/lit/ - Literature

>be OP
>be either unable to disagree with something without gratuitous hyperbole or just really be this dumb
>play with own shit
Kill yourself

>>10761370
>hyperbole
How is it hyperbole when it's actually what he believed and wrote about

also:
>hurr ur dum
kill yourself

>>10761383
You’ve moved from the extreme of social constructionism to
>even political views are almost entirely genetic
When even psychologists that put the most emphasis on the biological side of this kind of thing don’t say that
moron

>Science has proven that personality traits, emotions, and even political views are almost entirely genetic and that environment/history/culture plays a very minor role.
[citation needed]

damn i just bought the Order of Things an hour ago

>>10761363
Listing political views gets to the real point of the issue. Genetic predispositions and arrangements are expressed and filtered through culture. You can say that people who have same-sex desires and perhaps behave homosexually have physiological, neurological and genetic differences which distinguish them from their heterosexual counterparts, but how that interacts with their perception of their own personhood, identity and values, and how they act upon it within the culture they exist in plays a strong part too. In Greek antiquity the socially acceptable and, as far as we know, most prevalent kind of homosexual behaviour was pederasty. In contemporary Western culture it is through relationships of relatively equal age and status. To speak broadly (perhaps too broadly): a person's physiological makeup might subject them to homosexual impulses, but those homosexual impulses are then subjected to the possibilities inherent in their environment.

Politics, if they are indeed strongly genetic, demonstrate this even further. They have to, by their essence, since politics is hugely circumstantial.

>>10761398
i put an archaeology of knowledge epub in my phone but i didnt read yet

>>10761387
>You’ve moved from the extreme of social constructionism to
>>even political views are almost entirely genetic
If everything is socially constructed then political views are ALSO socially constructed.

I mean, how fucking stupid are you?

>>10761392
>[citation needed]
Read this:
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/02/24/first-worldism-part-3-the-heritability-of-political-views/
There are countless peer reviewed papers within this article, so those are the sources, this article just makes it clear for the layman.

>>10761398
>>10761401
>damn i just bought the Order of Things an hour ago
Wow imagine being this stupid and in denial of genetics.

>>10761400
>Politics, if they are indeed strongly genetic
They are.
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/02/24/first-worldism-part-3-the-heritability-of-political-views/

>>10761422
Do you have anything to say about the rest of my post though? No one is born identifying as gay or straight, or as being a liberal or a republican or an apolitical egoist. These concepts are explicitly dependent on the world we inhabit as determined by a million small and massive forces of history before and during our lives. The language we use to describe even obvious, unquestionably extant things, affects our perception of them, and how we act in turn.

>>10761431
>No one is born identifying as gay or straight
I'm gay.
My homosexuality stems from genetics/epigenetics and a tiny bit of my childhood.

>or as being a liberal or a republican or an apolitical egoist.
Political views are at LEAST 40% genetically heritable.
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/02/24/first-worldism-part-3-the-heritability-of-political-views/

>as determined by a million small and massive forces of history before and during our lives.
This "history" stems from the genetics of people who created this history.

>>10761437
I'm gay too, and I certainly agree that the roots of my sexual preference go deep. How I think about it does too, but in ways long preceding my birth. Political views being inheritable is a statement that needs to be heavily qualified. I'll read your link soon of course, and I can't claim to have engaged with it before then (I'm taking a little break). But my point is that whatever it is that is inherited, it HAS to be incredibly reactive to the world around it. It has to take shape according to cultural influences. That's the very nature of politics. It might seem easy to simply say "yes politics is inherited" if you think more or less in a two-party system, or just in fixed generic attitudes of "conservatism" and "liberals" are within a certain political culture. But Liberalism, a supremely multi-faceted, diverse trend of modern political philosophy... you can't just have that written in your DNA. A hundred years ago no one advocated gay marriage. Now its law. The circumstances of thought and attitude completely change.

>>10761422
>If everything is socially constructed then political views are ALSO socially constructed.
There is a middle ground between the two points of view you fucking retard, if you knew anything about the effects of genetics on behaviour you'd know there's a thing called a diathesis stress model which shows that genetics may predispose you to certain behaviours - as long as a certain environment is available - as >>10761400 this anon gives examples of. Dumbass.

>>10761437
>Political views are at LEAST 40% genetically heritable.
Really? So why did you say
>even political views are almost entirely genetic
Could it be because you were disagreeing with something with a stupid amount of hyperbole?
>mfw you're so dumb you don't even know when you're wrong

>>10761437
Oh Jesus Christ
>It's another episode of anon doesn't understand what "heritability" means

Every time. You and the "Bell Curve" dipshits

>>10761452
>Political views being inheritable is a statement that needs to be heavily qualified.
It is though.
See the link I posted.
Science/genetics has PROVED it is.
Do you hate science or something?
Read the article or watch this extremely interesting video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J2V2vnrEz0

>But my point is that whatever it is that is inherited, it HAS to be incredibly reactive to the world around it.
Yes, the environment plays a role as well, but not as much.
All we are saying is that genetics plays and extreme role, much more than you people would expect. Nobody ever said it was 100% genetic.

>>10761458
>There is a middle ground between the two points of view you fucking retard
Yes, Foucault never took this middle ground, he was a social constructionist through and through.

>genetics may predispose you to certain behaviours - as long as a certain environment is available
Yes I agree with this.
How the fuck does this dispute my argument whatsoever?
You brainlet.

>>even political views are almost entirely genetic
Because even though on paper and in the studies they are 40% inheritable, there are countless other factors like the genetic mesh which increases this number much higher.

>>10761463
>I've never read the bell curve
>I still don't understand what heritability means
>those evil racists are wrong though because they're EEEVVIIILLLL

Kraut and Tea is that you?
Want to get btfo even more by Ryan?

>>10761467
kek why did I fall for this epic bait

>>10761470
>even knowing about yt drama

>>10761471
>I don't even need to have an argument

>>10761472
>being a social outcast
nobody cares about you

>tfw nobody can refute the fact that foucault was wrong on his core principles
The rest of what he said was bullshit too.

>>10761470
You literally mixed up the words "heritability" and "inheritable" in one of your posts, you dumb faggot.

>>10761422
>http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/02/24/first-worldism-part-3-the-heritability-of-political-views/
>For example, IQ scores.
dropped
>murican soical studies
Remind me to discard any of this shit in future.

what does it mean for something to be X% heritable?

>>10761482
So? I'm drunk.
You should be able to differentiate when people mistype words.
This sounds like a "you" problem.

>>10761484
>dropped
You're dropping actual scientific data?
Why? Because it triggers you?
IQ tests are G loaded.
Do you even know what that means you absolute brainlet.
It's like you think it's impossible to even measure intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

>Remind me to discard any of this shit in future.
Imagine actually being this stupid.

How it is even possible to make statements in fields of sociology and psychology using methods of natural science?

>>10761467
>How the fuck does this dispute my argument whatsoever?
Look at your original post and the claim you made about political views being almost entirely determined by genetics, and now look at how in the post I quoted you agree that the relationship with the environment is important. I’m not going to walk you through this again, goodbye brainlet.

>>10761488
Put as simply as possible: Heritability is a measure of how much genetics affect the variation of a trait in a population.

So something with 40% heritability, like OP posted, means that 40% of the variation of political belief in a population is due to genetics. It doesn't mean that 40% of an individual's political beliefs are decided by your genes. Heritability isn't meant to be applied to individuals.

You can, in a sense, but it still would only (sort of) tell you that 40% of the total difference between yours and the "average" political stance is genetic. So if you were 10 points to the right of the political average of your population, 4 of those points would be your genetics. But this is more of an example, as, again, heritability isn't applied to individuals.

>>10761502
because human behavior is based on human genetics, dipshit.

>>10761503
>Look at your original post and the claim you made about political views being almost entirely determined by genetics
alright, then I was mostly exaggerating because in reality, it's 40%-60%.
Still, it's far far greater than the 0% leftists and social constructionist turds believe.

>with the environment is important
It is important, but genetics is more important.
This is why your precious communism is impossible.

>>10761477
>Not caring about ecelebs makes you the social outcast

>>10761512
It's funny because even with leftists, political views are determined by genes because they are in effect black nationalists.
They're still nationalistic, just not for their own race.

>>10761524
you're trying too hard now.

had me going there for a second though.

Im trying to understand Foucault. What where his core principals? What point was he trying to make?

Im reading stuff about him that ultimately doesnt help me. It says first he wanted to write about authority, then realized he was actually writing about power, but then he changed his mind again and said the whole point of his lifes work was examining extreme human experiences? What?

I know the meme that all institutions resemble prisons, and that people are trying to tell me that the society we live in resembles Benthams panopticon, but what is the point? Things resemble other things.
Power relations exist.
People thought of crazy people one way and later thought of them differently.
Whats the punchline?

Im a brainlet, please help.

>>10761521
>alright, then I was mostly exaggerating because in reality, it's 40%-60%.
thank you for admitting you were wrong
>This is why your precious communism is impossible.
just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're on the opposite side of the political spectrum as you, only you are retarded enough to take that kind of stance.

>>10761521
so you're admitting this thread was mostly bait and got me excited for nothing. i read your article and hoped that it was some kind of new scientific revelation that was going to prove biological determinism or something, but it wasn't. it just confirms what everyone already knows: genetics play a big role in forming who you are. thanks for nothing jackass.

>>10761543
Eheheh, you got disciplined and punished ;)

>>10761553
kek

>>10761522
>the internet isn't a massive part of popular culture in 2018

>>10761526
leftists are basically black nationalists even if they say they arent

>>10761531
>What where his core principals?
denial of genetics, thinks everything is a social construct or historically construct

he's basically retarded
he's interesting to read if you're curious about why humans were wrong about things in the past

>>10761532
>thank you for admitting you were wrong
You're wrong as well.
40-60% is much higher than what you thought it was

>>10761543
>so you're admitting this thread was mostly bait
It's not.
It's just exposing social constructionist for the retards they are.

> i read your article and hoped that it was some kind of new scientific revelation that was going to prove biological determinism or something, but it wasn't.
You didn't read anything you liar.

>it just confirms what everyone already knows: genetics play a big role in forming who you are.
95% of the country doesn't believe this lol

>>10761560
>>the internet isn't a massive part of popular culture in 2018

This doesnt mean that normal people know Diversity and Comics

>>10761512
thanks. I'd like to learn more about genetics now. this is all very interesting.

>>10761561
I read the entire thing and downloaded pdf copies of most of the studies. I'm reading the Bouchard one now. Idk why you're so hostile.

>95% of the country doesn't believe this

which country? what evidence do you have to support this claim about whatever country it is you're talking about?

>>10761565
>This doesnt mean that normal people know Diversity and Comics
people know about youtube and youtube debates though, you absolute brainlet

>>10761570
>I read the entire thing and downloaded pdf copies of most of the studies. I'm reading the Bouchard one now. Idk why you're so hostile.
reply to me when you've read them and understood them.
also read the althype article so the implications of these studies become realized

>which country?
USA.
Half of the country doesn't believe in evoltion, the other half of the country doesn't believe evolution applies to human personality traits and race.
It's probably not 95% but pretty damn close.
also Europe isn't far off

>>10761581
you're not fucking getting it. you made a claim that nearly all political belief is genetic when the evidence you provided does not support that. You're just really big on making absurdly hyperbolic statements for some fucking reason. Thanks for the reading material but I'm gonna take my leave of your obnoxious ass.

>>10761363
From this thread it's clear OP is retarded and he comes from a family of retards.

>>10761581
>people know about youtube and youtube debates though
>goal post shifting

The point is, nobody sane cares about the losers DEBATING, brainlet. Go ask your high school crush what she thinks about kraut and tea's inability to grasp the reproductive behavior of trouts.

>>10761582
man I'm drunk and I have to go listen to 80s music while drunk
but yeah 40%-60% of poltical views are genetic.
I'll admit that
>hurr you were wrong

lol you thought it was 0
dont say you didnt believe this

>>10761584
>DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT
IMAGINE actually being this retarded
god damn


>>10761586
>>goal post shifting
Nah lol
>The point is, nobody sane cares about the losers DEBATING, brainlet.
10s of thousands of people do though.
Why do you think kraut got so btfo he deleted his channel?

Why did mister metokur make 4 videos btfo him.
His arguments were embarrassing.
All anti racial arguments are embarrassing.

>>10761598
i didn't have any opinions on it until this information was presented to me, if pressed for a percentage i would have likely said 10-30%. i don't know why you think you're fucking psychic.

>>10761560
>You're wrong as well.
>40-60% is much higher than what you thought it was
You're making things up again, idiot.

>>10761606
>if pressed for a percentage i would have likely said 10-30%
thats nice
it's 40-60% though
I hope you learned from today.

>>10761607
>You're making things up again, idiot.
All of the sources I posted CONFIRM this.

I swear, you evolution deniers are absolute brainets.
Imagine actually denying genetics.
The establishment and the church hated charles darwin as much as modern leftists hate the "alt right" today.

Evolution and racialism is true whether you like it or not.

>>10761614
>I swear, you evolution deniers are absolute brainets.

No, you dumbfuck, I said you were making things up about what other people (i.e me) thought. I never denied the role of genetics, in the very first reply to this thread I disagreed with the extent to which you said genetics play a role(i.e almost entirely responsible).

Learn to fucking read.

>>10761616
put on a trip then
either way, you probably agree with me then, why don't you want to fight the other brainlets like leftist pieces of shit like I do then?

I bet you're a conflicted leftist yourself

>>10761624
legit kys, you're an unbearably smug prick and i wish nothing but pain and misery in your life, drink yourself to death tonight.

>>10761624
You've spent this entire thread accusing people who are encouraging you to take a more nuanced view of these topics(and helping you be more accurate) of being 'leftists'. I am doing you a favour here by telling you that you are a brainlet, you should start reading proper books and not getting information from youtube personalities because that is lazy and stupid.

Not everyone who disagrees with your dumbfuck worldview is a communist, in fact the way you behave is the equivalent of a left-wing SJW accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being a racist/fascist. You really are the other side of the coin.

>>10761363
Why cite Foucault when he got most of his criticism of science from Nietzsche, or does he not fit the "leftist faggot" persona your OP is directed at?

>>10761422

> Posting an alt-right website as source

>>10761363
>muh behaviorism and evolutionary psychology
kys

>Science has proven that personality traits, emotions, and even political views are almost entirely genetic and that environment/history/culture plays a very minor role.
>Blank slatism/social constructionism is bullshit.

>>10761363
>Why do leftists take this man seriously when he's been proven WRONG?
Which specific claims by Foucault do you think have been disproved?

>>10761531
The scientific enquiry is based on making classifications of objects that are completely arbitrary and based on axioms--thus a set of belief. He warned about making science a dogma.

Eras of human history are characterised by epistémès, epistemological fields aka sets of axioms through which people define and view the world. He warned about thinking our knowledge is purely objective and that it is the last stage of human knowledge.

He warned about thinking our current world is better than the past.

He warned about being exclusionary.

He warned that the state is now more interested in controlling how people think and behave rather than controlling territories.

> He just asked people don't be dicks to each others and don't use science as a base to exclude people from enjoying their life

>>10761490
>It's like you think it's impossible to even measure intelligence
It is. G is an approximation, it's not 'intelligence'. We don't even understand the brain fully yet.

The link's chart says political views are at 0.0 before age 20, then become .40 after age 20. If that were true you'd see a lot of switching political ideologies at 20, but statiscally people remain in the party they were raised in.

>>10761521
>because human behavior is based on human genetics, dipshit.
It is also based on environment. Pure determinism is just as nonsencical as blank slate.

>>10761422
>>10761467
>Thinking this is a scientific article
>eceleb debates
>this is your brain on pol

>>10761685
I agree pol is shit, but some of the links are legit
>http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Way(2010)SCAN.pdf
If I'm reading this one correctly, it identifies an allele that explains socialist and capitalist tendencies. And it's plausible that those lacking "social sensitivity" were more likely to emigrate to America, leading to this relatively conservative country we have here.

>>10761363
>science has proven that it's always nature over nurture

god you have no idea

>>10761707

>>10761400
/thread

>>10761707
>And it's plausible that those lacking "social sensitivity" were more likely to emigrate to America,
When were you when america was scientifically proven to be autistic?

>>10761363
Why do you guys ALWAYS have to oppose politics?? Why are you addressing this post to leftist? Have you even read Foucault? You'll realize it's far from being pleb level political writings.

>>10761806
Not autistic, sociopathic. Sociopaths make for excellent capitalists.

>>10761888

Check'd

Ahem, guys, all this talk about Heritability isnt taking into account that you inherit traits and behavior via DNA shaping telepathy and genetic memory imprint, so its not just traits, its juste whole subsets of behaviors.

>>10761899
>>10761888
Are there actually marxists on this board?
lol how fucking stupid do you have to be?

>>10761812
>Have you even read Foucault?
yeah, he's a retard

>>10761735
>god you have no idea
YOU have no idea you brain damaged leftist, holy shit you brainlet

>>10761685
>>Thinking this is a scientific article
They ARE scientific articles though.
Why are you so mad that they prove you anti-evolutionists wrong ?

>>10761663
>It is also based on environment.
No shit you absolute brainlet.
Look at the studies OP is talking about.

>Pure determinism is just as nonsencical as blank slate.
Who is a pure geneticists here?

>>10761660
G actually explains MOST of the things we call "intelligence" though

>>10761650
>but that's wrong

Why does BILL NYE deny human evolution now?
Holy fuck

>>10761651
social constructionism

>>10761644
>muh denial of reality
imagine being this brainwashed

>>10761641
Academic sources are linked in the article though

>>10761628
>being this mad and butthurt with no argument

>>10761925
A bit of a sociopathic thing to say

This ENTIRE FUCKING BOARD is bullshit.

Can you guys actually believe that THIS MANY FUCKING PEOPLE deny human evolution and believe what that pseudoscience foucuck believed.

What kind of a brain damaged retard do you have to be to believe in this religious fundamentalism?
Science debunked this bullshit already.
Just slaughter every single one of these people.

>>10761422
Every time i try to take these people seriously and analyse any of the "sources" they hand, i find that the statistical analysis is atrociously flawed, (samples with huge margins of error, retarded "axiomatic" assumptions, etc.) I'm not by any means, autorised enough to question the results of studies done in reputable universities, but some times you have to look beyond the conclussions and charts.

I actually hate Foucault but my hate is weaker than the fun shilling him here ended up to be.

>>10761363
>Enlightenment construct proves beliefs of Enlightenment true!
Fuck neoliberals

>>10761363
>it’s another “everything is genetic (so let’s gas the kikes, race war now!) thread”

>>10761560
>Nationalism is genetic.
>Nations are an invention.
>The creators and spokesmen of those creators had to convince people thus creating national indentity.
>There are genetic bases for nationalist belief.
>A whole new human phenotype was created epigenetically when nations were invented.
>Those who are and were nationalists had "sum genetical disposition" or "nationalism was hardcoded in their genes even before it was invented"
This is your brain on sociobiology.

>>10761398
It's the work of a better historian than actual historians. It's just a great description of the regimes of thought that made up certain regimes of life.
Disregard biological determinists.

Im not even focaultian but god, this thread is terrible and 89IQ.

The only good post is this one >>10761400
but wingcuck fundamentalists are too dumb to make dealings with it.

>>10762125
>nationalism is real
>ethos is real
>social organization is more than the sum of the interractions of individuals
It's not

>>10761949
Dubious studies about muh unconscious biases and stereotype threats are always taken as true, no matter how flimsy the evidence, while studies about genetics and IQ are dismissed no matter how solid the evidence. In the end, its ideological, leftoids are dogmatic believers in social enginneering and radical social constructionism, if people aren't equal they should be made equal by the state, through struggle sessions and control over all aspects of life and thinking.

>YouTube
>Guys seriously look at this peer review o even linked the article
>Why aren't you taking me seriously, its cites peer review
>I bet you don't even have peers libtards
>Unironically believing in an extra- genetic phenomenon, KEK
>Check out this highly informative YouTube vlogger

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

>>10762181
I'm not a native speaker and i don't fully understand what you're trying to say.
Are you suggesting that there's no way new things that weren't determined in beforehand can be made from a certain "energy reservoir". If that's what you're saying, you're giving for granted what interactions are made of, and what individuals are. There's actually much more to the "social organization" than human interactions.

>>10762193
I'm actually talking about the IQ and genetics studies my dude, you misunderstood the post. The last "IQ is genetically determined" post linked a study about MZ and DZG twins. The sample was made of around 100 MZ twins and like 500 DZG twins. also taking for granted that the enviroment of the twins was 100% the same (even if they had different studies). In a study like that any evidence is the product of a biased approach. You just can't compare a group of 500 people with a group of 100 people and try to do a lineal regression analysis. The statistical and scientifical validity of a study with such charasteristics is fucking zero.

>>10762234
The studies about muh unconscious biases and stereotype threats are far flimsier, yet you insist they be treated as gospel

>>10761363
That doesn’t necessarily conflict with social constructionism.

Like money, for example, is a socially constructed thing. A bank note doesn’t have intrinsic value, but within a specific social system it has action which go well beyond merely being a slip of paper. Because the paper is not merely paper, it carries with it an extra thing, the location of that thing is not actually in the chemical and physical make up of the thing itself, but rather that extra fact which makes money money, that location is inside the symbolic order of society.

All words in every language are defined by convention, in order words, they are socially established.

>>10761363
>Science has proven that personality traits, emotions, and even political views are almost entirely genetic and that environment/history/culture plays a very minor role.

Even if this were so (and no, there's no overwhelming consensus as you seem to believe): genetics is soon to be considered deprecated in light of memetics as we're living in silicon. There's very little proof humans actually "exist", you see, even today, studies are indicating behaviour is mostly a factor of PHP subroutines. Since the theory that people "think" is outdated you have to update your pedagogical methods to factor into hacking their memes.

>>10762240
I'm not saying that sociological studies are absolute truth. There are good and bad studies. You just know that a study is bad when it reduces everything to any other thing, be it "society" or "nature".

Is this board full of 15 year olds or is this thread just OP arguing with himself?

>>10762268
>there are good and bad studies

It's simple: The good ones promote your egalitarian intersectional management ideology, the bad ones are those who put any of its assumptions in doubt

>>10762304
It's probably both

>>10762311
Actually the second kind came to critique the first kind. With pretty good results. This proves that science has to convince and then It becomes truth. You cant analyse science as a isolated black box, science and society are one and the same thing.

>>10761363
He belongs in that category of pseudo Marxists that spawned in the west after Adorno.
Psychology and Marxism just caused a lot of troubles. I personally ignore him and a lot others like him.
Call me reactionary but all you need is deep knowledge of Marx and Lenin, then you can be a marxist. Anything else, with exceptions of a few, is fluff.
Maxism-Leninism is a science

Hooo boy there's some great ghost stories going on in this thread! I need to get some smores!

>>10761363
"Academics" wan't Foucault to be correct.

>>10761664
Ok, that's quite good.
>I still think Foucault is worse than worthless though

>>10761363
That doesn't refute him though.

>>10761942
It's called being leftist and unfortunately the personality trait of leftist is usually intellect, which is extremely ironic in these cases, where the simple answer is the correct one and they think that the more complex one is right.

>>10763446
It's the start of the inevitable.

>culture plays a very minor role
Lmao, rightists are now indirectly making arguments for destroying western culture. I guess it makes sense since Trumptards never read a book in their life.

>>10763808
>rightists
>Trump
u avin a confusion m8

>>10763808

>>10761363
Lol that guy got AIDS up his butt and died, anybody taking him serious is gay

>not internalizing alt hyp arguments/data and then argue for stuff in bad faith, always making sure you're protecting those precious genes
>not accepting the fact that politics is nothing but the creation of an environment that is conductive to the proliferation of worthwhile people
>not realizing that highfalutin social theories are pointless to discuss because they're ultimately nothing but tools for social engineering and instead you should be going for the aesthetic knock-out, rallying healthy people around epic memes, slogans and funny pics

>>10761942
>Thinks he is on the side of science

>>10763978
That feel when all the scientists of the world hold alt-right beliefs, about the fact of inherent gender differences and the fact of biologically superior and inferior races. How do we deal with this bros? As a leftist I'm intellectually destroyed by the alt-right movement.

>>10762879
Imagine being this brain damaged.

>>10762412
>Maxism-Leninism is a science
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why do leftists unironically deny evolution, human biological instincts and human nature?

>>10764038
You know a bunch of /leftypol/ transfers are going to dogpile onto this post telling you that it's not true and that only pink-haired college campus idpol hambeasts do that, but then if you actually go to /leftypol/ where they claim to be different you'll soon figure out that it's run by a tranny and that their chat groups are full of pink-haired idpol hambeasts. It is an interesting conundrum.

>>10764038
Because you use human nature to justify regressive behaviour, acting like retarded pondscum. :)

>>10764071
>justify
except this isn't what is happening at all. not everything is politics you neurotic dickwads, after milleniums of people speculating a guy actually figured out why life exists and animals have the attributes they have and the reaction of the humanities is 'well this problematic and could be used against us poltiically". You guys suck so much it is actually mind boggling

>>10764038
they find it vulgar and dissatisfying

>>10764083
It's literally what you do over and over again with this "human nature" meme, implying nature is unchangebale, set in stone, and we should follow tradition like autistic sheep.

>>10764083
>not everything is politics you neurotic dickwads
You just gave me a huge realization. These lefty types deny evolution, instincts nature, etc because they believe it is being politicized against them. The left politicizes everything so they only assume that everyone that disagrees with them is doing it as well. They can't imagine that anyone exists outside of a foundationless "ends justifies the means" mode of argument.

>>10764101
you don't know me for one thing and it literally is not about what we should do. It's an explanation of why we are the way we are, and it makes complete sense if you give it even a small chance

>>10764103
Our goal is to kill white people and especially white men. The next step is forced castration, buckle up, bucko.

>the human brain has NOTHING to do with human behavior

Leftist sociology
Not even once

>>10764119
Leftists will never succeed.

Why do people STILL believe in blank slate theory?

Almost everything Foucault and Marx said were wrong.

>125 posts
>52 posters
Autism

>>10764127
We already stole all your girlfriends tho.

>>10764119
False flag
>>10764133
Focault was an idiot, marx wasn't proven wrong

>>10762125
A tendency towards nationalism is genetic though.

>>10764154
Marx was similar bit but his entire thing was an human behavior was constructed by economics.
It's pretty fucking stupid.

>>10764154
Marx was wrong about plenty. Industrial capitalism didn't collapse, it got outsourced and replaced by rentier financial capitalism.

>>10764101
nah I'm pretty sure that I could make a race of people who are really good withstanding low temperatures (or some other arbitrary trait) if you gave me all the possible tools (selective breeding, eugenics, sterilization and complete control of the environment)
you're the ones who are mythologizing human nature and you're boring

>>10764119
it doesn't work like that, at best you'll have a brazil situation on your hands. le epic white genocide memes are boring as well

>>10764149
>leftists
>not virgin omega males
Lmao

>>10764164
Marx had much more nuanced views than that. I don't even like him and I think Marxism is basically the worst thing to ever happen to humanity, but he had actual ideas about things which he had given a lot of thought to unlike the meme machines of post war France.

>>10764171
nah leftists have feminist girlfriends who emasculate them and cheat on them with crude men

>>10764171
We both know that's a lie to make yourself feel bettter. Right-wing beliefs are very popular among channers and other virgin forums.

>>10764184
There we're studies done on internet leftists released last year.
It was like 80% unemployed and 75% virgins or something like that.

>138 posts
>54 posters
why

>>10764192
Yes, I take internet studies very seriously, so that's a real blow to my argument.

>>10764198
As a neutral viewer here I have to say that it's more than you've cited

Race is real.

>>10764198
But they are peer reviewed studies from universities.

:^)

>>10764203
Nothing has been cited by anyone, dear neutral viewer.
And you can do the same with a poll on /pol/. I've seen many in similar places filled with racism and sexism. And it's quite sad and a social problem that these people are loners.

>>10761363
Read some epistemology, why don't ya? What would happen if I said that the science, which you seem to think undeniably proves we are all genetically endowed to be whatever way, was itself informed by environment, culture, power?

>>10764221
did you know that there are entire countries that are racist and sexist? Saudi Arabia for example. Is your understanding that the entire country is alienated loners?

>>10764221
I don't think anyone on /pol/ would answer truthfully if the answer was yes to unemployment or virgin. Anecdotally, I have to say that the guys who showed up for the tiki torch altright stuff looked better and more put together than anything that ever showed up at the antifa rallies. I mean obviously the kekistani guys and the hick neonazis are antifa-tier, but this kind of lowly rabble is all I ever really see from the left whereas the right seems to have a contingent that aren't complete bums.

>>10764221
Im sure r/socialism or wherever you come from are just getting laid 24/7

>>10764237
>>10764236
>>10764221
>>10764198
>>10764203
>>10764192
>>10764184
>>10764171
>you look bad!
>no YOU look bad!
woah... is this the power of amerishart politics? I'm impressed.

>>10764247
To be honest, I went to a Milo protest in Australia and just called all the fat, balding men cuckolds whilst pointing out their male-pattern hair loss. It was exhilarating to hurl abuse at them, but it's kind of a low-point for me. I thought about making it /lit/ by getting out the Hackett Republic by Plato in my bag, and telling them they're deviating from the ideal Western society by a sodomite Jew.

>>10761363
>Science has proven that personality traits, emotions, and even political views are almost entirely genetic and that environment/history/culture plays a very minor role.
Literally when

>Why do leftists...
Stop analysing authors through political ideologies

Personality traits I can see being mostly inherited but the others not so much

>here you go mam heres your son with downs syndrome dont worry though hes a blank slate

>>10764157
If by tendency you mean something along the lines of:
>You're born without a leg for some unknown reason (let's call it "genetic mutation").
>Some random black kid kicks a ball, hits you and you end up falling and crying in pain ("genetic nucleotid trigger factor")
>You're told that black kids are souless animals that take pleasure in giving pain to others and that your country is going to keep the black kids out of your neighborhood. ("primary nucleotid mutation achieved")
In this case, yes, we might definetly say that you were born with a genetic predisposition towards nationalism.
Go read a book, instead of losing your time posting stupid shit on a nudist petanque image forum.

>libertarianism means "e

>>10764461
There's strawmanning then there's shit like this. Wtf even is this post

>>10764501
Even if it's meant to ridicule the previous unfounded statement, it's actually not that bad of an argument. To say that there's some genetic predisposition towards nationalism is like saying that because you were born taller you have some genetic predisposition towards basketball.

>>10764221
Countless peer reviewed studies were posted you gigantic brainwashed idiot.

Kys

>>10764221
>racism and sexism.
What if scientific facts are racist and sexist?
Should we ban them?

>>10761363
because that science is reliant on statistics, a discourse determined entirely by its utility in facilitating governmental control, regulation, and management of populations.

but even more so because Foucault isn't a "social constructivist" and the "science of views" you're interested in isn't relevant to his objects of study. this is a fake view with no real adherents invented as a boogeyman by disgruntled neocons in the 80s.

and even more so because even if inclination toward this or that view is genetically determined (shorthand for "inaccessible to historical analysis," something neocons are always concerned to insist on in disagreements), this geneticist ideology would still have to explain the availability or possibility of holding those views in the first place. for instance, did primitives have views on abortion, before they knew it was possible? did the jacobins have views on cell phone use? these examples are absurd, but one can go further: did the sovereigns of the middle ages have views concerning the regulation of market activity? the answer in all cases is no because the practical technology asked for had not yet been invented.

>>10764813
their justification for violence hasn't changed, now they just try to keep it hip

>>10761888
This actually probably isn't true a large part of succeeding in a capatalist system is forming partnerships built on trust that are mutually beneficial which sociopaths aren't that good at, if you go around stabbing your business partners in the back constantly no one will work with you. This isn't a defence of capitalism before I get criticised of that but the statement sociopaths make excellent capitalists probably isn't true at all. Having said that not everyone that does immoral shit is a sociopath so one can be immoral and a great capitalist (depending on the situation and perimeters it may even be vital).

>>10764195
autism and internet sociopathy

>>10764831
source for these claims?

>>10762125
>>A whole new human phenotype was created epigenetically when nations were invented.
>>Those who are and were nationalists had "sum genetical disposition" or "nationalism was hardcoded in their genes even before it was invented"

No this is your brain on strawmanning.

>>10764831
it's true: sociopaths make terrible capitalists. they dont have the empathy needed to comprehend how best to exact suffering and crush will. they make excellent managers and clerks, though, because someone actually has to do the crushing.

>>10764839
"the nation" is an 18th century invention dude. the kind of "genetic empathy" you're trying to ground your politics in doesn't actually extend much further than you can see.

>>10762234
>In a study like that any evidence is the product of a biased approach. You just can't compare a group of 500 people with a group of 100 people and try to do a lineal regression analysis.

You can but you have to be careful with how you analyse the data.

>>10764028
>the fact of biologically superior and inferior races

This has to be bait because no scientist worth his salt would make such a simple value judgement based on population level differences.

>>10764849
>the nation" is an 18th century invention dude.
complete nonsense, the nation is just a group of people under the control of a state, historically it meant a people who were ethnically related to one another hence 'nation' from Latin meaning birth.

There is nothing wrong with speaking of the Greek city states as nations

>>10764101
Understanding the base attributes that humans have is not the same as a simple invocation of the naturalistic fallacy most researchers in this kind of field are interested in these things precisely because they want to change things for the better (but using an informed model of actual human behaviour rather than one we wished up). A good example would be the research into adolescent risk taking activity. Neuroscientific research has been cited as a reason why we should change the way we punish adolescents when they commit crimes due to an understanding of the (biologically determined) aspects of their development.

Retards will use it to justify regressive behaviour sure but that can be said about literally anything and is not a good justification for denying reality.

>>10764821
>because that science is reliant on statistics, a discourse determined entirely by its utility in facilitating governmental control, regulation, and management of populations.

Honestly this shitty line of reasoning always comes across to me like a humanities student disgruntled by the fact that science and maths actually fucking does something and their degree doesn't get the respect it deserves. So they concoct a frankly absurd theory that statistics and any mathematical or scientific endeavour is just some arbitrary bullshit used to oppress the people. Ignoring completely the fact that statistics didn't just appear from the head of some dictatorial fuckwit but is a system of mathematics developed by hundreds of people across different cultures spanning centuries all of which verify the observations made in completely different contexts.

>>10764849
>"the nation" is an 18th century invention dude. the kind of "genetic empathy" you're trying to ground your politics in doesn't actually extend much further than you can see.

I'm not arguing for the other retard you are replying to, they have a woefully incorrect understanding of the relationship between biologically heritable traits and behaviour. that doesn't change the fact that what you were saying is a strawman of the position and sociobiology.

>>10764878
>the nation is just a group of people under the control of a state
the roman empire is not a nation, the city states are not nations, the german states arent nations, but the german state they composed is. this isn't some arbitrary concept you can sling around wherever you like. it's a concept used in the analysis of historical events, and as such has a specific historical contingency.

>>10764878

>>10765048
do you agree with this definition from wikipedia, or would you prefer a different one:

A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity and/or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture. A nation is distinct from a people,[1] and is more abstract, and more overtly political than an ethnic group.[2] It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[3]

>>10764975
i didn't once say it's "arbitrary bullshit used to oppress people," or even imply it. nor did i say or imply that it "appeared from the head of some dictatorial fuckwit." all i said is that since its concept, statistics has been the science of managing populations, and it continues to be that today, even if those populations are not "human." for instance we speak of a data set as a population, we speak of "populating" a field on a database for use in statistical analysis, etc. this is phenomenological evidence; if you don't find it sufficient let me remind you that the word statistics originated in the 17th century as the science of managing the state. a "statist" was someone talent in this art; "statistics" was the science deployed by such a person. only in 1843 do we see it as the general analysis of data. but this is only after its isolation out the numerous problems of population, analyzed most famously by Malthus, who used statistics to put forward a theory of the state, economy, crisis, etc. so before you think you have everything figured out with your little "cultural marxist humanities degree" metanarrative/mythology, look into the history of the science you swear by and see that it has certain interests built in.

all this to say that you arent wrong when you say that "math and science actually do something," yes, it's true, they actually do what i claimed earlier that they do, they actually do aid in the management and control of populations animate and inanimate.

if any of this strikes you as "arbitrary," then you're dimwitted.

>>10765058
i dont have a real problem with it, except for the fact that it gives the impression that the phenomenon it describes is common. it isn't. nations, especially "manifested in a common culture" are incredibly rare. the named territories, states, principalities, etc that populate history are rarely composed of a singular people united by those fairly rigorous criteria of selection. this is not a "muh six gorillian" plea, but seriously, look how difficult it was for the germans in world war 2 to attempt to construct such a thing as a "german nation." as it is actually deployed, it's a regulatory ideal at based, something to work toward, a project or object, almost never something realized in fact except perhaps in remote island nations. certainly not in europe

>>10765092
But why is a Greek city state not a nation, or something like Holland in 1600?

>>10765107
mostly because they're both "undermined" by amalgamate populations within their territorial borders, and "overmined" by the fact that the greek monoculture they aspire to (insofar as we accept "nationhood" as an objective of the city-state) would require the assimilation of the other greek city-states, each with their own unique, heterogeneous cultures

>>10765124
they achieve nationhood neither within their borders, nor at the level of "The Greek People"

>>10765124
And every nation ever wasn't similarly imperfect?I mean the 19th century nations were almost entirely arbitrary groupings of peoples. When you have a continuous linguistic spectrum passing through regions, any grouping of them is going to be artificial construct based around the dialect spoken in the central city.

>>10765135
>And every nation ever wasn't similarly imperfect
thats exactly what im saying. this "similar imperfection" is precisely the failure of a state to form a nation

>>10765077
I'll give it to you that I think this is a completely fair criticism of my post and I even left out a sentence about my post being tongue in cheek in a sense. I will admit to an unfair reading of your initial post. Having said this I don't necessarily see how the fact that statistics was largely devised for the reasons you describe makes it such that it's contemporary use in explaining data sets is any less powerful or maybe I am still misreading your initial comment. Also I will point out that in the context of the conversation it wasn't unreasonable to assume you meant human populations.

>>10761925
You don't have to be a Marxist to critique the degenerative effects global capitalism has on the individual, society and the soul

Why do leftists believe humans have no biological instincts and that man is a blank slate?
Why do they believe ideology governs everything?

Why do they think a "new socialist man" is even possible?

I can't believe these retards are infesting our universities.

People like zizek should be treated like flat earthers and routinely mocked.

>>10765515
>are infesting our universities.
they took over the universities in the 20s and then forcefully removed all dissent in the 60s. It's their universities

>>10765515
it's not "leftists" that believe that, it's anyone who has studied history and is not deluded by 19th century weltanschauung that coterminate with phrenology

>>10765523
The main problem is the government gives billions of dollars to universities, propping up these leftist scumbags that would fail on their own devices.
This is also the reason why higher education is so expensive.

Education should absolutely be a free market

>>10765541
>the government gives billions of dollars to universities [...] is also the reason why higher education is so expensive

rationalize that for me please, im having trouble

>>10765540
>19th century weltanschauung that coterminate with phrenology
to think you spent the time learning how to say nonsense like this when you could have been studying neuroscience and genetics

>>10765540
>anyone not deluded
You people don't even believe in human evolution and human biological instincts.

You are the equivalent of flat earthers.
Imagine being this brainwashed when actual scientific facts are presented to you.
You're in a cult.

>>10765554
>You're in a cult.
it's actually sad desu. These people are too docile socially to question this stuff so they go through life completely brainwashed

>>10765554
there is a very simple distinction between ontogenetic inclination toward basic political dispositions, and the availability of ideological content to fill those dispositions. only one of these is subject to genetics, biology, etc; the other is historical. you can't be for abortion in a society that doesn't practice it, you can't be against homosexuality in a society that doesn't police sex, etc

>>10765545
One example is government student loans.
The government prints a fuckton of money and loans it out to students and universities keep raising their tuition costs because the government keeps giving them basically free money.

>>10765568
so you're saying that the state has subsidized a money supply to keep demand for a degree artificially high, while at the same time offloading the expense of this money supply onto the consumer

>>10765565
Most of this is wrong.
Aversion to homosexuality is biological and natural in most people.
Acceptance of homosexuality has to be taught, just like anti racism has to be taught.

>>10765574
as a result the suppliers have been able to dictate whatever price they please

>>10765579
explain pederasty in almost every pre-Christian society?

>>10765596
central european celts, attican and thracian greeks, persians, and outside of europe/asia minor pederasty is documented into the 17th century in china and japan? so how does your "genetic disinclination" applying to "most people" explain a pancultural homosexual phenomenon that didn't start to wane until the global spread of abrahamic faith?

>>10765607
But Christcucks are often homosexuals, they just become monks and priest.

>>10761942
what the fuck are you on about gramps
whre the fuck is your alzheimers dog

>http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/hgss/hgssapplets/heritability/heritability.intro.html
>Heritability has two definitions. The first is a statistical definition, and it defines heritability as the proportion of phenotypic variance attributable to genetic variance.
>Heritability and environmentability are abstract concepts. No matter what the numbers are, heritability estimates tell us nothing about the specific genes that contribute to a trait. Similarly, a numerical estimate of environmentability provides no information about the important environmental variables that influence a behavior.
>Heritability and environmentability are population concepts. They tell us nothing about an individual. A heritability of .40 informs us that, on average, about 40% of the individual differences that we observe in, say, shyness may in some way be attributable to genetic individual difference. It does NOT mean that 40% of any person's shyness is due to his/her genes and the other 60% is due to his/her environment.
>It does NOT mean that 40% of any person's shyness is due to his/her genes and the other 60% is due to his/her environment.
/sci/ is full of sad cunts, but they're right about /lit/ 40% of the time

>>10765652
and yet statisticians still cant explain pederasty! im waiting

>>10761363
Sexuality Foucault is literally worst Foucault. read Political Economy Foucault.

>>10765607
homosexuals 500 BC: Hypermasculine Greek Warrior types
20th century: Burroughs, Mishima, Genet, Foucault
21st century homosexuals: politically correct victim caste at the service of jews and multinational corporations

>>10765695
almost as though... sexuality is a historical phenomenon...

>>10765667
probably because they are statisticians and not population geneticists

>>10765704
and that's also why being gay is lame now, far right politics is where it's at.

>A pedo faggot suicidal drug user that died from AIDs
Why are all post modernists psychos? Everytime that I read the biography of one it involves the oscurest of things like extremelly weird sexual practices,marrying trannies or getting into assylums at a young age because they were bonkers.

>>10765515
You think Zizek believes people are blank slate? Maybe you should try to read just a bit more before you try to larp here again.

>>10765581
Or universities can be completely free for everyone? No price manipulation that way.

>>10766100
So what, you would nationalize all private universities and then pay for the costs for the national university system from taxes?

Literally every political position I have depends on the existing society. nothing of it is genetic. Cavemen didn't want to vote liberal or communist because of their genes

>>10766190
>Cavemen didn't want to vote liberal or communist because of their genes

politics are dictated by ur relationship with ur parents / whatever replaces them when u live away from their resources.

>>10766159
Yeah. Works pretty well here in Europe

Pretty well is all well and good, but it doesn't give you the best universities in the world, which are uniformly private institutions in the Anglosphere. I don't know you'd want to sacrifice quality of education for quantity of students.

>>10766291
I'd also like to add that some universities are still private and not within the system (this is where dum dums with rich parents usually go). And some are semi-private, but the students still don't pay. Those get donations from people who want students within that field. They're usually engineering oriented. Students only pay for things they fail that year (In national and semi-private ones). Some semi private put in rules like: top 100 don't pay, Those in top 20% pay 20% etc.

>>10764831
Intertemporal choice. There are types of sociopaths that have low impulse control and would therefore not be good capitalists, but the type that do would be able to manipulate to success, granted they have some talent. After all, who thought the close cousin of the sociopath, the narcissist extrodinare trump, could pull of the coup he did.

>>10761632
He got most of his theory from Durkheim desu

>>10766306
>best universities in the world
>Americans actually believe this
Who dictates which universities are the best? What is the criteria? Are they the best because of money? Are they maybe labeled as best to shoot the prices up? Would the quality drop at all if it were nationalised? I sometimes watch lectures recorded at these "top universities" and I really don't see a difference between those given there and the ones given at my university. Do they give you a kiss before you go to bed or something that really makes this experience worth hundreds of thousands of dollars?

>>10761664
>t. da formative element of da prison sys dem

>>10766346
They're the best because everyone goes there, Oxford and Cambridge are the only other unis on Earth that compare to the Ivy Leagues+Stanford

>>10766368
>everyone goes there
I don't see the problem with making them funded by the state in that case

>>10765515
>interpreting reality via forcing dichotomies this hard

neck yourself

OP, a faggot, but I am here to help anyway.
>There's no free-will
>And, uh, no human nature either, hmmm

>>10761655
>The scientific enquiry is based on making classifications of objects that are completely arbitrary and based on axioms--thus a set of belief
They're only arbitrary insofar as they function within a theory which is not arbitrary, but a model of one aspect of something that actually exists that is as accurate as possible.

>Eras of human history are characterised by epistémès, epistemological fields aka sets of axioms through which people define and view the world. He warned about thinking our knowledge is purely objective and that it is the last stage of human knowledge.
Is it not possible that the axioms of science are refined version of preceding axioms, axioms inextricable from human experience? Humans are universally and fundamentally interested in making predictions through models and science is just a practice of model-making.

>He just asked people don't be dicks to each others and don't use science as a base to exclude people from enjoying their life
Has science done that in the 21st century? It seems like it's done nothing but grow gdp to the benefit of everyone, setting the stage for a world with an abundance of wealth and prosperity provided good policy.

>What is the relationship between truth-telling and the exercise of power?
I haven't read Foucault, but this seems like one of his most important ideas which has nothing to do with undermining science.

>>10766937
I never have seen so much trash congregated in a sole picture.

yea, nah

>>10764975
>Academic maths.
>Academic physics.
>Does something.
kek.

>>10763953
>proliferation of worthwhile people
t. reproductionist

>they're ultimately nothing but tools for social engineering and instead you should be going for the aesthetic knock-out, rallying healthy people around epic memes, slogans and funny pics
Don't you want both? After memeing an ethnostate into existence you'd probably want passive eugenics for the sake of your people's well-being and you'd need theories from sociobiology and population genetics to do that well. Plus, skeptics aren't going to get on the meme-train until they know there's a long-term plan for making such ideals a reality. A scientific basis is likely necessary to persuade such people.

>>10767030
it's a smorgasbord.

>>10767030

You're a brainlet. Sorry, guy.

>>10766937
>barnes and noble pop sci

>>10761363
>Science has proven
give me five papers from reliable science magazines published in the past 5 years that state what you just said.

>>10767146
*Scientific journal
sorry

>>10767083
You can't say that about me.

>>10767146
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/c_c/rsrcs/rdgs/temperament/bouchard.04.curdir.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4038932/

https://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/genetic-and-environmental-transmission-of-political-attitudes-over-a-life-time.pdf

https://www.pol.gu.se/digitalAssets/1317/1317434_political-orientations-100927.pdf

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp806845.pdf

http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Way(2010)SCAN.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842692/

>>10767184
thanks anon

>>10761363
>Science has proven ......blah blah

therefor

>social constructionism is bullshit.

Sorry hunny but science too is a social construct. You can't use bullshit to prove that bullshit isn't bullshit. You lose again positivist scum!

>>10766346
>>10766381
>duuuuuuudeeeeee just nationalize everything who gives a fuck lol like I don't see a problem force the government to run everything we do it in Germany and everyone knows German universities are the best in the world!

where to start with this guy?

>>10761655
>He warned about thinking our current world is better than the past.
Yeah, because suburban life is anything but preferable to peasantry and our evolution isn't driven by desires informed by preferences. Cultural relativism is born of comfortable people claiming that they don't need everything they have. Really, you would just as readily put your precious newborn on a pile of leaves as you would set her in her $1500 crib? Give me a fucking break. Our disgust for the primitive is what drives up the value sophistication through the pursuit of marginal benefit within hierarchies across generations.

>>10767419

>>10761363
Why are you trying to change anyone's mind when it's clear that whether or not someone likes Foucalt is genetically determined?

>>10761363
Science can't prove anything, this is baby's first. Look up The Problem of Induction by Hume.

>>10767407
>duuuuude just let private universities continue to rape the government and middle-working class families for egregious amounts of money!! if we socialize literally anything the commies win!!

>it's another episode of "american /pol/lo tries to understand french philosophy without even reading it"
can we please go back to 2010 /lit/?

>>10761977
this TEE BEE EIGHT
t. leftist who only started to read the post-structuralists with any seriousness after the immense /pol/lack butthurt.

>>10767998
We've been over this already, university tuition is so high in the first place because the government guarantees student loans and makes it illegal to default on them. You're going in circles now, brainlet. So many people are getting shafted by universities because they shouldn't have been able to get student loans in the first place. The government is getting shafted by universities because they're guaranteeing student loans for practically everyone. The supply of students is being artificially inflated by the government and so universities will continue to raise tuition.

>if we socialize literally anything the commies win!!
Who the fuck are you even talking to? We have both public and private universities in the US, and the public universities are noticeable a step down from the private ones. We even have community colleges that are entirely payed for by the government, and they're the shittiest of all. The system you propose does not incentivize quality education, it is a cop out to the lowest common denominator that creates more problems then it solves when the simple solution is already ready and apparent.

>>10766937
>Posts bestsellers written by psychologists and journalists for housewives as evidence of anything.
Kekekekek

science is not a subject, person, researcher or group capable of conducting experiments.

of course it's much easier to say "science has proven" than to say "these specific scientists showed that x"

but if one invokes science as a basis for proof one wonders why the same such person doesn't take the idea of science seriously enough to note the research his argument hinges on.

>>10767184
>https://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/genetic-and-environmental-transmission-of-political-attitudes-over-a-life-time.pdf
I just read this one diagonally, to find out that these oligophrenic dunces claim that they have already reviewed the vast and readily avaliable literature on political socialization but mistake a "generational" question with a "vital cycle" question, rendering all the study absolutely invalid.
>Take behavioural cognitive development theories as an axiom.
>When children are at home parental influence over political views is high.
>When adult-youngs "leave home" other ideologizing sources become preponderant (they call this genetics).
Ooooook.

I'm going to do you all a favour and save you a lot of time:

French "philosophy" is generally nonsense. Foucault spoke the least nonsense, but he still spoke nonsense.

>Searle claims Foucault told him: “In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep–they won’t think you’re a profound thinker.” When Searle later asked Pierre Bourdieu if he thought this was true, Bourdieu insisted it was much worse than ten percent


I have freed you from your chains, but there is no need to thank me -- my benevolence is both boundless and given without restraint

>>10767160
Sorry friend, but if youre actually going to argue some points, try to read his books first. Dont debunk wikipedia summaries.

>>10761655
Thanks, now I feel like I understand him better.
>he state is now more interested in controlling how people think and behave rather than controlling territories.
> don't be dicks to each others and don't use science as a base to exclude people from enjoying their life
Sounds reasonable. Shame for the french pseudointellectual style, though. Why do people hate him, though? Is it just meme-ing or are his opinions on sexuality much more polarizing (meaning bad)?

>>10768173
>Bestsellers written by people with degrees
>not a valid source

Mate what the hell happened to your brain,

>>10767897
>current world = suburban life
>past = peasantry
>>our evolution

>>10768403
Hegel also did this. Why be so negative towards people who use fancy prose to get their point across? Philosophy isnt like math, you dont need to be conscise and simple. There's nothing wrong with trying to convey a simple concept like "be critical of science and think about why you think the stuff you think" but do it entertainingly. Popular fiction writers present concepts through narratives. Certain Philosophers present concepts through linguistic acrobatics. No reason to call Foucault et. al. "bad", as long as you dont presuppose that a philosopher has all the answers in life and needs to communicate them exactly in the simplest and most efficient way possible.

>>10768467
>defending obscurantism

The Emperor has no clothes, and here you are saying you admire his beautiful robe

>>10768486
Funny, you see philosophers as emperors, if you could just see them as entertainers.

>>10768486
You see a naked man, assume he's the emporer, and get angry.

I see a naked man and I say, "nice ass" and move on.

>>10768486
>The Emperor has no clothes
Is there a quicker way to spot a brainlet?

>>10768147
Nah m8 your private colleges are "the best" just because of advertising. The reason why you get employed easily after them is because the company wants to look good. Hell, I don't care. Keep paying for your THE BEST and I'll just keep going from uni to uni till I die without ever paying a dime.

>>10761480
fuck you.

>>10761363
>political views are almost entirely genetic

Doesn't the Culture of Critique also supports this theory with it's remarks on Jews?

>>10768438
>current world = suburban life
>past = peasantry
Examples which typify a clear trend of the increase in wealth and increased living conditions among all people over the last few hundred years.

>>>our evolution
Okay you're right, I should have put a proviso for the assumption that everyone here is human or at least of the earthly mammalian variety you fucking faggot pedant.

>>10768423
> Dont debunk wikipedia summaries.
lol what does that even mean?

>but if youre actually going to argue some points, try to read his books first
You're playing this shit up like it's super complicated and needs mountains of knowledge to be comprehended, but everything itt is pretty simple and not entirely from Foucault.

>>10768515
>you keep going to a university to get a job while I leech off of my system
You're the perfect example of why the system you proposed is absolute shit. You're actually nigger-tier

>>10769076
American education at work folks, anecdotes>data.

>>10769117
You stupid nigger you're the one who threw out all the data that says that private Anglosphere universities are the best in the world in favor of "well I'll keep doing what I'm doing because I like it lol"

>>10769136
lol then you're no better, you did the same thing
amerimutts are sad

>>10769185
>I stopped using data and started using anecdotes and you actually addressed what I was saying haha you're just as bad as me!

>>10769238
wow you were using data! you must be some kind of genius!
your "data" is pretty much googling "best universities index" and that's that, really great job, you're practically a scientist now.

>>10769331
>he pointed out I'm full of shit, better make fun of him for using data right after I made fun of him for not using data

>>10769361
>if I repeat the word data enough times and stick an anime pic in every post I make he'll get bored and go away

>>10769372

>>10768403
philosophy isn't in stating the matter but in working it out.