Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBear„Initials” ( by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (
Posts 0
Comments 1K
Chinese warships spotted off Alaska coast, US Coast Guard says
  • It is a bit more complicated than that, mostly because the US isn't a signatory to unclos, while China is. However, China does not recognize the agreed upon terms of unclos, while America for the most part does.....

    but news media needs to quit exploiting the fact that readers don't know the difference between different types of waters to manufacture "more-interesting" stories.

    The problem is that there is conflicting information on how the states in question interprets what they and others can do in EEZs, and how the EEZs are constituted in the first place.

    In reality an international body of laws like unclos is only enforceable if the international court is willing to confront its members with hard power. Withholding that, it's just a dog and pony show that has the possibility of validating an international conflict if someone oversteps their mark.

  • Saudi Arabia Threatened to Sell Off Europe’s Bonds If EU Seized Russian Assets
  • Not necessarily, just that post industrialized nations tend to swing harder right when people begin to lose faith in the democratic process.

    I think part of that is due to the lack of strong mutual aid groups and worker organizations that industrialization creates as a byproduct.

    If we look at revolutionary movements in the 20th century for the most part the industrialized nations were the ones who were overtaken by fascism, while unindustrialized countries like Russia and China transitioned to socialism.

    It was one of the wildcards that early socialist didn't really forsee, which is why everyone was so surprised that the first revolution to succeed was in Russia instead of Germany.

  • Saudi Arabia Threatened to Sell Off Europe’s Bonds If EU Seized Russian Assets
  • Well first, I think it depends on your perspective. The French revolution and the 1rst Republic were overthrown by Napoleon. While Napoleon was one of the more liberal dictators, he was still an agent of some pretty terrible imperialism.

    Secondly, there's a reason why I specified post industrial societies. The most successful leftist governments had the advantage of being able to industrialize their nations. Being able to increase the power of a centralized government while simultaneously improving the quality of life of its citizens is one of the more powerful carrots in the revolutionary arsenal.

  • Saudi Arabia Threatened to Sell Off Europe’s Bonds If EU Seized Russian Assets
  • I mean, it kinda depends on what you think will make things better..... Accelerationist ideology is mostly only effective for fascist. Fascism gains power by blaming current problems on the ineffectiveness of parliamentary governments, promising to provide stability with the use of a strong leader.

    The left on the other hand relies on ideas like mutual cooperation and mutual aid, things that require more political and structural organization to bear fruit.

    In post industrialized nations, it's hard to imagine why things would have to regress in order to eventually progress from the current status quo.

  • Well-preserved Neolithic wooden road, the Netherlands
  • There's mainly just a couple ways to keep things from degrading over long periods, but they mostly have to do with controlling the growth of microbes.

    You can do this by controlling moisture, access to oxygen, or modifying things like the pH of the environment. If I'm not mistaken, I believe peats tend to be highly acidic and oxygen deprived.

  • 70%
  • Since the electoral system is managed at the state level, one must wonder why the democrats haven't implemented this easy win mode in the states they control.

    Because political parties are more concerned about donations and influence than democracy. Destroying the two party system would see their monopoly of influence slowly dwindle away

    They don't see Republicans as an existential threat, they see the Republicans as a canary in a coal mine. The Republicans act as a gauge to see exactly how low their own constituents will allow them to sink before they get in trouble. So long as Democrats can look good by comparison, they will continue to serve their donors and themselves over the needs of the people.

  • answer = sum(n) / len(n)
  • Ehhh.... It depends on what you mean by human cognition. Usually when tech people are talking about cognition, they're just talking about a specific cognitive process in neurology.

    Tech enthusiasts tend to present human cognition in a reductive manor that for the most part only focuses on the central nervous system. When in reality human cognition includes anyway we interact with the physical world or metaphysical concepts.

    There's something called the mind body problem that's been mostly a philosophical concept for a long time, but is currently influencing work in medicine and in tech to a lesser degree.

    Basically, it questions if it's appropriate to delineate the mind from the body when it comes to consciousness. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that that mental phenomenon are a subset of physical phenomenon. Meaning that cognition is reliant on actual physical interactions with our surroundings to develop.

  • Please Help Reverse This
  • We're talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: "If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we'll have a problem of stupidity."

    That's your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social "devolution". Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.

    It doesn't rely on nature or nurture, or anything else.

    The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.

    Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were "unfit for parenthood" due to eugenic arguments.

    The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn't have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.

    Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked "racial science", and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society. It's not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same.

    No, but that's literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄

    Lol, there are only two "smart" people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker..... They also have three kids.

    So I don't really think that tracks, more than likely the writers were trying to get across that dumb people like to inappropriatetly talk about their sex life in public.

    I think you're getting a little caught up on concepts like "breeding", which you seem to think is only something that happens in eugenics. All mammals are the product of breeding, it's just a semantic term for sex with added negative connotations because we typically use it while talking about animals.

    The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years. Even if we were talking about selective breeding where we purposely paired stupid people together, this still would not explain every single person being an idiot. That would require a complete shift in social mores to the point where society as a whole sees no value in education or intellect.

    You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point. I've provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine, other than saying I'm "cherry picking", which really isn't an argument.

  • Okay, which one of you wrote this? Lmao
  • Okay, real talk, the concept of ethics in general is a human construct. One that is impossible to apply across all cultures, and even when they are accepted as social mores, they are illogically applied and are often full of internal contradictions.

    For example, if it's unethical to "kill someone who's done nothing to you and didn't want to die.", then can we assume it's ethical to kill something that has slighted us? Or is it okay to kill something that isn't conscious of it's mortality?

    How do we determine if something doesn't want to die? How do we delineate the difference between something like zooplankton or krill from plants?

    I don't really eat meat, but that's mostly for health and environmental harm reduction. However, I understand that humans are imperfect beings, and have different social mores to adhere too. Out of all the evil man has unleashed over our evolution, I would hardly say that consuming animal products is anywhere close to the top of the list.

    Plus, I think the way the west classifies veganism is a bit culturally insensitive. Different cultures subscribe to different interpretations of attributes when defining traits to life forms than in the west.

    For example, there are Buddhist monks in Korea that eat a "vegan diet", except their kimchi is made with krill. Now if you ask if they eat meat or animals, they will tell you no. However, culturally krill aren't really considered an animal, they're viewed more as a plant.

    I would hardly call a person who's spent their entire lives living off of plants a carnist or "bloodmouth", just because they eat a little krill. But, I would like to hear your opinion on the matter.

  • Please Help Reverse This
  • although being smart doesn't make you a good parent and being dumb doesn't make you a bad one, so I'm already generous)

    Lol, notice how you had to completely change the wording to make that somewhat palatable? Being smart doesn't make you a good parent, but that's not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.

    how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?

    So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?

  • Please Help Reverse This
  • What theory? Eugenics doesn't work in real life. I'm critizising the movie on its' own premise, not on scientific pedantry.

    But you aren't.... There isn't any clear delineation in the movie that would suggest they're implying intellect is due to nature over nurture.

    The reason this is still a debate in psychology is because it's hard to achieve a statistically viable sample size for a conclusive study. To make a factual delineation you would have to know about the parents intellectual capabilities and then their children's intellectual abilities. However, we would also need to study a child that they didn't raise.....

    So, unless Idiocracy has a scene in it where the child of "smart parents" was raised by idiots, and remained smart...... Then it's impossible to know if they were implying bits an inherited trait.

    Wait, I thought the clip was the setup of the premise. Like, the beginning. What other clip have I shared?

    I was talking about the end of the movie.....that's what we were talking about from what you quoted.

    At around 3 min in this clip. The narrator says they have 3 of the smartest kids in the world, and in the scene we can see the protagonist teaching his kids how to read. It also says his friends has 30 of the dumbest kids in the world, and he is teaching them how to chase each other with mallets.

    the prologue constantly bangs on how much stupid people are fucking and smart people don't.

    People in lower income levels tend to have more kids with less access to decent public education..... America being a land of inequality based on social status isn't exactly a new idea.

    You never see a focus on kids not being raised well, which would be a nuture standpoint.

    In the clip you just posted their are kids being actively ignored by the parents who are arguing over infidelity.... Not exactly great parenting.

    Basically all idiots in the movie are coded like white "trash" trailer park people (except the President, maybe).

    I did not get that impression..... Maybe you just have some biased preconceptions about trailer parks?

    Where is an example of a behaviorist stance by the movie?

    How about the parts where you ignore the family structure and behavior of the "idiots" in the same scene? How about the protagonist teaching his kids to learn?

  • Please Help Reverse This
  • Lol, I really don't know what this guy's going on about. I feel the only way you could be this obtuse about nature vs nurture argument is if you actually believe intellect is a purely inherited trait.

  • Please Help Reverse This
  • Dude, modern eugenics was invented almost 40 years before they knew genes were even a thing. Do you expect them pointing at a double helix and saying "this is the stupid gene", before you accept a premise that's based on breeding having an eugenic message?

    Yes, and this movie was written in the 2000s... If we want to get pedantic with the science aspect, then your theory is out the window to begin with. 500 years is not long enough for a species to radically alter their intellect on a societal scale.

    Nice cherry-picking. In the rest of the clip, they're constantly ref renceing, how much "stupid" people breed. One punchline is specifically that a stupid person's junk was saved.

    The rest of the clip? It's literally the end of the movie..... And again, there's no way to delineate if the stupidity in question is a byproduct of parenting vs "breeding" as you put it.

    Do you know what "except" means?

    Lol, and how does it conflate poor people with stupidity? Just out of the context?

    the movie explicitly negates these behaviorist ideas.

    Lol, no it doesn't.

    You would have a point if it would have focused more on the poor children being badly cared for, instead of slutshaming the poor.

    Lol, what are you talking about? I've brought up the care of children several times, and havent brought up sexual provocation at all?

    I think you need to take a nap or something.

  • Trophy hunter killings spark fierce battle over the future of super tusker elephants
  • My understanding of these trophy hunts is that they only allow people to shoot the animals that are no longer contributing to the gene pool.

    For now..... A lot of these "conservation groups" putting out these types of studies are actually just hunting lodges owned by rich families. They claim that they are preserving the land, and that they use the proceeds from these types of hunts to protect the land.

    However, these "conservationist" are typically just poachers with a marketing team. For the most part their goal is to legitimize the illegal hunts they are already committing.

  • Please Help Reverse This
  • The movie constantly focuses on genetics. It even ends with the naration that the (relatively smart) hero has a few smart kids and his dumb friend has a few dumb ones.

    It doesn't mention genes...... In the clip you are talking about where he has smart kids, you can see both of the parents actively teaching their kids how to read. It then pans over to his friends who had a bunch of dumb kids and he's teaching them to play with fireworks or something.

    The movie never interacts with *any socioeconomic factors, except for conflating poor people with dumb people.

    If it never interacts with socioeconomics how does it conflate poor people with dumb people?

    The movie doesn't get into that argument.

    It's the whole point of the movie.....

    What does "clean slate" have to do with this?

    Lol, so no. You don't understand.

    Yes, that's my point. The premise of the movie hinges on intelligence being mainly inherited.

    How are you making that determination? How does one delineate between the two within the context of the movie?

  • crawl, walk, run, fly
  • Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist

    So, just a vibe check then?

    In what manner? Vibes?

    Lol, in the same way as the Khmer never extrapolated how they were feudal to begin with.

    Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!

    First of all, I don't think anyone can rightly claim Mao wasn't a nationalist. He was an ardent anti imperialist and he wasn't an ethno-nationalist, but still a nationalist at heart. Secondly progress is relative to the revolution, Cambodia prior to the revolution was for the most part dependent on substance farming. Adapting a centralized apparatus to control the economy is still progress.

    but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.

    They didn't deindustrialze, they were never industrialized to begin with.

    More vibes.

    Hilarious considering your arguments have been completely vibe based. Even when I ask you specify your claims.... Nope just vibes.

  • Please Help Reverse This
  • The joke is "this could have been prevented, if that guy became infertile, but unfortunately, modern medicine saved him". That's not jumping to codclusions, that's the literal text of the movie. is. Preventing a deadbeat dad from abandoning even more families to poverty is not saying that his genes are cursed or something.

    Seriously, what's wrong with your media literacy? It's so obvious

    Have you not ever heard of nature vs nurture? Never heard of tabula rassa? You do know that intellect isn't determined by genes alone, correct?

    Nice try. I'm sim'ly interpreting the text of the movie.

    Yes, through the lens of eugenics.....

  • crawl, walk, run, fly
  • He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism.

    When did he denounce Marx, do you have a quote?

    Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.

    His "agrarian Communism" was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism

    Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.

    you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist.

    Lol, that's not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80's as well.

    I think it's pretty obvious that we're just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.

  • Please Help Reverse This
  • At 1m58sec they are talking about medical advancements....not genetics. Again, I think you are jumping to conclusions. Medical advancements that allow people to procreate at a faster rate is not biology, it's sociology.

    It kinda seems you are dismissing the possibility of nurture attributing to the equation at all, which in and of itself is a eugenics based argument.