Sociopath Community

Ill just quickly reply to this as well and then later I will educate you in more depth

Turncoat said: 

Your point about stereotypes and learned helplessness is just a bold assertion because all evidence shows that women can not lead, there are barely any cultures where women lead which attests to that. Could one come up with a contrived theory of how women make for better leaders? Yes, in a fantasy world everything is possible. I'm a realist, and I look at the real world. The data says no culture ever evolved with female leaders, how's that for proof that they're not up for it. You live in a leftist fantasy disconnected from reality, it all comes down to not possibilities but likelihoods.

Back up your bold-ass assertion that women can become daywalkers with the power of vampires (men) with none of the weaknesses and all the positive traits of humans (women). It's a fantasy you made up with no backing in reality, like the rest of your little SJW parrot narrative. 

At this point you're effectively admitting to not being open to opinions outside of your preconceived ones. If areas that are diametrically opposed to your own can only be taken as fantasy, then you're not really going to look at what's going on for more than the Black & White.

Fantasy without a basis in reality is what I described your view with. What would convince me was the part you ignored: "Back up your bold-ass assertion that women can become daywalkers with the power of vampires (men) with none of the weaknesses and all the positive traits of humans (women). "

Give me an examples of how women were predominantly leaders in the majority of all societies known to history.

StillPork said: 

So is your suggestion that we round up all black people,  kill off the dumb ones , and make the smart ones inseminate all the women

People are already rounded up into cities and towns, so that's part one down already.

Since we obviously can't just round people up racially like that (anymore), the ways that this'll have to be done will have to instead be through more infiltrative and structural means, namely through suggestive Media Trends and through further changing their Environment. 

Environment is the more complicated subject, but would need to be tackled first. If they are living in an environment that just cultivates stress, malnutrition, vices, and a lack of academic accomplishment then the standard of success will reflect something more resembling function, which, in pressure cooking conditions, tends to lend towards desiring numbing and mindlessness over mental stimulation and growth. If that environment could at least be made decent enough for them to be at a more economically viable baseline, then many of the problems we're seeing would start to go away overtime which opens up their potential further to be pushed by media trends and time wasters. 

With the media, for those above the lower class stress relief and survival model in this age, we've already seen how the beauty standard has become pure aesthetic in lieu of where desirability was once more about one's function. Through media trends you can change how people are perceived as the visuals play similarly in acquisition to disconnected experiences. With enough of a bombardment of this through music lyrics, billboards, website advertisements, business memes ("that's gucci"), Youtube content, message board magnetism, and through having their peers reflect the same brainwashing over a long enough period of time and you'll see what is deemed gregarious and what is not shift into different areas. 

As a matter of both Environment and Media, paying lip service to the notion of race quotas helps with selling the idea of being able to succeed from a lack of racial handicapping as opposed to in spite of it while also working as a means of Harm Reduction when it comes to Occupational Race Self-Segregation. Again, even with Obama technically being mixed, his gimmick is still a Historical Media moment on par with Murphy Brown being on TV that has the means of pushing other black people to see such positions as even being possible. 


TLDR: Create a higher standard for success that appears to be in their reach within an environment that lets them thrive and they'll be less likely to surrender to apathy and stress while otherwise breeding according to said new standard. 

How are quotas and hiring retards in any way going to help in doing that

Quotas I've explained a few times for how I'd see it as helpful, and hiring retards is how our milk and bread ends up in grocery bags so that we don't have to do it ourselves. 

They make money, they pay taxes, they're just like you. 

why not just focus on the people who are already on their way to success, like white people?

It's easy to argue that white privilege could have them more likely to find success elsewhere compared to other races, and otherwise, much like diversifying the perception of races in the media instead of simply whitewashing the cast, seeing them around more as a regular thing reduces the prevalence of xenophobic tendencies in people overtime. 

Human societies are not like animal farms

I'd argue that they are. 

Surely companies would not the one with the best qualifications, instead of "racism."

If the companies are run by old names with ingrained racism from a much earlier time, it's going to reflect in their choices and practices (as much as they can help it). Why would they even consider someone outside of their own race to be intelligent if nothing in their lives has challenged them to really think about it? 

If companies could hire another just as qualified a person for less money they would do that

...and this is how Mexicans became the US's gardeners and maids. 

This is typically more true of what's deemed as lower tier work. Having a high cost can in middle-to-upper class considerations actually be perceived as value, having the freelance pricing market not appear too dissimilar to the art and fashion markets when it comes to asking prices, demands, and considerations.

Sometimes being the one who asks for more can make their achievements seem artificially inflated compared to the one who's willing to work for pennies. 

If that theory was correct then the companies today that survived should be the ones that hired black people but they're not.

Companies that hired black people didn't survive? 

Sometimes it's Asian sometimes it's white, and in some very rare cases it's a black person. The reason blacks are not in high-end jobs because they are dumb and too busy stabbing other black people on the streets.

Why aren't Asians the ones dominating everything when it comes to the US then beyond Weeb Media then? There must be something to this 'white privilege' stuff, otherwise their superior IQ should be yielding superior yields, like people already stereotype about jews in the media.

Asians thanks to media perception are often stereotyped as martial artists with math benders instead of our peers, and with more diversified racial perceptions in the media they'd likely share our spot as the "TV Personality Race" if our media wasn't otherwise so whitewashed. A lot of them in the US have little to no accents now, and it's largely taken Youtube for people to even notice. 

I support education for black people because those savages could maybe learn not to stab each other all the time, but given their low IQ and racial pre-disposition to violence I'm not holding my breath. The easiest solution to the IQ gap is to kill off low IQ blacks over millenia.

Purging populations of people won't be taken well, but shaping their fate through Darwinism can accomplish it overtime in a way that's perceived as humane. 

I loled at your black people are dumb because slaves. Look at those savages in Africa with 65 retard IQ who never experienced slavery.

Would you call a "savage lifestyle" a better alternative when it comes to academic opportunity? 

If anything the slavery helped raise the overall IQ because the ones who were dumb enough not to understand "move this barrel" got genocided.

Have you seen what they used to feed them? 

StillPork said: 

Give me an examples of how women were predominantly leaders in the majority of all societies known to history.

This question is as broken in English as it is structurally absurd as a Strawman. I never even tried to claim this, rather I rationalized how Patriarchy's more commonly occurred and how it's diminishing as we advanced from History towards Herstory. 

Nice bedtime story. You still just assume that blacks are going to thrive through trickle-down effect once you give them better jobs that they don't even deserve. They won't if your assumption that blacks are not thriving due to white priviledge is not correct. Like for example if they are not thriving because they're simply dumb which is clearly demonstrated by IQ tests. I'm constantly asking you for something to actually back up your claims but you keep parroting the SJW narrative that has no basis in reality instead of actually demonstrating your case. It's like if I claimed that blacks are not thriving because they have too much melatonin and once we remove the melatonin all the problems are going to go away. As far as I'm concerned those two claims are on equal footing without some sort of evidence to support one over the other.

Asians are thriving in the US which pretty much destroys your argument. Educate yourself on statistics and wealth distribution.

You still haven't backed up your bold-ass claim on women being daywalkers. Do you agree that men having thrived as leaders throughout the known history supports the assertion that men are better leaders?

What you're suggesting is flushing down billions upon billions of dollars down the toilet to test a hypothesis which has no evidence to support it and no near-term promises.

StillPork said: 

What you're suggesting is flushing down billions upon billions of dollars down the toilet to test a hypothesis which has no evidence to support it and no near-term promises.

How doesn't it? We even have an entire field of study based around this sort of thing and already use the tools as a way to spend money to make money. Combine the programs with advertisements, subsidiaries, or even just general sponsorship and they'll make more than enough of their money back. 

Like really, is Hollywood suddenly a poor industry, and is fixing up houses and neighborhoods going out of style? They just need to create an audience for it, as we already see happening within Pop Culture in ways that are bleeding into other racial lifestyles (such as black-themed urbanized Rap trends, ones we can see spreading towards white culture and even as far as South Korea now). 

Look into programs like the i.am.angel project, check how racial tokenism in media is appearing less 90s-levels of blatant, and see how The Black Community is further splitting more than before as subcultural demographics gain more traction than racial ones. 



It's already happening, I'd just argue that it could be done better and faster with an overhaul on poorer sections using tools and ideas that have already proven profitable further down the line. The answers people look for simply need to be less immediate if they want to see changes happen, as we've already begun to see from comparing somewhen like the 50s to now. 

You don't harvest lumber from saplings, you let them grow first. 

StillPork said: 

You still just assume that blacks are going to thrive through trickle-down effect once you give them better jobs that they don't even deserve.

Don't deserve by upwards of how much? I've already said it's potentially taking a small hit in quality now to raise the quality later, and I don't see how it'd not trickle down unless the people being hired were already too deeply embedded into poverty's vices (such as being a drug user). 

They won't if your assumption that blacks are not thriving due to white priviledge is not correct.

(A double negative? I'll go with you having meant my assumption of white privs > black privs)

Mmm, "If" 

So you disagree that economics has any impact on environment and one's capacity towards academia? What otherwise makes the assumptions on it off base, that you simply don't agree with it? Your means of trying to note history (when it's not just dramatic fluff anyway) tends to note these variables as if they're static and unchanging, while as Inq's pointed out we've been able to observe changes in IQ ranges as time's gone on through a variety of strategies and means (namely through increasing academic focus, improving on their environment, and otherwise observing The Flynn Effect). 

There's been links and resources across multiple disciplines of study, and you won't go any further than treating everything as if the variables were all static, conflating multiple concepts as a general dismissal of concept, and inflating the situation as if the costs were much larger than the potential gains. Even if the experiment didn't work and we saw black people regressing there'd still be more than enough room for making cold hard cash through exploiting how topical SJW trends are right now, as we can see in shows like Dear White People, 13 Reasons Why, Black Mirror, and other pieces that try to be more 'modern'.

The trends right now are so topical that they're bordering on exploitable, it's practically free money judging by the quality of the writing that's typically falling into it. Unlike how hippy clothes were hit by it's following aesthetic fashion industry echoes, this period is significantly more exploitable as a matter of audience self-validation. Rich people by not investing in 'Progress' are essentially throwing money and free leftist lip service away, even for the charities they could be funding to write off their taxes. 

Like for example if they are not thriving because they're simply dumb which is clearly demonstrated by IQ tests.

As Inq and I have been demonstrating for pages of the [S I E G E] topic, it's not as Black & White as you'd like to make it out to be. Even in your own statistics by the time they're adults their heritability in Twin Studies is as high as a 0.8 by comparison to the 0.2 it was during infancy (without even having them in vastly different settings). You likely aren't even venturing further than African Americans (save for comparing them to 'African Savages') when Intelligence itself is Polygenic and the genetic links in ancestry between our history and lets say... that of British Blacks are likely quite distant by now with differing elements of racial blending already occurring naturally overtime. 

There's definitely links between race and many other aspects of Sociology, but the why is still open to exploration. We've had an outcropping of black Americans raised in richer opportunities (many raised by white parents), and they are liable to try to procreate based on those values instead of 'classically' understood 'urban' ones (they're likelihood of breeding with a white mate goes up as well through adoptive parental modeling). 

Change the setting and you'll gradually change the people, and whether you like it or not it's already happening. I'm mostly suggesting that it could be done harder and faster in ways that are profitable through exploiting modern Leftist trends in Pop Culture further, and that through doing so you'd both lift up a disadvantaged demographic and make a quick buck. 

I'm constantly asking you for something to actually back up your claims but you keep parroting the SJW narrative that has no basis in reality instead of actually demonstrating your case.

We've been posting links, but if this has become a game of just convincing you instead of exchanging sources then I at least have the smug sense of self-satisfaction of knowing that, if this were a more formal form of debate, that you'd be the one with less points from impartial judges at the moment. 

Your argument is as easy to sum up as "I'm not convinced, so all your stats and links are just SJW parroting" as if to shroud your own lack of effort. At this point I'm surprised you haven't descended upon us with sheer Ad Hominems as Kestrel had, considering Inq and I's reasons to otherwise demonstrate Leftist leanings. 

It's like if I claimed that blacks are not thriving because they have too much melatonin and once we remove the melatonin all the problems are going to go away.

Why Melatonin? 

Would you say that forcibly increasing a city's estrogen or testosterone over a period of decades wouldn't show marked differences in their aptitudes and overall choices of function? What if we slipped nearly-poisonous amounts into their tap water, or forced chemical changes through the food they eat like McDonalds is already doing to us? 

A series of small steps done in tandem is how you control subcultural demographics these days, and we've seen that such trends can even be pushed by groups like 4chan. Much like humanity has aimed to steer plantlife into more edible forms, so too have the top participants of humanity aimed to steer sociological trends. If we could change the behaviors of rich people, we'd likely see changes much faster than without that. 

Asians are thriving in the US which pretty much destroys your argument. Educate yourself on statistics and wealth distribution.

I was meaning racially. They typically have to stick to their own businesses and otherwise are a part of the racial quota-ing. It's not like these quotas are only looking to fill black occupations, it's trying to diversify generally. 

You still haven't backed up your bold-ass claim on women being daywalkers. Do you agree that men having thrived as leaders throughout the known history supports the assertion that men are better leaders?

You keep trying to push this strawman, but I've already gone on about why it is one and you clearly from your use of language see the traps. 

[ S I E G E ], the spiritual prequel to this topic (for search function convenience and linking context). 

At this point you aren't even trying to have a conversation, and figure that by throwing the namesake of your own tactics while you're using them at your opponents'll make yourself immune to scrutiny by reducing me to "No U". By calling your own shots as if they were your opponents, you're avoiding having to actually tackle the points being made while diminishing the impact of accusations that'd otherwise be thrown at you through pre-emptive affiliative ad homs. 

If you feel like having an actual discussion instead of just trying to shroud your position while waving a red cape in hopes of luring bulls, try visiting the points people are giving you beyond an anecdotal title, tangential abstraction, tons of false equivalence, and otherwise following with uninterrupted repetition that tries to frame this as if you 'being convinced' is the goal. As is, you're mostly displaying inauthentic debate tactics to try to inspire more activity without reciprocation. 

Until then, have fun batting at strawmen.