Comments
Wahaha OP wrote
A source is just a different origin for the same claim and no evidence.
Wahaha OP wrote (edited )
By the way - and this came up in a different discussion I had today - a "reputable source" is nothing but an euphemism for a source that screens based on your own filter bubble. Essentially you are not asking for a "source" you are asking implicitly whether or not your own tribe agrees with this new information. (If it's not part of your tribe it isn't "reputable".)
What you should be asking instead is whether or not there is any evidence for the claim. But this is impossible to provide as information over the Internet, as information can be tampered with. So just take it as possibly true until you find corresponding evidence.
smallpond wrote
Nah, you need to go easy on the red pills. Some tribes are genuinely stupider than others.
I should have been more specific, but my default reputable source is s peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal. That's pretty easy to find/trust over the internet.
Shit like this is ok if it's entertaining, but you're safer to assume it's a lie without a reputable source.
Wahaha OP wrote
It still means the same thing. It's just more fancy sounding words for "does my tribe approve?". A "reputable journal" is "something my tribe screens for wrongthink" and "peer-review" means "a lot of people from my tribe agree".
The only reason you have an easy way to trust these is because they are from your tribe. So even if they are wrong, at least you are all wrong together.
It's essentially a form of confirmation bias.
smallpond wrote
No, it's not the same. Perhaps you have no idea about scientific enquiry or standards, and so your world is just a insane nightmare of lies with no conception of truth, and thus no hope of finding it.
Sadly the truth of many/most things is not clear, but some information does exist that we can learn from.
Good luck in your waking nightmare.
Wahaha OP wrote
It's the same thing as long as you only listen to scientists of your tribe. Just take climate change as an example: https://files.catbox.moe/kh4kvl.mp4
"Science" has on ongoing replication crisis. And if it's not possible to replicate results, then they are meaningless.
smallpond wrote
I don't typically play mp4 files while browsing tor.
Climate change is a great example of vested interests empowering an army or morons who have absolutely no hope of understanding such a complex system.
^ An important message that's very hard to impress on people.
Wahaha OP wrote
"Don't think for yourself, believe the Priest who tells you what is written in the Bible."
Yeah.. right.
It's just more tribalism. Science is something everyone can do. That's so neat about it. In theory, there are no gatekeepers. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that all the predictions in relation to climate science haven't come true.
If someone tells you the world will end in ten years and then it doesn't, why believe him again?
smallpond wrote (edited )
No, science is not something everyone can do. Most people have no idea how much work and attention to detail is involved. Most people are just too stupid to be scientists. Unfortunately comprehending ones own stupidity takes intelligence, and so it's quite hard to explain to those who really need to understand.
Wahaha OP wrote
Just not true. Science is open to everyone. You might not be able to contribute anything new, but understanding and verifying existing concepts isn't that hard.
Your mindset is essentially dogma. "Don't try to read the Bible yourself, we tell you what it says. Trust us."
smallpond wrote
but understanding and verifying existing concepts isn't that hard.
Ah, but it is, and you also need the critical thinking skills to recognize the limitations and flaws in scientific arguments. Remember back at school, when some kids would get 98% on math tests, and others would fail: that's not just because of late bloomers, it's because some people are just intellectually incapable of understanding scientific/mathematical concepts. Perhaps you're one of them?
Wahaha OP wrote
No, it's quite easy to verify existing concepts. You just have to repeat the same experiment and see if you get the same results. You don't need a high priest to tell you the truth. You can verify these things by yourself.
Sure, depending on the equipment needed you might lack the means to replicate the experiment personally, but there should be other labs with the necessary equipment around to verify the results.
Unfortunately these days replicating results seems not possible for a whole lot of things.
And as far as climate change goes it's even simpler. You just have to read a bunch of predictions for the next ten years, then wait twenty years and see if the predictions were true. As far as climate change goes, though, all the predictions of the past decades have been wrong. So you could be a total idiot and still know that it was predicted for the polar caps to melt by now and see that they haven't melted, so the prediction was wrong.
smallpond wrote
No, you may not have the intelligence to grasp many scientific concepts - let alone verify them.
Climate change has proceeded just as predicted:
You are lost, without the tools to tell truth from lies.
Wahaha OP wrote
Keep believing tribe approved facts, I guess.
smallpond wrote
Without the brainpower to evaluate concepts independently, that's all you have. Sad thing is, whichever tribe you choose, you'll still be wrong.
You never did say how you did at math back at school - you know, when your ability to understand simple scientific concepts was tested objectively...
Wahaha OP wrote
As far as math goes, I was top of class. Not that it matters much. That's the neat thing about science. You don't need to be especially smart to get the basics and as long as someone else outlines the higher level stuff it's not that difficult to follow along.
Making science into dogma is stupid.
smallpond wrote
Well, that's the thing about the internet, we can all pretend to be anything we want. Well done on your new huge brain.
Now that you're not stupid, it's clear to you how easily the majority of people can be mislead by bad faith actors presenting simplified incorrect science. Without your inferiority complex you have no need to bolster your ego by pretending that being white somehow makes you superior to other people. You now have the brainpower to consider people as individuals rather than placing them in skin coloured boxes.
Wahaha OP wrote
That's pretty much what the mass media is doing, yeah. You're still doing the skin color deflection, too. The talking point isn't skin color but phenotype. Or race. People are not predisposed to certain behavior because of the color of their skin, but because of their race. And even then you are going to have outliers in either direction.
But we are talking genetics here, not social factors, so even if you have an outlier, their children and grandchildren are going to return to the mean.
So you get stuff like the following where the child of someone trying to make a living destroys their living space (he got his phone taken away as a disciplinary measure, I hear), because he's unable to deal with the higher level of aggression typical for his race: https://seed125.bitchute.com/uJ9IAmdRfCdL/P12Fjpsg2Z1X.mp4 (Mirror: https://files.catbox.moe/tp9r6f.mp4)
This then translates into higher likelihood for violent crime once he gets older. Of course, if there was a father in his live he could teach him and maybe avoid the worst case scenario. Maybe. Low IQ coupled with high aggression makes for an unfortunate starting point in life.
Especially when put in a normal school class that expects you to be something you are not. So it's unsurprising that low IQ children tune out of school and do something else with their life. They still want a place to belong where they can respect for the things they do. And if they are naturally prone to high level of aggression you get gangs that fight each other. If you are not naturally prone to this you might escape into video games.
The root problem is that school fails both high and low IQ children. If the place we force children to spend most of their day was actually a place they could feel they belong to, where they could get respect for the things they do, then things wouldn't be this bad.
But high IQ children get bored with school. You can't feel respected when you solve problems that are way below you. It feels suffocating. Like people take you for an idiot. And low IQ children get overwhelmed. You can't feel respected when you are unable to solve any of the problems given to you, either. No matter how hard you try.
smallpond wrote
Nah, you're still focusing on skin color, perhaps because your brain's not as big as you claim. Trying to separate nature from nuture is complex, and there may be much better ways to group people than just race/skin. But then all the failures who have nothing going for them apart from white skin couldn't feel superior about something.
takeheart wrote
IQ is statistical test about sorting geometrical figures, not a real property of man. I remember what Shulgin wrote about IQ tests. I remember my own experience where I was accused cheating. In this wall of greentext I can believe claims about mapping, and that's about it. Claims about empathy are especially out of place.
Wahaha OP wrote
It is you that is coming back to skin color again and again. What a racist you are.
smallpond wrote
Would have preferred a link to a reputable source discussing such things.