANT LEARN HOW TO *LEARN* SHITHEAD
-
2017-04-10 at 1:23 AM UTC
