/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

[Anonymous No.6322068]

>Kafkatrapping

>Good causes sometimes have bad consequences. Blacks, women, and other historical out-groups were right to demand equality before the law and the full respect and liberties due to any member of our civilization; but the tactics they used to “raise consciousness” have sometimes veered into the creepy and pathological, borrowing the least sane features of religious evangelism.

>One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping”, and the above the Model A kafkatrap. In this essay, I will show that the kafkatrap is a form of argument that is so fallacious and manipulative that those subjected to it are entitled to reject it based entirely on the form of the argument, without reference to whatever particular sin or thoughtcrime is being alleged. I will also attempt to show that kafkatrapping is so self-destructive to the causes that employ it that change activists should root it out of their own speech and thoughts.

>My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all.

[Anonymous No.6322075]

>This is almost exactly the way the kafkatrap operates in religious and political argument. Real crimes – actual transgressions against flesh-and-blood individuals – are generally not specified. The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

>Sometimes the kafkatrap is presented in less direct forms. A common variant, which I’ll call the Model C, is to assert something like this: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have benefited from the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} behavior of others in the system.” The aim of the Model C is to induce the subject to self-condemnation not on the basis of anything the individual subject has actually done, but on the basis of choices by others which the subject typically had no power to affect. The subject must at all costs be prevented from noticing that it is not ultimately possible to be responsible for the behavior of other free human beings.

>A close variant of the model C is the model P: “Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…} system.” For the model P to work, the subject must be prevented from noticing that the demand to self-condemn is not based on the subject’s own actions or choices or feelings, but rather on an in-group identification ascribed by the operator of the kafkatrap.

[Anonymous No.6322077]

Check your privilege, OP.

[Anonymous No.6322081]

>It is essential to the operation of all three of the variants of the kafkatrap so far described that the subject’s attention be deflected away from the fact that no wrongdoing by the subject, about which the subject need feel personally guilty, has actually been specified. The kafkatrapper’s objective is to hook into chronic self-doubt in the subject and inflate it, in much the same way an emotional abuser convinces a victim that the abuse is deserved – in fact, the mechanism is identical. Thus kafkatrapping tends to work best on weak and emotionally vulnerable personalities, and poorly on personalities with a strong internalized ethos.

>In addition, the success of a model P kafkatrap depends on the subject not realizing that the group ascription pinned on by the operator can be rejected. The subject must be prevented from asserting his or her individuality and individual agency; better, the subject must be convinced that asserting individuality is yet another demonstration of denial and guilt. Need it be pointed out how ironic this is, given that kafkatrappers (other than old-fashioned religious authoritarians) generally claim to be against group stereotyping?

>There are, of course, other variants. Consider the model S: “Skepticism about any particular anecdotal account of {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia,oppression,…}, or any attempt to deny that the particular anecdote implies a systemic problem in which you are one of the guilty parties, is itself sufficient to establish your guilt.” Again, the common theme here is that questioning the discourse that condemns you, condemns you. This variant differs from the model A and model P in that a specific crime against an actual person usually is in fact alleged. The operator of the kafkatrap relies on the subject’s emotional revulsion against the crime to sweep away all questions of representativeness and the basic fact that the subject didn’t do it.

[Anonymous No.6322088]

>I’ll finish my catalog of variants with the verson of the kafkatrap that I think is most likely to be deployed against this essay, the Model L: “Your insistence on applying rational skepticism in evaluating assertions of pervasive {sin,racism,sexism,homophobia, oppression…} itself demonstrates that you are {sinful,racist,sexist,homophobic,oppressive,…}.” This sounds much like the Model S, except that we are back in the territory of unspecified crime here. This version is not intended to induce guilt so much as it is to serve as a flank guard for other forms of kafkatrapping. By insisting that skepticism is evidence of an intention to cover up or excuse thoughtcrime, kafkatrappers protect themselves from having their methods or motives questioned and can get on with the serious business of eradicating thoughtcrime.

>Having shown how manipulative and psychologically abusive the kafkatrap is, it may seem almost superfluous to observe that it is logically fallacious as well. The particular species of fallacy is sometimes called “panchreston”, an argument from which anything can be deduced because it is not falsifiable. Notably, if the model A kafkatrap is true, the world is divided into two kinds of people: (a) those who admit they are guilty of thoughtcrime, and (b) those who are guilty of thoughtcrime because they will not admit to being guilty of thoughtcrime. No one can ever be innocent. The subject must be prevented from noticing that this logic convicts and impeaches the operator of the kafkatrap!

[Anonymous No.6322089]

What's going on? Arcanine here. I don't hang out here often but I just came by cgl to fap to hot cosplayers. Then I see this. Is this a common discussion point?

[Anonymous No.6322091]

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

[Anonymous No.6322110]

>>6322089
We like to have threads about the idiocy of tumblr activism, so that's probably why this is being posted

[Anonymous No.6322115]

>>6322089
Sort of. The idiocy of tumblr and other such 'social justice' ignorants of the Internets becomes a heated topic.

It's impossible for me and probably many others to understand how people become so stupid.

[Anonymous No.6322211]

bumping for Sally stories

[Anonymous No.6322306]

I like this term OP, I think people should start using it.

[Anonymous No.6322396]

>>6322068
>>6322075
>>6322081
>>6322088
>>6322091

Huh. Nicely worded, I like this term. I think we've all wanted a word for the ridiculous mindset that a lot of SJW's have, and kafkatrap has a cool ring to it.

[Anonymous No.6322423]

>>6322211
Is it time for these? I guess it is almost halloween!
Remember not to be racist/sexist/heteronormative/speciesist/any other -ists this Hallow's Eve, seagulls!

[Anonymous No.6322440]

[Anonymous No.6322456]

>>6322081

>aloud

Sigh ...

[Anonymous No.6322473]

[Anonymous No.6322547]

>>6322473
This makes me laugh more than any of the others.

[Anonymous No.6322576]

>>6322396
lol you're impressed by a poorly written pseudo intellectual argument.

[Anonymous No.6322590]

>>6322576
>pseudo-intellectual

Butthurt social justice faggot detected.

Eloquent man whose argument doesn't descend into a rambling mess = "Pseudo-Intellectual".

Crazy black fat girls who pepper their arguments with racial slurs = "Intellectuals".

[Anonymous No.6322604]

>Black guy and friends who go around randomly assaulting white people
>Assaults the 'wrong guy', ends up dying and his friend ends up in the emergency room
>Parents of black blame the man who knifed him and his friend ("HE DINT DO NUFFINZ!")

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/black-mob-picks-the-wrong-guy/

What's the proper SJer response to this?

[Anonymous No.6322611]

>>6322604
>They had just come from a local park where DeAndre and 15 others beat up two girls, sending one to the hospital with a broken arm.

DEY DIN DO NUFFIN'S! DEY BE INNOCINT.

[Anonymous No.6322609]

>>6322576
>>6322576
>uhg, fucking cis scum trying to get out of checking their privilege! These buzzwords will sure show them!

[Anonymous No.6322629]

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/rudeness.htm

This is pretty similar to what this guy is saying, it was in the comments of his blog and I think it's better fleshed out.

Although it is pretty creepy to see how similar this type of SJW attitude is to "born-again Christians" and other religious attitudes.

[Anonymous No.6322635]

>>6322629
Yes, a lot of contemporary liberalism is a secularization of particular interpretations of Christian ethics.

[Anonymous No.6322636]

>>6322629
Fanaticism is a universal concept no matter what you are fanatical about.

[Anonymous No.6322633]

>>6322440
bwahaha. Oh lord, I find this too funny

[Anonymous No.6322642]

>>6322604
Clearly the black kids were victims and everything is being twisted to make them look guilty because white people are the devil. Those people who claimed to be attacked were just violently assaulting themselves.

[Anonymous No.6322649]

>>6322604
I want to cry. People can't really be this stupid. Right, guys? ...Right?

[Anonymous No.6322650]

Why do the faggots from /pol/ insist on camping out here and spewing their bullshit? This board is for cosplay and lolita and maybe even subjects indirectly related to them. This topic has NOTHING to do with those things. Seriously, just because people on /pol/ ignore your threads, that doesn't mean you should bring them over here.

[Anonymous No.6322653]

>>6322650
Because social justice faggots haven't infested every nerdy hobby in existence and polluted it with their bullshit.

I say we need more /pol/ nationalists, to balance these faggots out.

[Anonymous No.6322657]

>>6322650
I think it is because cosplay and egl draws in a lot of the tumblr SJ crowd (for some reason I don't fully understand) so we have to combat them a lot more than /pol/ or /r9k/. They're just annoyed at them because of their autism.

[Anonymous No.6322660]

>>6322653
Says the guy who posts 90 fucking off topic threads a day. Fuck off activist.

[Anonymous No.6322661]

>>6322653

It just annoys the fuck out of me when I click on /cgl/, see this kind of shit, and wonder if I mistakenly clicked on the wrong board. These threads keep popping up lately and it's irritating.

[Anonymous No.6322679]

>>6322653

Actually there's a growing community of right-wingers on Tumblr committed to combatting them.

They go by the name "Axis of Evil" (edgy, right?)

[Anonymous No.6322673]

[Anonymous No.6322683]

>>6322673

[Anonymous No.6322684]

This one is probably my favorite.

[Anonymous No.6322686]

>>6322679
>Actually there's a growing community of right-wingers on Tumblr committed to combatting them.

Sounds cool.

>They go by the name "Axis of Evil" (edgy, right?)

Not really. Conservative ethics have been the norm for most of human history and are the norm in most of the world today, there's nothing edgy about them.

Liberalism is all about edgyness, see "group polarization" (the desire to distance yourself from the group by pushing the group's values one step further than everyone else is what drives a lot of liberalism).

[Anonymous No.6322687]

>>6322653
all of my whys

[Anonymous No.6322690]

[Anonymous No.6322694]

>>6322687
I meant to quote >>6322679
Axis of Evil, WHY?!

[Anonymous No.6322708]

GODDAMNIT MOOT
YOU FUCKING PREJUDICED FUCK

[Anonymous No.6322705]

>>6322686
What is sad is that at some point liberalism can only become evil and conservatism only good.

Hear me out: In many ways we have had and still have a lot of change that needs to be gone through for an equitable society... However we will eventually reach a summit and any more "progress" can only become REgress from then on.

Liberalism is the engine, conservatism is the breaks: We will never get to a utopian destination without both playing their role.

[Anonymous No.6322713]

>>6322694

I think it's because that's pretty much how they're seen by their opponents, as the embodiment of evil, white privileged society, so they took that as their name.

Oh, and I must say, they're not really unified in any single ideology other than being vaguely to strongly right wing, and very much anti-liberal, so there is everything from conservatives to actual fascists there.

[Anonymous No.6322718]

>>6322705
You're problem is you associate liberalism with progress. It's not like we owe the internet to gay pride parades or anything. Japan has the most patents per capita but is very conservative socially and culturally by western standards for example.

Liberalism is just an appeal to emotion. It's only possible in wealthy societies where people isolate themselves from reality.

[Anonymous No.6322724]

>>6322713
The actual fascists are the funniest because they refuse to play any of the games the SJers try to make your average conservative play.

E.g.

SJtard: "X would only benefit white people!"

Fascist: "So?"

[Anonymous No.6322728]

>>6322713
>I think it's because that's pretty much how they're seen by their opponents, as the embodiment of evil, white privileged society, so they took that as their name.
Makes sense, if I were to fight extremist muslims in some conflict I would probably wear a crusaders tabard just for the jarring mental impact it would have on my foes (not because I'm actually christian). Or if I were combating the chinese I may carry a katana as a sidearm despite not being japanese for how unsettled it would make my foe in a melee. Et cetera.

[Anonymous No.6322735]

>>6322724

It's funny, because some of them are even split along the lines of white or civic nationalism, and the latter seems to confuse the fuck out of liberals

>what do you mean you don't mind [X gorup] as long as they integrate and contribute and don't kick up a stink? i think youre just playing semantics coz ur RACIS

[Anonymous No.6322736]

>>6322718
Classical liberalism IS intrinsically progressive. You can argue if third-wave movements are truly liberal or not... But you don't have too much foot to stand on with that line of thought: Especially opening with "my are problem"...

I mean, even if you're a stormfag anything that makes white europe so great is a result of the (classically liberal) enlightenment period.

[Anonymous No.6322738]

>>6322735
It gets even more minute than that, e.g. the arguments between Strasserists, classical fascists and National Socialists are always amusing.

[Anonymous No.6322740]

>>6322736
>I mean, even if you're a stormfag anything that makes white europe so great is a result of the (classically liberal) enlightenment period.

Nah.

[Anonymous No.6322750]

>>6322740
Ok fine, once we have starships you're welcome to find a nice cozy planet to run around on with your spear and woad building nothing much better than sub-sahara african huts and hillforts with ritual summer wars and cattle raids

If you're trying to invoke rome on your side you have a problem in that rome was a lot more liberal than its tribal rivals. Liberalism is not universally bad, only modern degeneracy masquerading as liberalism... If you honestly believe that it is then you are too far gone and the very inefficiency of your ideals will see you out-competed

[Anonymous No.6322751]

>>6322736
You're arguing with the local board troll FYI. It's always the same stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.6322755]

>>6322751
I figured as much. But, he was just articulate enough I wanted to give it the college try just in case.

[Anonymous No.6322760]

>>6322611
I'd just like to point out that the photo on the left is pretty clearly photoshopped.

[Anonymous No.6322765]

>>6322760

Really?
I never knew that, it's only been circulating /pol/ since before Trayvon's corpse was cold!

[Anonymous No.6322763]

[Anonymous No.6322771]

[Anonymous No.6322774]

>>6322751
Uh oh, local mangina feminist to the rescue.

I don't even have to read what you're responding to ITT, but I can tell you're probably wrong.

Let me guess, you're whiteknighting niggers too now?

[Anonymous No.6322779]

>tumblr slacktivist's response to seeing an offensive costume in real life.png

[Anonymous No.6322782]

>>6322750
Except your technological progress is not limitless, it depends upon smart people having high enough fertility rates to continue that sort of development. When their fertility rates drop, and the fertility rates of the underclass supercedes them then it's a slow and gradual decline.

[Anonymous No.6322786]

>>6322755
I've stopped responding to him ages ago but it's nice to see him try to be offensive as if no one on 4chan has heard any salty language.

[Anonymous No.6322794]

>>6322782

Not the person you're replying to, but agreed. I think a lot of History can actually be explained by changes in breeding patterns within groups.

[Anonymous No.6322795]

[Anonymous No.6322788]

>Never get invited to hallow'een parties because you're an unpleasant fuck/asocial loser
>Make this campaign to stop others having fun

>Tumblr

[Anonymous No.6322790]

>>6322782
uh oh, Beta male virgin mad that he will never procreate in his life

[Anonymous No.6322792]

>>6322774

People take these kinds of ignorant posts seriously

Watch /cgl/ take the bait rofl

[Anonymous No.6322793]

this one is for you, /g/.

[Anonymous No.6322797]

>>6322792
>>6322786
Oh wait, you think I'm actually the guy you were arguing with ITT?

No, I just came here to laugh at you my mangina friend.

[Anonymous No.6322799]

>>6322790
>Beta male virgin mad that he will never procreate in his life

Procreation isn't really associated with alphaness and betaness anymore, just frequency of sex. There are plenty of alpha as fuck high-earning executives who fuck tons of women but have no children, that's part of the problem.

Unlike you, I'm not so much of a special snowflake to pretend I'm at the top of the pile.

[Anonymous No.6322800]

>>6322782

Two intelligent people who breed will have a potentially smart kid, but individual success is still on a case by case basis

[Anonymous No.6322806]

>>6322750

You're doing exactly what he said, which is conflating social and cultural change with technological progress. Sure, sometimes the latter engenders the former, but it's not like we would suddenly stop having a space program if we had the sorts of laws places like China and Singapore had.

[Anonymous No.6322809]

>>6322797

>PLS RESPOND

hahahaha

[Anonymous No.6322810]

and finally a group who doesn't give a shit and appreciates free halloween tits.

[Anonymous No.6322818]

>>6322799
I'm a girl, silly

[Anonymous No.6322813]

>>6322800
>but individual success is still on a case by case basis

No it isn't. Intelligence is at least 50% heritable, and probably more realistically in the realms of 80% heritability in adulthood (see twin and transracial adoption studies). If Dushawn has more children than your average researcher, eventually that will tell, in the long run. You can't just ignore the genetic profile of a given population group and pretend that somehow dumb people are going to magically be made smart by spending more money.

[Anonymous No.6322823]

>>6322782
If they were /so/ intelligent they would be having at least 2.2 children each to preserve their legacy... Non?

Besides, if you were to educate the underclasses you would see their rates decline in similar fashion. Even if you believe racial intelligence (obviously genetics weighs intelligence, and obviously humanity has experienced regional adaptation...) then it is your best interest to use the single best form of birth control (education) on those you feel inferior.

Universal education keeps the underclasses in check and sets up those worth giving extended education to so it is a noble goal no matter who you are and from what perspective you see the issue.


Either way, classical liberalism won because it is simply better. It is less nepotistic and more free for intellectuals to operate in. the proof is in the fact all monarchies were either demolished, out-competed or rendered culturally ornate and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.6322820]

[Anonymous No.6322825]

>>6322806
I'm telling you this is just going to be a big loop. He does this all the time. He can mask reactionary bile in nice prose but really he's just getting you to reply to him.

[Anonymous No.6322826]

>>6322818
You're on /cgl/, and you probably work in a fairly average job, you sure as shit aren't on the top of anybody's pile my dear.

As the old troll thread goes: If Jessica Nigri hit on your boyfriend, he'd cheat on you in an instant.

[Anonymous No.6322827]

>>6322809

Actually, I would prefer if you wouldn't respond anymore ever again / or become a man again.

You're probably one of those guys who come here to masturbate to girls anyhow and never cosplay.

[Anonymous No.6322830]

>>6322825

You know, I actually think you're the guy you're telling to stop replying, since you're running out of arguments, and now are trying to make a convenient escape route.

Coward.

[Anonymous No.6322832]

Do you see how desperate he is? I'm telling you he's addicted to trolling.

[Anonymous No.6322835]

[Anonymous No.6322836]

>>6322826
sorry sweetie but I look a lot better than Jessica :)

[Anonymous No.6322838]

>>6322823
>Besides, if you were to educate the underclasses you would see their rates decline in similar fashion.

I doubt this.

>then it is your best interest to use the single best form of birth control (education) on those you feel inferior.

Yeah, but you do two things. You tell them with ineffectual methods to stop having kids (they're not going to stop doing it because they're genetically prone to high time preference behavior), whilst giving them money for having children. If you subsidize their fertility rates, then they'll have children, it's as simple as that.

>Universal education keeps the underclasses in check and sets up those worth giving extended education to so it is a noble goal no matter who you are and from what perspective you see the issue.

I'd rather prioritize children with genuine innate talent, it's not as if teaching Lemarius dumbed down Shakespeare adds any actual value to the economy, even cultural value.

[Anonymous No.6322842]

>>6322832
You're replying to at least two different people you moron. Get a life, you live for these threads. Anyone would think you had a crush on the guy given how you only pop up in threads he's in.

[Anonymous No.6322844]

[Anonymous No.6322840]

>>6322832

Yep, I pity the guy who was actually trying to discuss something with you.

[Anonymous No.6322845]

>>6322842
To be fair, this time I came to reply to him, because he thought I was you, which hurt my feelings.

[Anonymous No.6322846]

>>6322813

And? Studying for the LSAT raises your IQ. Your argument hinges on the fact that IQ doesn't change in life. You can have a basic set point, but your experiences in life reflect in the genes you pass on; if you become college educated, you increase the chances that your offspring become educated

White ignorant trolls on the internet like to use IQ as some fatalistic argument to determine a person's potential or outcome

Nevermind that every anonymous poster has a graduate ivy league education, white anglo saxon protestant making over 6 figures with 150+ IQ in a heterosexual monogamous relationship

[Anonymous No.6322853]

>>6322848
Welp, no logic awaits those who talk to you.

[Anonymous No.6322854]

[Anonymous No.6322848]

The warning has been given. GIGO logic awaits you.

[Anonymous No.6322851]

athens plz go.

[Anonymous No.6322859]

>>6322851
Wow, you really have to be desperate to pull that name out of your ass. They weren't even talking about how women are sluts ITT.

You really should cut your dick off, since you're probably never going to use it in your life.

[Anonymous No.6322864]

[Anonymous No.6322868]

/pol/ pls leave

[Anonymous No.6322870]

>make the same stupid troll shit threads every day for two years
He's perfectly sane folks.

[Anonymous No.6322872]

>>6322868
suck my left nut

[Anonymous No.6322873]

>>6322846
>And? Studying for the LSAT raises your IQ.

Temporarily, by a couple of points at most. Long term gains are what's important, and they're near impossible to achieve because educational spending is a case of diminishing marginal returns.

>Your argument hinges on the fact that IQ doesn't change in life.

No it doesn't. It hinges on the fact it's substantially heritable enough not to be malleable enough to justify the belief you can make intelligent people out of innately stupid people, which you can't. There's a reason East Asian Nations dominate the PISAs, and it's not "bawww rote memorization!", you can't rote memorize mathematics, you can either understand the abstract concepts or you can't, it's very g-loaded.

>but your experiences in life reflect in the genes you pass on

Lamarckianism a fraud.

>White ignorant trolls on the internet like to use IQ as some fatalistic argument to determine a person's potential or outcome

Are you denying IQ is the single best predictive measure of life outcome? There are numerous studies that attest to this.

Here's a teaser for you:

If intelligence isn't substantially heritable, how did humans ever evolve intelligence in the first place?

[Anonymous No.6322874]

>>6322870
Jfc, I haven't even been here that long, mangina-chan.

And I only come to threads for you, so, yeah...

[Anonymous No.6322876]

>>6322873
>No it doesn't.

=

>I accept it can be influenced by cultural factors, but not to the extent you want it to be.

[Anonymous No.6322877]

>>6322859

>you should

lol if I don't he's going to write more text OH THE HUMANITY

Your threats are useless without coercive force :)

[Anonymous No.6322885]

>>6322876
Congratulations! You've figured out that he's just trying to get responses.

[Anonymous No.6322887]

>>6322877
You forgot to use one of the 10 pictures of animu girls you have saved on your hard drive in a hidden folder so that daddy won't beat you up when he finds out about them. You know, the ones that give you the confidence to argue against the bad, bad ugly [strike]people[/strike] just one person (since your opinion = the world's opinion) on the Internet.

[Anonymous No.6322890]

most people not familiar with zwarte piet will think it's just blackface. It's supposed to be chimney soot iirc.

[Anonymous No.6322891]

>>6322885
Yeah, that one. Do you often jerk off to the purple haired catgirl?

[Anonymous No.6322892]

>>6322838
>I doubt this.
Education is easily connected to lowering birth rates: Women have prospects like careers, men have non-agrarian options that don't need children-farmhands, etc. etc. No matter what you believe you can't deny empirical data.

>Yeah, but you do two things. You tell them with ineffectual methods to stop having kids
It's not sexual education that does it. It is general education giving them options/giving them the delusion of having options that makes them put off having children until they realize in their old age they never got to it. Specifically (as bore out in data) it is best to target women with the concept because their fertility has a much more finite timeline.

>whilst giving them money for having children. If you subsidize their fertility rates, then they'll have children, it's as simple as that.
I think condition-less child welfare subsidies are misguided idealism, so we agree on that.

>I'd rather prioritize children with genuine innate talent
Destroy affirmative action and return grants and scholarships to meritocratic basis. Problem solved.

>it's not as if teaching Lemarius dumbed down Shakespeare adds any actual value to the economy, even cultural
value.
It does have economic and cultural value. It combats that apocalyptic 4.0-6.0 birthrate preserving the culture by not being supplanted and helping the economy by stopping the entire nation from becoming detroit.

[Anonymous No.6322903]

>>6322885
>>6322870
>>6322832
>>6322825
>has nothing intelligent to add to an ongoing discussion
>keeps posting some inane shit like a little kid that wants to be noticed at an adult party

[Anonymous No.6322909]

[Anonymous No.6322907]

>>6322892
That universally lowers birth rates though, and when birth rates are universally lowered, those with the highest time preference (i.e. the most stupid) are still going to have the highest birth rates, ceteris paribus.

I think you're missing the point here, which is that the birth rates of the truly stupid need to be disproportionately cut. People with genius level IQs should be mating like damn rabbits.

You at least recognize problems for which I commend you.

[Anonymous No.6322908]

You could have stopped it /cgl/. You could have stopped responding to off topic asinine garbage. You could have chosen to have a good board.

[Anonymous No.6322910]

[Anonymous No.6322915]

>>6322885
You're really stupid, I was just correcting myself and replying to my own post to clarify my position, since it could have been easily mistaken for disagreement with his/her initial assertion.

[Anonymous No.6322916]

>>6322908

ALRIGHT! Time to get cereal, my dear mangina-chan.

Here's a pic of my cosplay, since I actually contribute to this board 90% of the time, when I don't see you shitting it up.

Where's yours, you oh-so-great defender of totally not just the girls of /cgl/?

I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.6322921]

>>6322915
Magnina-chan TOLD LEVEL:

[ ] Not told
[X] Told
[X] Cash4told.com
[X] Battletolds
[X] No country for Told men
[X] Knights of the Told Republic
[X] ToldSpice
[x] The Elder Tolds IV: Oblivious
[x] Command & Conquer: Toldberian Sun
[x] GuiTold Hero: World Told
[X] Told King of Boletaria
[x] Countold Strike
[x] Unreal Toldament
[x] Stone-told Steve Austin
[X] Half Life 2: Episode Told
[x] World of Warcraft: Catoldclysm
[X] Roller Coaster Toldcoon
[x] Assassin’s Creed: Tolderhood
[x] S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shatold of Chernobyl
[x] Batman: Brave and the Told
[X] Adventure Told
[x] Pokemon Told and Silver
[X] Quantold of Solace
[X] Toldfinger
[X] The Man With The Tolden Gun
[X] The Spy Who Told Me
[X] Dr. Told
[X] Thundertold
[X] Win, Lose, or Told
[X] License to be Told
[X] ToldenEye
[X] The World is not Told Enough
[X] OctoTold
[X] From Told With Love
[X] You're Only Told Twice
[X] Told Another Day
[X] SkyTold
[X] Toldraker
[X] On Her Majesty's Told Service
[X] Telling is Forever
[X] The Living Toldlights
[X] A View to a Telling
[X] Told Never Dies
[X] For Your Told Only
[X] Casino Roytold
[x] The Brave Little Toldster

[Anonymous No.6322937]

>>6322916

Not him but damn, that's pretty good. Shield looks a little small, but maybe that's just the angle.

[Anonymous No.6322945]

>>6322921

Some of these are just lazy.

[Anonymous No.6322950]

>>6322921
>Mangina

It's actually just a buttstormed Jewish girl with a crush on athens.

[Anonymous No.6322956]

>>6322950
Pretty sure the last tame I talked to him (think it was some thread about Ushijima he said he was actually a man.

[Anonymous No.6322960]

>>6322956
>tame
...
Fuck my life.

[Anonymous No.6322971]

>>6322068
Have you ever thought that maybe the ones writing the stuff are just trolls pretending to be girls?

[Anonymous No.6322980]

>>6322068
>>My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all.

I'm black....and it seems white americans pull that shit sometimes. ESPECIALLY online (inb4 internet assholes)

[Anonymous No.6322989]

[Anonymous No.6323003]

>>6322907
>That universally lowers birth rates though, and when birth rates are universally lowered, those with the highest time preference (i.e. the most stupid) are still going to have the highest birth rates, ceteris paribus.
But there is a statistical ceiling where the effect tops off (around 1.2-1.3). So as long as you keep dialing it up it will eventually catch up to even the lowest sectors. Especially fconsidering the cost of a single year of yet another petrowar could be saving our society for decades to come.

Couple that with reversing child welfare subsidy into money for the MOST educated to have children and you can do a lot to tackle the issue of societal chaff.

>I think you're missing the point here<...>
Oh but I don't! This is just the easiest step to enact. What social justice warrior would dare oppose mass inner city education? It bends their groupthink in on itself in the most insidious of ways... Because, if anything, they would support (enforce) it to get their slacktivist hipster-points in. With that step enacted it would be easier to knock down the other dominoes in a generation or two! It is easy to convince people who either are or THINK themselves intellectual to not make an uproar over intellectual-affirming quotas and the like. Much like what the corporatists did when they co-opted the on-average poorer, lower-middle class GOP into a big business voting bloc.

>You at least recognize problems for which I commend you.
I can't take too much credit. They tend to slap one in the face if one takes any time whatsoever to look...

[Anonymous No.6323004]

Lemme post this in this thread:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2193593342

pic DEFINITELY related

[Anonymous No.6323010]

>>6322735
>>6322724
Oh, do you have THOSE faggots infesting tumblr now. How nice

[Anonymous No.6323012]

>>6322813

[CITATION FUCKING NEEDED]

Sage because this thread has degenerated into someone's pet theory on eugenics.

[Anonymous No.6323016]

Here's a cosplay related one.

I love it when a sally says this. They'll say something like, "Are there any POC princess cosplays I can do besides Tiana?" In an attempt to start an argument, and I respond by posting Mononoke hime. If you mean black, say fucking black, bro. Stupid sallies.

[Anonymous No.6323017]

>>6323012
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp201185a.html

>General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational attainments, income, health and lifespan. Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ~1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence.

[Anonymous No.6323019]

>>6323010

>THOSE faggots

umad lefty?

[Anonymous No.6323021]

>>6323003
I dunno dude, did you know that globally the US spends more than virtually every other country with the exception of a couple of Scandinavian ones per pupil on education? It's an insane amount of money.

[Anonymous No.6323025]

>>6322916
Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Anonymous No.6323030]

>>6323028
Some kinds of madness are in-born, and some come from the choices you make in life. This shit is both - starts out crazy due to faggotry, then gets hooked on leftist ideology, which multiplies the crazy manyfold.

There's maybe some hope in this. The 'Outer Party' are going crazy by actually believing their ideas, maybe it will spread to the 'Inner Party' too.

[Anonymous No.6323028]

That's just liberalism.

http://thefire.org/article/9869.html
http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/730a8163b35b360f8edd2b889c832ce9.pdf

>A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination.

>REVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilege. Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give ‘preferential treatment’ to people of color over whites. In the US, there is no such thing as ‘reverse racism.'

>A NON-RACIST: A non-term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racism, to maintain an aura of innocence in the face of racial oppression, and to shift responsibility for that oppression from whites to people of color (called “blaming the victim”). Responsibility for perpetuating and legitimizing a racist system rests both on those who actively maintain it, and on those who refuse to challenge it. Silence is consent.

>Have you ever heard a well-meaning white person say, ‘I’m not a member of any race except the human race?’ What she usually means by this statement is that she doesn’t want to perpetuate racial categories by acknowledging that she is white. This is an evasion of responsibility for her participation in a system based on supremacy for white people.

[Anonymous No.6323033]

>>6323012
Eugenics and dysgenics aren't theories, you can no more disprove eugenics than you can disprove Mendelian Inheritance itself.

[Anonymous No.6323031]

>>6323021
The biggest inefficiency is teachers unions and the vice they have our collective balls in (can't fire a bad teacher, can't give a raise to a good one. etc).

But we could discuss the trainwreck that is our current educational bureaucracy for hours /easily/. If it were overhauled that would go such a long way to righting the capsize in and of itself. Like I said once that hole is plugged the other elements almost naturally shuffle into place.

[Anonymous No.6323037]

>>6323028
One of the parts that I think is interesting is that he says that due to his whiteness "Parties become less diverse the second I walk in." That's a pretty stupid statement, but what is interesting is that it suggests that "diversity" is just a liberal code word for "non-white". Being white is something you should be ashamed of because you aren't properly diverse. White people aren't part of diversity.

We really are a sick society. We've somehow fucked up society enough that people actively look for new ways to loathe themselves and feel bad for any success they achieve. You know it's mostly white people who swallow this bullshit, and minorities who have been SWPLized.

[Anonymous No.6323040]

>Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.” A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line. A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men. This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.

>“Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking. This progressive stack has been inspiring and mind-boggling in its effectiveness.

[Anonymous No.6323042]

>>6323033

Evolution, you do not get it.

I'm on no one's side but science, and you intend to turn into a pet sociology project. Get the fuck off my turf.

[Anonymous No.6323047]

>>6323042
>I'm on no one's side but science
>thinks human behavioral traits aren't heritable and therefore can't be influenced by selective breeding in aggregate terms

Go back to moaning about 'big oil' and 'global warming' and leave the genuinely controversial science to the non-libfags plz.

[Anonymous No.6323057]

White liberals are the dumbest people on Earth for the following reasons:

1. They believe in a make-believe privilege yet are on a crusade to throw away this nonexistent advantage. If this privilege was real it would be akin to the rich burning their money or high IQ persons getting voluntary lobotomies. Giving up conditions that are in your favor is fucking stupid regardless of the reasons.

2. Their complete lack of concern for their own race. Notice whenever there is talk about perils their race may be enduring, whether it is the racially-targeted murders of white farmers in South Africa or anything else, they are quick to dismiss these circumstances as threats and go on to defend the perpetrators. Again fucking stupid, such hubris in a normalcy bias will makes these idiots less than useless in any potential dangerous situation because they cannot process the idea that they are white and if whites are targeted that means in turn they are targeted.

3. Failing to realize that if they acted along racial lines like everyone else they could get better treatment instead of bending over like a cuckold beta for gangs of HIV-infested youths.

tldr: white libs are idiots for preventing themselves from getting the most out of life.

[Anonymous No.6323052]

>>6323037
I agree posing as leftists can be a good tactic. You don't even have to overblow or exaggerate what these guys think. Many people would be pretty shocked if they knew the whacked out shite that's waiting for them on the far left. It's like guys who think they're Feminists, but then stumble across Shakesville or Amanda Marcotte for the first time and wonder what they've let themselves in for.

In my opinion one of the major points to address is people's floundering in the face of leftist attacks. But give people some simple but efefctive counter-critique to use and they'll use it. Privilege theory gets everybody's hackles up. Coordinators for racism and sexism workshops actually get told in training always to expect this. That's because people know they're being fucked with, but aren't quite sure in what way and what the response should be. They just need to be able to articulate counterpoints, which they can't always do.

[Anonymous No.6323060]

>2014
>at the grocery store browsing the Monsanto GMO vegetables
>oppressive cucumbers now genetically altered to be shaped like vaginas
>accidentally make eye contact with a passing Womyn
>a siren blares and a deep female voice booms over the loudspeaker
>CIS PRIVILEGE ALERT! CIS PRIVILEGE ALERT!
>two black trannies, a hulking bull dyke, and a white Womyn, members of the Anti-Privilege Task Force, approach me
>"On the ground, you fucking rapist! Get on the ground!"
>before I can utter a word, I'm tazed and maced
>I'm bound, gagged and my Obamacare-certified anti-rape shock collar is installed
>then comes the chastity cage, another preventative measure to ensure the protection of Womyn from my foul urge to rape them
>I know the worst is yet to come
>A gargantuan buttplug is inserted as I begin to weep silently
>privilege checked

[Anonymous No.6323069]

>>6323060
I just got that SJW and islam are working the same idea from two angles...

Islam
Women are disgusting whores who can't be trusted. Cover up the women and make them rectify this. Stone them if they ever show any flesh or have sex.
SWJ tumblrshit
>Men are disgusting rapists who can't be trusted, bare all your flesh then if a man looks at it discuss castrating him and make him pay child support should that woman ever have a child.

They're both equally as illogical, stupid and regressive.

[Anonymous No.6323070]

>>6323047

Psychology hasn't gotten to a point where you can distill heritable traits from environmental traits. Hell, we haven't even fuckin gotten risk factors for cancer separated. How the fuck can you disseminate emotions and traits like laziness into genetic factors?

And nice, you're shoving me with Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. Call them fake and liberal and pussy, but I'm glad to be in their league and not your pseudo science shit.

[Anonymous No.6323083]

>>6323070
Another anonymous here:
But we ARE nailing down how being a sociopath, and other disorders. are inheritable and genetic. Nuture plays a rule but it can only aggravate or narrowly avert what is already present by nature (and then it still has its effects).

I mean, we're (by consensus) fairly confident there hasn't been enough time for any MAJOR human intelligence separation... BUT, if intelligence can't be a selective trait, how can you have an evolutionary bias towards it? The very one that made our species the most primary, apex, tool-user?

Try and not lash out. I'm just feeling out your position here.

[Anonymous No.6323099]

>>6323083

Fair points. I actually agree with this. The main point I was trying to make here is that while we have pinpointed some traits (such as asociability and autism, which is on the 22q11 locus), some intelligence SNPs, and other traits, I'm saying that the overall bundle into one person is extremely complex and cannot be simply bred out at the moment with our rudimentary tools - that would simply be disaster. What we're doing is essentially finding letters of an ancient alphabet and painstakingly trying to translate them. We don't know if mating two intelligent people will produce an intelligent kid, and god knows the number of white, college educated people that have bred good for nothing NEETS. The value someone is to society cannot exactly be measured and quantified by genetics alone.

I also personally abhor the idea of breeding people simply for intelligence. But that's my personal opinion, and I feel like this isn't the topic at hand.

[Anonymous No.6323103]

>>6322684
can't. stop. laughing.

[Anonymous No.6323110]

>>6323070
>How the fuck can you disseminate emotions and traits like laziness into genetic factors?

Laziness is linked to the ability to delay gratification which is linked to patience and intelligence, they all inter-relate, which is why Spearman's positive manifold exists for example.

We HAVE distilled intelligence down and can quantify its heritable fairly accurately.

However, your standard of proof is absurd. It's like asking for every single transitional fossil to be found before we can conclude evolution is reality.

Let's be honest, you dislike the concept of heritaiblity because of what it implies in relation to egalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.6323113]

Here's the templates.

[Anonymous No.6323115]

>>6323099
>We don't know if mating two intelligent people will produce an intelligent kid

Barring any deficient mutations, which are really rare, they will.

If intelligence isn't substantially heritable, how did humans ever evolve it in the first place?

[Anonymous No.6323116]

[Anonymous No.6323120]

>>6323083
>I mean, we're (by consensus) fairly confident there hasn't been enough time for any MAJOR human intelligence separation...

Read some of Harpending's stuff. There's actually no time difference in the time it takes to produce 'cosmetic' changes between groups, like skin color, and 'non superficial' traits like intelligence. The claim there hasn't been enough time for evolution to act on such things isn't true.

[Anonymous No.6323121]

>>6322907
But people with genius level IQs won't be because if given the choice in our society to raise children or follow a productive passion (especially if that passion doesn't raise much money and therefore has a higher time-to-profit ratio), they will choose to follow the passion.

[Anonymous No.6323123]

>>6323121
I don't know if that's strictly true, I'm putting genius level at 150+. If you make it easy enough for them to have lots of kids, they will.

[Anonymous No.6323137]

>>6323115
>>6323121

>implying intelligence will make the kid a productive member of society

The existence of the internet pretty much proves otherwise.

[Anonymous No.6323140]

>>6323137
Intelligence correlates with ability to delay gratification, so if an intelligent kid is unproductive, then all other things being equal, a less intelligent kid will be even less productive.

[Anonymous No.6323147]

>>6323140

I am wowed by your words and complete lack of evidence.

[Anonymous No.6323152]

>>6323140
I find whereas the unproductive and stupid waste time on facebook etc... The unproductive and intelligent people can waste time on the internet doing a kind of "knowledge gorging". That is to say they read and do mentally stimulating things but since they have unlimited desire and unlimited access they never actually break away to apply any of it.

Same result but the paths seem to be much different. Naturally it's entirely anecdotal because it's hard to run a study on this sort of thing.

[Anonymous No.6323166]

>>6323147
See: Spearman's positive manifold. A positive manifold exists between virtually all cognitive traits.

> Naturally it's entirely anecdotal because it's hard to run a study on this sort of thing.

There's nothing wrong with anecdotal stuff. It's pattern recognition. For example, black neighborhoods are generally dangerous, I could dig up some DoJ stats to verify this, but I don't really need to - I know they're dangerous. We all do. That's why all us white people avoid them.

[Anonymous No.6323170]

>>6323152

The problem is that I don't know how you're defining intelligence.

I know some pretty vapid people in my med program. They spend all day on FB and partying, and have very little to no interest in the program. Yet they pass, and I have to suffer with them again. And someday they will become your doctor.

And apparently, med students are supposed to be the cream of the crop, according to all these standardised test scores.

Which, I guess leads to the question, what defines intelligence? An arbitrary view of how people spend their time, a test that is claimed to test intelligence and tested by a panel, or the ability to memorise the ever changing list of SJW terms?

[Anonymous No.6323177]

>>6323170
In respect to what processes or mechanisms is it that persons who perform well on anyone test, in general, also perform well on many other tests, even on tests that are highly dissimilar in content and sensory and motor modalities?

The concept of intelligence depends not on the fact that people can be ranked by this test or that, but rather on the fact that, whatever the test, so long as it is cognitive in the broadest sense, a positive correlation emerges between the ranks for any two tests. If an IQ test were just a rag- bag collection of subjective cognitive tasks that did not all measure a common factor, there could be no positive manifold.

[Anonymous No.6323186]

>>6323170
>The problem is that I don't know how you're defining intelligence.
My personal judgement calls as to their mental capabilities. Those friends of mine who are legitimate geniuses often struggle with what appears to be a knowledge addiction.
They get a high from learning and the internet is the library without end...

Again, anecdotal, but it makes sense.

[Anonymous No.6323291]

>>6323177

So basically, the IQ test is good at what it's testing.

The question is what the hell does it test.

[Anonymous No.6323341]

>>6323016
uh. POC is an old term for black people. My fucking GRANDMOTHER uses that term

[Anonymous No.6323342]

>>6323019
yes, I MAD. Now I have to deal with annoying racist fascists. And I actually like parts of Fascism

[Anonymous No.6323349]

>>6323057
White liberals ARE FUCKING PRIVILEDGED YOU DOLT

[Anonymous No.6324210]

http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x1xv47_BrainwashingInNorway_hjernevask-english/1#video=xp0tg8

A great series of documentaries that busts some old myths about gender, race, IQ, and more, and clearly shows how anti-science the political left is.

[Anonymous No.6324457]

>>6323116
I don't get this one. Is it supposed to be an invisible man?

[Anonymous No.6324469]

>>6323291
>So basically, the IQ test is good at what it's testing.

That's not what he said at all:

>The concept of intelligence depends not on the fact that people can be ranked by this test or that, but rather on the fact that, whatever the test, so long as it is cognitive in the broadest sense, a positive correlation emerges between the ranks for any two tests.
>whatever the test

Meaning all cognitive tests.

>Our results indicate that there is consensus among experts in the science of mental abilities that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias.

www.dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.03.007

[Anonymous No.6324470]

A “good liberal” can become a “racist” overnight the minute they say something Tim Wise doesn’t like. Note George Zimmerman, registered Democrat, mentor of black children, best befriender of African-Americans, Hispanics, became a white racist…

The Baby Boomers believed in the “reasonable liberalism” fallacy. They believed that “imbalances will be balanced out, the unfairness will be fixed, and we’ll all get along.”

Way back in the early 1990′s I would tell such people, “No way. It’s going to go all the way to Communism. These people have no set goal at which point the white people are off the hook. We will NEVER be off the hook, until we take ourselves off it.”

[Anonymous No.6324472]

>What does liberalism offer? Does it offer honesty, integrity, friendship, patriotism, freedom of religion and speech? Or does it offer a world without anything but the state and equality for those that have made our country a war zone of crime, depravity and murder? Anything goes under the liberal flag. Homosexuality, filth, transgenderism, the destruction of marriage, the family and even free abortions. Profanity, Godlessness, amorality, situational ethics, children turning in their parents, blacks and Mestizos impregnating your daughters, profanity, pornography, child molestation( we had no such problem until the advent of liberalism), the welfare state, ghettos, barrios, gangs, drugs, overcrowded prisons, a sky-high murder and rape rate, the devaluation of the individual, the loss of integrity and honesty in both society and business, the loss of national security, and the destruction of the European culture. This is what liberalism stands for and offers.

[Anonymous No.6324475]

>>6324472
Liberalism from an evolutionarily standpoint is the dumbest thing imaginable. Consider those idiots who adopt kids from Haiti or Africa. They are first of all are so distantly related (100,000 years or more) to them that there is no genetic benefit in terms of inclusive fitness from this at all. Taking care of a child who is your nephew or niece, even from 5th cousins still confers a gene survival advantage, this on the other hand is giving survival to someone else's genes while taking from your resources which may give you a survival advantage and is therefore is stupid as fuck. Liberalism is the epitome of failing at inclusive fitness. And therefore fialing at the main function of life which is to ensure your set of genes, not that of foreign populations, are the ones which survive and evolve. But this can only be achieved by protecting your genetic cluster from invasive gene flow otherwise hybridization occurs and your population becomes extinct.

[Anonymous No.6324476]

>>6324472

It's because modern "liberalism" is nothing more than a disease. If you examine the leftist mindset you will come to realize that they ALWAYS advocate for what is most destructive to the host society.

An easy way to illustrate this is to examine the way leftists treat homosexuality and muslims. Leftists have been at the forefront of pushing homosexuality and attacking any white church or organizations that does not apporve of homosexuality. Muslims detest homosexuality and advocate stoning them to death. Despite this white leftists defend muslims and never stage protests of them, like they do of white churches who hold even mild views disapproving of homosexuality. Most white liberals vociferously defend things like the Burka.

This behavior seems contradictory on the surface. However, if you examine leftists as not being objectively interested in what they say they are but merely advocating whatever is most destructive to white society, then their behavior becomes very consistent. Muslims and homosexuality are both destructive to white society so leftist support them both despite their contradictory nature.

[Anonymous No.6324483]

"Contemporary liberalism honors diversity and tolerance above all, but what it calls by those names is different from what has been so called in the past. Its diversity denigrates and excludes ordinary people, and its tolerance requires speech codes, quotas, and compulsory training in correct opinions and attitudes. Nor do current liberal totems and taboos have a clear connection with letting people live as they wish. Prohibitions, both grand and petty, multiply. To outsiders the rules often seem simply arbitrary: prayer is forbidden while instruction in the use of condoms is required; smoking and furs are outrages, abortion and sodomy fundamental rights.

Many of these oddities can be explained by reference to the specific understanding of tolerance held by contemporary liberals. "Tolerance" is traditionally understood procedurally, to mean letting people do what they want. Contemporary liberals understand it substantively, to require equal respect as a fact of social life. These understandings are radically inconsistent. As a political matter, procedural tolerance calls for laissez-faire, while substantive tolerance requires pervasive administrative control of social life. A regime that adopts substantive tolerance as its goal must be intolerant procedurally because it must control the attitudes people have toward each other, and any serious attempt to do so will require means that are unforgiving and despotic."

[Anonymous No.6324484]

Faggots, take it to /pol/

[Anonymous No.6324492]

>>6324470
Pic related, this is the situation in Sweden. Even feminists will defend immigrant rapists now. If you think arab rapists are scum then you're racist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMNiuuxlGHk#t=50

[Anonymous No.6324522]

>>6324484
>implying women cannot add anything to a discussion that does not include talking about what men are the hottest/most desirable and what other women are ttl sluts zomg

[Spaghettiking !rHutTKu1dI No.6324528]

>>6324522
I think they were just suggesting that this discussion go to the board where it's actually on topic. But I hope you appreciate the irony of accusing them of sexism.

[Anonymous No.6324537]

>>6324528
no

you won't get any pussy w-knighitng women falcone

[Anonymous No.6324652]

man I hate leftists

[Anonymous No.6324699]

>>6324492
God, durka durkas are so shit.

[Anonymous No.6324738]

>>6324457
It's a template, you silly goose.

[Anonymous No.6324751]

This board has no mods. This thread isn't even remotely on topic. It's just concentrated tripe.