L.O.L.

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:23 pm

As a sidepoint, China is predominently Han-driven. If we were looking at other smaller cultures and depending on your geopolitcal preferences, you could even add Tibet in the mix.

Ah, yes, it seems I did end on this weird place called F*STD cause they thought I was a rigorist christian or something lol? :D Can't remember.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Khas wrote:
sonofccn wrote:
Khas wrote:Also, a big part of the racial tension in the U.S. is actually the fault of rich landowners, who did everything they could to make sure that poor whites, black slaves, and indentured servants (both black and white) never unified, lest they go all French Revolution on their asses (which came close to happening a few times). Now, let this indoctrination continue for the next few centuries, and we have the clusterfuck on our hands today. Basically, it's as Palpatine said in Revenge of the Sith - those with power are always afraid of losing it, and will do anything to keep it.
Care to elaborate, Khas? What indoctrination are we specifically talking about? Obviously I don't think I would agree but I do want to hear you out.
Perhaps "indoctrination" was the wrong word, but it was the first one that came to mind. Basically, what I meant was that, in some areas, when poor whites were told that they were of a superior race to blacks, that idea kept being repeated throughout the generations. Of course, not everyone believed this, but the idea got passed on enough to ingrain itself into the culture - believe me, I live in Pennsyltucky, and I've seen plenty of this shit - where it unfortunately lingers to this day.
This will keep going on if nothing is done, for example, to bring enough evidence to dispute the reliability of IQ tests. All these rednecks only need to point at the numerous IQ studies realized across the entire African continent for one. Or just click on a special map. The only counter to that argument is doing your best to prove that IQ tests really are bogus and from there, proceed to hammer the point on and on.

However, for example when one looks for evidence of a lack of reliability it's easy to find a click-bait article like this one: IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows, but here's what one will read:
Researchers have determined in the largest online study on the intelligence quotient (IQ) that results from the test may not exactly show how smart someone is. [Wow. First line and we've already gone from certainty to oh well maybe perhaps who knows not sure dunno...]

"When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ -- or of you having a higher IQ than me -- is a myth," Dr. Adrian Owen, the study's senior investigator and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute said to the Toronto Star. "There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence." [Sounds like a strawman argument. Who said there was one single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence?]

They found that there was not one single test or component that could accurately judge how well a person could perform mental and cognitive tasks. Instead, they determined there are at least three different components that make up intelligence or a "cognitive profile": short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component. [FLASH NEWS: scientists discover that a human's cognitive abilities are a compound of several ... abilities!]

Researchers also discovered that training one's brain to help perform better cognitively did not help.
"People who 'brain-train' are no better at any of these three aspects of intelligence than people who don't," Owen said. [Well that's damning. IQ tests are meant to cover a wide range of mental abilities. But now it seems that training may not help "cheating" on the final scores? So much for the "we aint got no dem skools coz we' poor" argument.]

For some reason, people who played video games did better on reasoning and short-term memory portions of the test. [At last, some good news playmates! But wait. If it actually improves some mental abilities, then why is it not considered brain-training?]

"We have shown categorically that you cannot sum up the difference between people in terms of one number, and that is really what is important here," Owen told the CBC. [Huh? Reading from the article alone, it certainly does not get there at all!]
The overall idea one gets after reading this article is not exactly what the title was alluding to, and it's a poor job in the end.
Hard to say who's fault it is. The sensationalist press for not reporting properly what the study was about?
Let's check the paper itself then!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7312005843
ScienceDirect, 2012 wrote:What makes one person more intellectually able than another? Can the entire distribution of human intelligence be accounted for by just one general factor? Is intelligence supported by a single neural system? Here, we provide a perspective on human intelligence that takes into account how general abilities or “factors” reflect the functional organization of the brain. By comparing factor models of individual differences in performance with factor models of brain functional organization, we demonstrate that different components of intelligence have their analogs in distinct brain networks. Using simulations based on neuroimaging data, we show that the higher-order factor “g” is accounted for by cognitive tasks corecruiting multiple networks. Finally, we confirm the independence of these components of intelligence by dissociating them using questionnaire variables. We propose that intelligence is an emergent property of anatomically distinct cognitive systems, each of which has its own capacity.
You can appreciate the HUGE SPIN put onto the study's results. A spin equally found in several other newslets.
That said, I'm quite skeptic about those IQ tests...
If one is looking for better criticism, he can start here for example.

Then you also get other studies that almost sound too silly to mention them: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04 ... ly-measure
Brains wrote: While subjects taking such tests are usually instructed to try as hard as they can, previous research has shown that not everyone makes the maximum effort. A number of studies have found that subjects who are promised monetary rewards for doing well on IQ and other cognitive tests score significantly higher.
Essentially, they found that people who didn't give a damn about tests didn't get good scores.
...
No shit Sherlock.
How much do these crap studies cost again?

So, perhaps the opinion of an anthropologist might be useful here?

Wait, there's more!
Brains wrote: To further examine the role of motivation on both IQ test scores and the ability of IQ tests to predict life success, Duckworth and her team carried out two studies, both reported in today's paper. First, they conducted a "meta-analysis" that combined the results of 46 previous studies of the effect of monetary incentives on IQ scores, representing a total of more than 2000 test-taking subjects. The financial rewards ranged from less than $1 to $10 or more. The team calculated a statistical parameter called Hedge's g to indicate how big an effect the incentives had on IQ scores; g values of less than 0.2 are considered small, 0.5 are moderate, and 0.7 or higher are large.

Duckworth's team found that the average effect was 0.64 (which is equivalent to nearly 10 points on the IQ scale of 100), and remained higher than 0.5 even when three studies with unusually high g values were thrown out. Moreover, the effect of financial rewards on IQ scores increased dramatically the higher the reward: Thus rewards higher than $10 produced g values of more than 1.6 (roughly equivalent to more than 20 IQ points), whereas rewards of less than $1 were only one-tenth as effective.
Yay, in other words, even with lots of money for grabs, you might push the scores up ten to twenty points and that's about it... and there would obviously be limits since I really doubt anybody would become a genius because GOLD!
Of course, it's quite absurd to even think that the vast majority of IQ tests have been done under the promise of sweet candy if one would perform admirably.

Extra Time!
Brains wrote: In the second study, Duckworth and her ...
According to the researchers, that suggests that native intelligence does still play an important role in both IQ scores and academic achievement.
And just to make matters worse:
Brains wrote: Nevertheless, the Duckworth team concludes that IQ tests are measuring much more than just raw intelligence--they also measure how badly subjects want to succeed both on the test and later in life.
So not only do these tests give a good idea of how stupid or smart you are, but they also reveal if you're a lazy bum or a Fortune500 achiever.

And just to backstab the idea hinted at in the initial paragraph of the article:
Brains wrote: Yet Duckworth and her colleagues caution that motivation isn't everything: The lower role for motivation in academic achievement, they write, suggests that "earning a high IQ score requires high intelligence in addition to high motivation."
Woop-tee-doo!
I mean, how the heck are you even supposed to argue against the random grandgrandgrandgrandson of a Confederate slaver when even science seems to do about anything it can to worsen the whole thing?? :|

You may try arguing that low scores in Africa are caused by a lack of education, nutrition, etc. But then the correlation gets reverted: they sukc because they dumbs. Which, well, embarassing as it is, it sounds convincing enough to some people: An opinion defended by an expert Japanese a decade ago or so. Maybe he's lost his job by now? But then again he comes from a culture that's still far off on the racist spectrum.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: L.O.L.

Post by sonofccn » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:01 pm

Admiral Breetai wrote:they certainly were, Norman, Saxon, Frankish. They were a melting pot of people united by a conquerer, galvanized a by a century of warfare and united in a mono culture it all. They weren't diverse in a filled with reprobate, degenerates from the middle east way...though.

Which is an important distinction,.
I would have to disagree. They were off different tribes with different cultures and customs but after a couple of generations of blending culture you wouldn't be able to tell who started as which. 21st century diverse, mix-race nations are a different issue all together. Where, as BLM shows, race seems to become all the more important because there's a mixture.
Admiral Breetai wrote:Yes and that's my point, you can only have diversity when you're extremely selective about who you choose to mingle with, united behind one strong culture and when you act in preservation and enhancement of that culture.
Well that's isn't really diversity. That Meritocracy.

But if that is what you mean by "diversity" as opposed to the cultural Marxist guilt trip it currently is I see what you mean and wouldn't disagree with you. I'm less optimistic than you that it can be done but nothing would make me happier than see it.

And I do apologize if I came across gruffer than I intended. I just have a bugbear with those people who act like the only distinctive quality of note or worth in the West/America is immigration.
Khas wrote:Perhaps "indoctrination" was the wrong word, but it was the first one that came to mind. Basically, what I meant was that, in some areas, when poor whites were told that they were of a superior race to blacks, that idea kept being repeated throughout the generations. Of course, not everyone believed this, but the idea got passed on enough to ingrain itself into the culture - believe me, I live in Pennsyltucky, and I've seen plenty of this shit - where it unfortunately lingers to this day.
That really sounds just like basic humanity to me. One naturally tends to invest pride and self-worth in one's group, especially if you have little enough in your personal life, and look down upon others. And that goes for Black and White. I don't see the need for a conspiracy to explain why a poor free man might see himself superior to a race of beings brought in chains and traded as a commodity.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Khas » Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:08 pm

Granted, the racism was already there. But on the other hand, there HAD already been a large uprising where poor free whites, black slaves, and indentured servants of all races had banded together to overthrow the rich. Granted, the uprising failed, but it scared the rich enough so that they'd do everything in their power to prevent another one.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: L.O.L.

Post by sonofccn » Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:27 pm

Khas wrote:Granted, the racism was already there. But on the other hand, there HAD already been a large uprising where poor free whites, black slaves, and indentured servants of all races had banded together to overthrow the rich. Granted, the uprising failed, but it scared the rich enough so that they'd do everything in their power to prevent another one.
When did this uprising take place? Because I'm drawing a blank on this. I know there were various slave rebellions but those to my knowledge were largely composed of free blacks/slaves as well as the occasional northern abolitionist. Not this pseudo-French Revolution revolt of the lower classes as you are suggesting.

Further if the racism was already there, as you agree, what evidence exactly is there for the conspiracy you alleged took place afterwards?

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Khas » Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:08 pm

Bacon's Rebellion.

And it looks like grudges against the rich were only one cause of it (the other being refusal to retaliate against Native Americans).

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1796
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Admiral Breetai » Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:46 am

sonofccn wrote: I would have to disagree. They were off different tribes with different cultures and customs but after a couple of generations of blending culture you wouldn't be able to tell who started as which. 21st century diverse, mix-race nations are a different issue all together. Where, as BLM shows, race seems to become all the more important because there's a mixture.]
the Brits actually continued to harp on these differences well into the late 19th century and some still do to this day. There's a great deal of pride and deference given to families who can still trace their lineage back to the Saxons. Bernard Cornwell, was inspired to create an entire book series based on his genealogy for example.

it was such a point of note that Doyle has Holmes reference several times the ethnic divide in the ancient ancestors of some of his wealthier clientèle. It's less of an issue now because as eunuch Powell noted "Being an Englishman" is far more important now..with a horde of degenerate rapists at your door and all.
sonofccn wrote: Well that's isn't really diversity. That Meritocracy.

But if that is what you mean by "diversity" as opposed to the cultural Marxist guilt trip it currently is I see what you mean and wouldn't disagree with you. I'm less optimistic than you that it can be done but nothing would make me happier than see it.
Given the historical examples I've cited, I thought the meritocratic nature of the "diversity" I'm talking about was pretty obvious.

Rome fell when it yielded to unrestrained immigration and much of its underclass became welfare dependent hell there's even Roman Graffiti in context of the Germans as "dey didn'tdu nuffin' and obviously that's not what I'm advocating for.
sonofccn wrote:
And I do apologize if I came across gruffer than I intended. I just have a bugbear with those people who act like the only distinctive quality of note or worth in the West/America is immigration.
like I said, my ancestors destroyed those blood sacrificing, degenerate nativos, erected a rather famous (inside of Argentina any way) estate over the bones of their children (this isn't hyperbole Ernesto Boero gathered every single chief and "shaman" that he hadn't slaughtered, their children, killed them all dumped them in a mass grave and erected a fucking palace over them) my family still owns today...this is not an argument for immigration ubbers alls

its "we as a society stand to gain from a strong, meritocratic form of cultural imperialism"

if it wasn't obvious why I can write the founders so well in the Tidesverse..its probably because I'm just channeling family anecdotes:p

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Khas » Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:35 am

You know, I just find it ironically funny that Quetzalcoatl - the feathered serpent god, and the god of life - actually abhorred human sacrifices.

And another rambling note - I always saw the war between the Aztecs and the Conquistadors as "Evil vs. Evil".

And as I continue to ramble, I'll give my opinion on immigrants' traditions. It really all depends on the traditions in question. If they're harmless, like say, how some German-Argentines still celebrate Oktoberfest, let them be. It adds a little spice to the main culture once it starts absorbing bits it likes from others - this goes double for foods. However, if the tradition is harmful, then out it goes.

But then, this is part of my belief that all people should have the right to know their ancestry, and be proud of it as well - so long as they acknowledge the bad as well as the good.

My own ancestry is a mix of German, Polish, and British (more or less equal parts English, Scottish, and Irish). And while I don't go around constantly flaunting my ancestry, trying to rub it in everyone's faces, I am still proud of my heritage - hell, with my last name "Schultheis", it's almost impossible to NOT acknowledge at least the German part of my ancestry.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:20 am

Khas wrote:Bacon's Rebellion.

And it looks like grudges against the rich were only one cause of it (the other being refusal to retaliate against Native Americans).
Interestingly enough, this case wasn't devoid of ethnics-based concerns too.
In the end, this proves nothing and certainly does not give credence to the idea racial tensions are a fake social construct put in place by wealthy elites.
However, what is far more true is that these people do exploit those tensions knowingly. They did so during the industrial revolution, using women and immigrants against men to keep wages and social advantages at an all time low. Which is exactly what happens today. But their policy is suicidal, for many of the big businesses work well because they benefit from a long legacy of shared social wealth and knowledge that third world immigrants simply don't have as in the vast majority of cases, every single of these specific immigrants allowed in represents a significant reboot of the work done by the "indigeneous" people. Culture, tongue, skills, all of them need to be introduced to the immigrant and taught... assuming said immigrant is even going to care and not enjoy the subsidies. But precisely because of the lack of abilities to communicate easily and a complete disregard for social rights such as defended by syndicates and the turmoil this presupposes, even if there's a trade in terms of quality in their skills, the advantage gotten in return in lower wages is a good thing to big employers.
Now, it would be erroneous to mainly look at racial tensions through the scope of class struggle. With mass poverty and criminality being rampant in areas saturated with third world immigrants and with said areas expanding, people are not competing for jobs any longer as much as they're competing for room, or control of land as it was used to be spelled in the old days and as it's always been in the wilderness. One may complain about economics and social rank but at least something can be done when one's alive.
Ahead of us, dark days there are.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: L.O.L.

Post by 2046 » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:16 am

tl;dr . . . O's Zyklon-B containers are getting rusty and he'd hate to just waste it. Hey, maybe we can send it back in time to Saddam's peaceful Iraq. I'm sure the Kurds would appreciate that.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1651
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: L.O.L.

Post by sonofccn » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:51 pm

Khas wrote: Bacon's Rebellion.

And it looks like grudges against the rich were only one cause of it (the other being refusal to retaliate against Native Americans).
Ah. Thank you. Most interesting.
Admiral Breetai wrote:the Brits actually continued to harp on these differences well into the late 19th century and some still do to this day. There's a great deal of pride and deference given to families who can still trace their lineage back to the Saxons. Bernard Cornwell, was inspired to create an entire book series based on his genealogy for example.

it was such a point of note that Doyle has Holmes reference several times the ethnic divide in the ancient ancestors of some of his wealthier clientèle. It's less of an issue now because as eunuch Powell noted "Being an Englishman" is far more important now..with a horde of degenerate rapists at your door and all.
Well, if you'll bear with me, I'd argue there's a bit of a difference between taking pride that your ancestors happened to be on the British Isles before someone else's and thinking yourself wholly distinct and separate people. For the comparison to be apt Saxons would have to think of themselves as Saxons first and foremost with a culture/history completely distinct from "Being an Englishman". Taking pains to protect this culture from contamination and working to undo or reverse any effect the Normans might have had.

All I meant was that the tribes of Normans and the Saxons more or less effectively blended into one tribe of people. Saxons don't go around rioting destroying their cities to protest Norman oppression and Normans don't self-congregate voting in lockstep for politicians based solely on the fact they are Norman descended like themselves. So I think calling Britain a diverse or mixed nation, and thus why it was "great", simply because of that is a bit wonky.
Admiral Breetai wrote:Given the historical examples I've cited, I thought the meritocratic nature of the "diversity" I'm talking about was pretty obvious.
Perhaps.
Admiral Breetai wrote:like I said, my ancestors destroyed those blood sacrificing, degenerate nativos, erected a rather famous (inside of Argentina any way) estate over the bones of their children (this isn't hyperbole Ernesto Boero gathered every single chief and "shaman" that he hadn't slaughtered, their children, killed them all dumped them in a mass grave and erected a fucking palace over them) my family still owns today
Remind me to try and stay on your family's good side. But wow...that's 40k level right there.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:06 pm

2046 wrote:tl;dr . . . O's Zyklon-B containers are getting rusty and he'd hate to just waste it.
When was ze last time you took a gut shower, herr Anderson?
Hey, maybe we can send it back in time to Saddam's peaceful Iraq. I'm sure the Kurds would appreciate that.
You mean... the same guy backed, armed and given intelligence by the U.S., allowed to attack a country previously destabilized by the U.S., before being toppled himself because turned cumbersome and useless? The same U.S. that threw two nuclear warheads on civilian populations for the sake of a little demonstration? That keeps using this all mushy mushy CIA that's always at the forefront of destabilization and source of so many lovely "springs", once communist, now arab/terrorist?
...
Honestly, save yourself this time travel ordeal and just send these precious canisters to Israel. Truth is, using white phosphorus on Gaza really got boring. :)

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: L.O.L.

Post by 2046 » Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:42 am

Ahh, yes, naturally, out comes the ludicrous old canard about America being bad for ending the war with the atom bomb.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2162
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:29 am

sonofccn wrote:All I meant was that the tribes of Normans and the Saxons more or less effectively blended into one tribe of people. Saxons don't go around rioting destroying their cities to protest Norman oppression and Normans don't self-congregate voting in lockstep for politicians based solely on the fact they are Norman descended like themselves. So I think calling Britain a diverse or mixed nation, and thus why it was "great", simply because of that is a bit wonky.
On some levels. On other levels, you can see the genetic footprint of the boundaries of old Anglo-Saxon kingdoms from before the Norman invasion in Britain.

I think almost every country in Europe has been full of people seeing salient divisions within that culture at almost every point in history. Look at the Balkans for a great set of examples. From the outside, the cultural and linguistic differences between, say, Serbs and Croats are pretty tiny. In the local context, it's a big deal. The Balkans are riddled with lots of ethnic groups that see each other as having distinct salient identities.

Something I don't think is well understood by Americans is just how sharp local identity has been within Europe (and how sharp it is in many other parts of the world). Europeans have generally stayed within their villages of origin at rates no less than the rates at which Americans have stayed within their states of origin.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: L.O.L.

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:27 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:From the outside, the cultural and linguistic differences between, say, Serbs and Croats are pretty tiny. In the local context, it's a big deal.
One can easily observe very similar tensions in several areas of sub-saharian Africa.
Something I don't think is well understood by Americans is just how sharp local identity has been within Europe (and how sharp it is in many other parts of the world). Europeans have generally stayed within their villages of origin at rates no less than the rates at which Americans have stayed within their states of origin.
These memory-relative points of views tend to be forgotten by colonials. Besides, many US citizens tend to move from one place to another within the United States, often covering large distances. Sometimes it goes as far as people moving their houses. It's not surprising therefore that the whole regional rooting one finds in Europe (or any place that has a long history) is less understood by people who are so mobile. As you point out, the effect is scaled up to the entire state, perhaps because the US are just that large and there's little difference in many cases from one side of a state to the other.

Post Reply