Race and Technology

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
202

Do you really believe a softer approach would have breached that thickness?

My "abrasiveness’ is a result of experience with these fanatics.
I no longer waste my time trying to convince them…I mean just look at Careless and how many excuses he used to maintain his myth.

First, it was some ridiculous story about humans reaching the pinnacle of their IQ in Africa…and then for over 80,000 years nothing happened, but some superficial cosmetic effects on human appearance.
Then it was trade…capitalism causes human disparities…so in the last 3,000 years is when races were “socially constructed…” - forget the 70 000 years that preceded trade.
Then it was a denial of isolation and how proximity creates uniformity…so sub-Sahara, is next to Europe, ergo Caucasians and Negroes are the same.
He forgot that Europeans did not evolve in Europe…and continents are manmade concepts…
just because Egyptians are in Africa, does not make them African-Americans…Negroes, in other words…blacks, to be politically correct.

The other demented one…started with super soakers and graffiti artists…and has now sought refuge in Jewish biologists…

I don’t bother trying to convince such hopeless cases…I use them to address the silent watchers.
Their pathetic performances, alone, serves my purposes.
Boaz, for Christ’s sake…Wow…
There’s a reliable source.

204

You’re equivocating on the word “race”. Yes, people whose ancestors come from different environments have superficial differences in appearance. But Obama being considered more black than he is white is a product of the social construct of race. Genetic similarity predicts similarity of appearance, but similarity of appearance does not predict genetic similarity nearly as well as it predicts socially constructed race.

First, you’re strawmanning.

Second, you’re defining trade too narrowly. Trade began tens of thousands of years ago, as evidenced by e.g. sea shells from the Atlantic found at 30kyo sites in central Europe.

Ah, the no-true-African fallacy.

Evolution is full of tradeoffs. A brain is metabolically expensive, it has to convey unique benefits to the individual in order to justify the extra caloric demand. But technology doesn’t convey benefits only to its inventor, it conveys roughly the same benefits to anyone who can copy them. So an individual who can copy others gets as much benefit as a person who can invent new technology. But if copying others requires less brain power (which seems likely), then the person who can only copy has equal access to technology and lower metabolic demand. Thus, a person only intelligent enough to copy has a net advantage over a member of the group that invents the technology.

To avoid this, you need to suppose that the inventor is more attractive to mates within the group, which supports my position that intelligence is about attracting mates, not about inventing technologies.

Right, as I said, “evidence for a certain amount of interbreeding”. But the pattern of where that DNA is found suggests that e.g. male sapiens couldn’t interbreed with female neanderthals and male hybrids were infertile.

When did neanderthals become isolated from sapiens, and for how long did they remain isolated? I’d say they separated between 500k and 250k years ago, and were separated from sapiens until about 50k years ago.

My point is that all sapiens groups’ environments had something very important in common, and that by the time they left Africa, the thing they had in common was the source of the selective pressure towards greater intelligence.

Yeah. In my defense, running this place isn’t my profession. Also I was a little drunk.

But I apologize, it was uncalled for and I’m better than that.

What bothered me wasn’t being ignored, because I wasn’t being ignored: you responded to me, you just did it by sniping from the sidelines instead of defending your beliefs.

I was bothered that you continued to believe offensive things about large swaths of humanity, seemed unwilling or unable to defend those beliefs, didn’t appear to care about their truth over the vibes of believing them – and in parallel, complained about the word that literally describes that position.

Now, you’ve posted some new reasons (which is good, and I’ll respond to those below), but you didn’t respond to the previous point:

Maybe your previous argument was instead an explanation for something you believe for different reasons, and these new arguments are your actual reasons. But if your previous argument was part of the basis of your beliefs, and you are unable to defend it, that should make you less confident in your beliefs.

I won’t just dismiss this outright, but I think it’s important to note that it shouldn’t be given the same weight as a peer-reviewed journal article. Mankind Quarterly was literally founded by a Nazi who worked with Mengele to experiment on prisoners in concentration camps. It’s currently published by the Human Diversity Foundation, which was founded by … Emil Kirkegaard, author of this article. The Human Diversity Foundation is a continuation of the Pioneer Fund, an explicitly segregationist and eugenicist organization, which distributed Nazi propaganda in pre-WWII US (HDF was created to transition the Pioneer Fund into an LLC so that it had to disclose less information about its activities).

So we have an organization created to advance a particular view, publishing an article advancing that view, written by the founder of that organization. This should significantly reduce our credence in its claims to the extent they rely on a trustworthy source. Do you agree that throughout history there have been people who have hated other races for unscientific reasons? That people have organized to label others as ‘inferior’ (including Jews and Asians, who the modern incarnation of race science says are actually genetically special)? That given that it happened in the past, it is possible that papers put out by this organization are not objective science?

That doesn’t necessarily mean dishonesty (though it wouldn’t be the first time lies were used to spread hate), but we have scientific bureaucracy in part because motivated science is often poorly done. And this is nothing if not motivated science, and it has not passed through the normal filters used to catch bad science. Those filters aren’t perfect, and have their own biases, but if nothing else, circumventing them to avoid their biases also deprives a paper of that indicia of reliability.

That would be a problem even if we could actually see the article, but it’s behind a paywall (and not in sci-hub). So we’re using an author’s press release about their questionably-reliable article. We also have good reason to distrust this source and diminished ability to evaluate the claims. That’s not great.

But, correct me if I’m wrong, but it looks like the finding here is that a machine learning model trained on 50,000 variables computed from MRI scans of kids brains and their IQ was able to predict IQ from brain scans with a correlation coefficient of .51, is that right? In other words, a fairly detailed map of someone’s brain is associated with intelligence? And the author acknowledges the dataset oversamples poor black kids? And the framing is that this “confirms race differences in brain size and functioning”?

I dunno, I’m not a stats guy, but seems like not what we’re looking for.

Another leading light of scientific racism, who led the Pioneer Fund until his death. Perhaps to Kirkegaard’s credit, he begins his blog post by noting that, “Rushton’s own claims about his life revealed some inconsistencies between historical records and his claims, which some might call lies.”

On the other hand, Rushton was an actual academic, and this paper was published in an actual journal. He’s certainly got his academic detractors, but it’s hard to tell how motivated they are in their conclusions (although one critic pointed out that he once cited to Penthouse magazine, which is egregiously unscientific but also based).

Kirkegaard finds his methods “crude” and his results “overly strong”, and his paper was intended to fix those problems.

But again, I don’t think either of these gets at our disagreement. We know lots of brain features are shaped by environment, e.g. wealth, parental investment, nutrition, and stress, all of which differ significantly between races. So at most we’ve got a somewhat predictive collection of physical characteristics of the brain that weakly correlate with both intelligence and social race.

This is easily the best of the three (here’s a PDF of the full paper): not written by a race scientist or published in a journal founded by a literal Nazi, and actually makes a claim that gets at our disagreement. And the claim is several lines of evidence, when taken together, show that average differences in intelligence between groups are more than zero percent genetic (among English speakers in the United States).

So first note that this is a modest claim, and intentionally so – part of what make the article credible is that it approaches a complex subject with due care. It’s nothing like the claims being made in this thread.

And assuming the argument is perfectly sound, it does not support claims amount evolutionary divergence between human populations or neanderthal admixture. Groups in America can’t be assumed to be a representative sample of the groups from which they evolved, because they pass through the filter of ending up in the US.

Also note that genetic causation is complex. Genetic analyses have a hard time separating 1) genes that cause low IQ because of how they encode brain structures, from 2) genes that cause low IQ because of how they encode superficial features that change how the individual is treated, from 3) genes that cause low IQ because they make people worse parents and kids get their genes from their parents.

I’m willing to get more into this paper if this is actually a basis for your belief. Is it? For now, I’ll leave it at that, and also point out that a number of papers citing this paper challenge some of its claims, e.g. this one challenging whether within-group heritability is generalizable to differences between groups. Citations are not uniformly negative, but if you’re just showing me one article that supports your beliefs, consider that there are others that contradict it.

They are not, they are weakly correlated with small effect sizes. At most, they are about as predictive of intelligence as parents’ socieconomic status, and they only work on people with European ancestry (i.e. they’re associated with within-group variation in intelligence).

Races are whatever the speaker needs them to be. :rainbow:

Seems like we should be more specific and use different words to refer to the various concepts we might be referring to with the word ‘race’.

205

Satyr:

Wiggle, wiggle wiggle. You know, if I do say so myself.

How about if he goes here then…

Given accounts like this – No one is safe from Trump’s racist agenda | Bakari T Sellers | The Guardian – what might he advise Trump to pursue further in terms of policies that he himself would attempt in regard to race in America.

He wishes to see a world where races separate into communities of their own kind. How would he go about accomplishing this in terms of specific policies? Let him come down out of the philosophical clouds here and provide us with his own assessment of the best of all possible worlds…racially, ethnically, sexually and in regard to things like gender roles and Jews.

Satyr:

Moving on Mary…you cannot move on…you are trapped in a hole of your own making.
You repeat the same questions, the same accusations, without taking into account what the other said to you.
You are not well, Mary. Something wrong upstairs.

Yes, “here and now” I have managed to convince myself that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that human morality and value judgments regarding things like race are rooted intersubjectively – historically, culturally and experientially – in dasein and that death = oblivion. And, of particular importance, in a world ever and always bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change. On the other hand, I’m here in part knowing I may well be entirely incorrect regarding these assumptions. And that others may well be able to convince me that their own One True Path is the real deal.

Satyr:

I know you want me to validate your assessment of me, as a vile Nazi, objectivist…you who reject free-will, need an agency who can choose as you want them to choose…your way or the highway.

No, I’m curious as to what people of his ilk construe to be the best of all possible worlds between the races. What specific policies would be pursued to encourage a separation between them? And what of those who oppose these policies? What might they expect?

In other words, in regard to race, what particular combination of might makes right, right makes might and democracy and the rule of law would he employ?

And though over and over and over again I make it clear I do not either accept or reject free will in any definitive sense, he and his ilk here [and there] need to pin me down here definiitvely, Why? So that I become whatever they need me to be in order to sustain their contempt for anyone who refuses to become a part of what I construe to be their clique/claque mentality. I react to him much as I do the Ayn Randroid Objectivists among us. He emphasizes the individual over the collective, but every single individual he comes into contact with is [eventually] obligated to think exactly like everyone else in the clique/claque.

Though, over and again I acknowledge this: “If I do say so myself”.

Satyr:

You insist on me playing the role of the enemy you have pictured in that demented feminine mind of yours…
If you do not receive the response you expect, change your hypothesis dear…this is empiricism.

In science a hteory is tested by making predictions and when the predictions fail they change the theory, dear…they do not insist that the world must adjust to their theory.

No, those of my ilk don’t have enemies. Not in the manner in which those of his ilk do. In other words, I don’t divide up the world between “one of us” [the Ubermensch] vs “one of them” [the last men, the sheep, the slaves]

With me, race is often no less something that I react to in being pulled and tugged in conflicting directions. I was born and bred in the belly of the white working class beast. Being racist – really racist – for me back then was analogous to breathing. But then I found God and a lot of that mentality began to dissolve.

But down through the ages, and given any number of ever evolving human interactions, racism [as many understand the word] was challenged and replaced with one or another rendition of a “melting pot”.

Satyr:

Who cares what you feel Mary…you can’t justify any of it.

Actually, here I make that crucial distinction between those things we can communicate objectively in the either/or world and the endless “failures to communicate” that plague us regarding conflicting goods in the is/ought world. Why does he suppose that is? Well, in my view, many of the “my way or the highway” dogmatists need to argue that their own moral, political and/or spiritual path really, really is The Way. That’s how they sustain at least some measure of “comfort and consolation” all the way to the grave. The psychology of objectivism, remember?

Satyr:

All you repeat is how you became confused…how you became insane…how you became schizophrenic.
Race has nothing to do with our desires and subjective needs…it is not dependent on our belief.

The only criterion to judge a theory is…does it explain what we observe, without resorting to metaphysics, or the supernatural?

What?! Confused and uncertain given “the agony of choice in the face of uncertainty”, sure, I do believe that “here and now” regarding conflicting goods. But insane, schizophrenic? Or, again, as with any number of what I construe to be “arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian” sectarians, is it important to believe this about me because they are getting closer and closer themselves to acknowledging that the arguments I make in my signature threads may well be applicable to them in turn. Hell, I still recall the turbulence that swirled about inside my head when objectivism began to collapse for me.

And, as always, I am less interested in what goes back and forth here theoretically up in the philosophical clouds, and more intrigued with how those theoretical assumptions fare given actual moral and political conflagrations.

It’s the fact that neither philosophers nor scientists have come together to provide us with a definitive assessment of race that speaks volumes. Or, if such a consensus does exist, please link me to it.

Satyr:

Who cares, Mary?

What, he doesn’t care that in regard to this…

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.

…he is no less ignorant than all the rest of us pertaining to the parts that we don’t even know that we don’t even know about? Or, again, can he link us to an assessment that best explains all of it…existentially.

Satyr:

Universal agreement is not required…do you have a better alternative?

That’s not my point. Instead, I focus the beam on all of the moral and political and spiritual objectivists among us who seem to insist their own One True Path really does embody the assumption that if others don’t embrace it in turn, they are inherently/necessarily wrong. If not flat out retards and morons. Thus their own [and only their own] assessment of “biological imperatives” must prevail or those who reject it will be…?

Satyr:

Can you explain the physical and performative differences between races, differences we can witnesses independently?
Do you have a better theory to explain how species and sub-species developed and how they participate in the natural selection theory?

Nope, I’m still no less drawn and quartered here. I have my own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices, but that’s all they are. Instead, my point is to note – to suggest – that the best of all possible worlds seems to revolve around moderation, negotiation and compromise. Whereas those of his ilk appear more inclined to assume instead that “right makes might” must prevail. They’re right about race. Okay, what will they do once in power to create if not a final solution, one that really does reflect the best of all possible worlds.

Then the “or else” part for some. How about him? Would he just seek to legislate democratically his racist agenda, or might it be necessary to, say, go the “executive order” route.

Okay, I ask, given that, how, in regard to race and gender and sexuality and Jews, etc., will the world look once they have accomplished this task.

Satyr:

Darwin’s theory was resisted…for centuries they refused to accept it as the most probable of all theories explaining biodiversity, and speciation.

They didn’t dismiss it because not everyone agreed, you pathetic woman.

Empiricism, Mary…this is the rule to judge a hypothesis…not popularity, you daft woman.
Do you have a better hypothesis? Present it…you can’t just come here and reject everything because YOU disagree or YOU cannot accept a hypothesis…

See how he goes about all this? He wants me to go up into the didactic clouds and discuss all of this theoretically…exchanging hypotheses, debating definitions and deductions. Instead, I ask him to describe what the best of all possible worlds would be like for blacks and Jews and homosexuals and feminists and liberals etc. if he were able to enact the prescriptions and proscriptions that reflected his philosophical assumptions.

Satyr:

Do you even know what philosophy is?
You are an anti-philosopher, dear…you present nothing…all you do is critique using the most ridiculous reasoning…like there’s no scientific consensus…or that men are not omniscient, so anything is possible, right Mary?
This is not philosophical thinking, dear.

A true philosopher disagrees and presents the reasons why they disagree and then presents a superior alternative to what he disagrees with…but that’s what males do…women, like you, and your emasculated kind, undermine…subvert…offering nothing in return…as if disproving a theory proves their own.

Over and again, I acknowledge that my own interest in philosophy revolves around the existential parameters of meaning and morality. Along with a fascination for the “Big Questions”. But: given particular sets of circumstances out in a particular world often understood in conflicting ways.

Yes, ILP describes itself as “a place to talk ideas”, just as Philiosophy Now describes itself as “a magazine of ideas”. Okay, fine, but how on earth are these ideas pertinent to actual human social, political and economic interactions? But, here again, it’s not like I’m insisting that how I construe all of this is that which all rational men and women are obligated to accept in turn. I take The Gap and Rummy’s Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome seriously in regard to conflicting goods.

Satyr:

Your feeble worldview is not bolstered by critiquing another’s, woman.
You are a collectivist…so present your reasoning and arguments…do not spend years critiquing what you do not udnerstand…

This is so preposterous, I can’t help but suspect at least the possibility of “a condition”. He’s got this contempt for women that strikes me as entirely misogynist. Or, perhaps, it’s just a contempt for feminists?

Satyr:

Ha!!!

And a har, har, harr right back at him!!!

206

Mary…there’s you slipping back to your methodology.

[quote=“iambiguous, post:205, topic:81372, username:iambiguous”]
Yes, “here and now” I have managed to convince myself that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that human morality and value judgments regarding things like race are rooted intersubjectively – historically, culturally and experientially – in dasein and that death = oblivion.[/quote]

Yes, Mary…because you CHOOSE to define the words as you do.
As for purpsoe, Mary…you beg to be given guidance form a master…and then you reject god…so from where will a needy woman, like yourself, find purpose. She cannot give it to herself…because that’s what men do…she needs a master.

You’ve settled for fatalism.
Oh well.

No, I’m curious as to what people of his ilk construe to be the best of all possible worlds between the races. What specific policies would be pursued to encourage a separation between them? And what of those who oppose these policies? What might they expect?

I expect only diversity and competition.
Let natural selection do the rest.

Mary…you don’t have to believe in free-will to act in accordance with it.
Yuor conscious understanding is not necessary…
You contradict your own beliefs, daily…
you need immunity…innocence…you need to believe that your life could not have turned out otherwise…because you cannot deal with the implications.
Defensiveness…is your copping mechanism.

Thing with objective reality, it does not require the subjective mid to acknowledge it consciously.

Liar…you do Mary…it’s the evil Nazis, the objectivists…it is those who tell you ‘my way or the highway’…
They, obviously, have a choice…whereas you…do not.
:melting_face:

Oh Mary, hypocrisy is not working out for you.

But you do insist on your way, Mary…your amoral hypocrisy, your collectivism…your fractured and fragmented schizophrenia…this is YOUR way…which must be adopted by all, otherwise they are objecitvist Nazis.
.

[quote=“iambiguous, post:205, topic:81372, username:iambiguous”]
The psychology of objectivism, remember?[/quote]

And what of the psychosis of subjectivism, Mary?

You are, sweetie…it’s your preferred state of mind.
Compartmentalization. What Orwell described as newspeak.
You like to simultaneosly hold two contradictory worldviews, using two contradictory standards…because you cannot deal with integrity, and cohesion…it destroys your delusions.

You made yourself schizoid to survive in a world that baffled and filled you with anxiety.
A brutal and uncertain world…you could not cope.
You were wrong so many times, you decided to nullify it all…
You need certainty, Mary…even if it is the uncertainty of nihilism.

I would be worried if they did, Mary.

Miss Land…you have no clue what existence is…for you consensus should have occurred because the cosmos is ordered…rational…this is why you deny free-will.
You’ve replaced the God of Abraham with cosmic absolute order…
But certainty is impossible, Mary…if you udnerstand what existence is you will udnerstand why.

Nature is about conflict…life is about competition…natural selecting what is superior.
Thorin lies the source of your anxiety, sweet Mary.
you need safety, certainty, comfort…to be protected and provided for.
All women do.

Years Mary…somehow…and there it is.
And gravity somehow exists…and there it is.
And the quantum realm exists…and there it is.
Somehow… as if magically, right Mary?

Oh Mary…your delusion cannot be equalized using this method.
Your subjective preferences cannot be validated in this manner.

We are not all equally ignorant, Mary.

There’s that “dasein” crap again.
Define it.
I bet it will have nothing to do with Heidegger’s definition.
How does Dasein supports your delusions, Mary?

There is no “best of al possible worlds” poor Mary…there is only the world.
You can’t live in your own private reality…sorry…neither can I.

No Mary…show me…actions. Connect your words to actions we can all verify and experience interdependently.
No theories…no abstractions…actions, Mary.
Empiricism.

and there you are trapped with your own definitions…not your own, the ones you were given and you never questioned.
No skepticism there, huh Mary.

You are stuck in the mire of your own making, Mary.
But you like it there, and want the world to fall in, with you…wallow in the mud like pigs.

Yuor way Mary, will not become our way.
As long as you are protected form your own idiocy, you can safely remain stuck in your own linguistic quagmire…but what will happen when the systemic protections go away?
What then Mary?
Can you cope using your word games, and your improper definitions?

I post may explanations…but you do not read, or you do not udnerstand…
I suspect your understanding of Heidegger suffered the same, due to your low IQ.

Everything I post relates to the real world…and how ideas produce consequences in real time.
But you will not understand…so you will claim they are didactic, up in the clouds…your subjectivity becomes a universal truth.
Others understand, but not you Mary. Why?
Maybe it’s not the ideas but you…you are the problem.

Your brainwashing is the issue, Mary.

Those postmodern, Frankfurt School, followers, really affected you, didn’t they?
Yes they did…and here you are, in the here and now, subverting, as they taught you.
Undermining, spreading doubt…albeit ineffectively…as if this will help your collectivist cause.

Mary…just admit it…you are a communist.
Say it, openly and proudly.

207

Wow, that’s a lot of straw man, character assassination, and distraction.

“That person was bad”
“Race scientist”
“Nazi”
“Not a real journal”
“Papers saying the opposite also exist”
:rofl:

Sounds like excuses to me. Why can’t you address the core ideas here? Someone being a nazi has nothing to do with whether or not their ideas are wrong. You are merely attempting to character assassinate rather than address the ideas.

Good point about differentiating how genes can affect intelligence, either directly or through the indirect routes you mention; and guess what, all of that matters. If your genes code you to be a shitty parent, and being a shitty parent correlates with lower intelligence, then your genes are still contributing to the causality of why you are lower intelligence. Because in all likelihood your own parents were shitty to you, as you said it’s in the genes bro, and genes affect environment. Which was my point from the beginning: even (some of) environmental influence can be returned back to genes.

Genes causing both direct and indirect effects on intelligence, it all matters. I realize the liberal view is grandly utopian, everyone gets a perfect life with perfect parenting perfect education perfect nutrition perfect experiences perfect life never any bad experience no negativity no stress no worries no challenges no negative emotions no harms. I get that. In such a world, most of those indirect genetic effects would be partly or entirely negated.

Unfortunately, we live in the actual world, not a libtard utopia. Also unfortunately, for your position I suppose, that even if we lived in such a fantasy the direct genetic effects would still be there, and would still matter… that is, until the scientists of Libtardia begin using genetic engineering to alter babies in the womb or pre-conception so as to counteract these bad genes so everyone can be peak intelligent, tacitly admitting that intelligence DOES have a meaningful genetic component but I am sure that will go above the heads of the wonderfully progressive citizenry of this hypothetical future utopia.

Yes, because if race cannot be perfectly defined with absolute clarity and zero ambiguity, or if race has imperfect boundaries, then this must mean race doesn’t exist. Of course. Why didn’t I think of that before.

A person’s genes can be used to determine their race, just as they can be used to determine their intelligence. How do you think 23andme works to tell you your racial heritage? How do you think they do twin studies to confirm the heritability coefficient of general intelligence? The entire human genome has been mapped. Even if we don’t know what every gene or combination of genes does it is quite easy to take DNA samples from across different groups and then analyze them compared to other variables, like intelligence. Which has already been done. Gene groups that are identified with high intelligence are more prevalent in white European populations than in African populations (not sure about Asians, would need to go back and check that). Just like how brain volume differences between races are present right away in the womb.

You would jump through any and every hoop possible just to avoid admitting there are meaningful genetic differences between races, wouldn’t you? Oh yes, of course you would. That is what the religion of modern neoliberal progressivism requires.

Um, no. That would be you. I am the only one among the two of us who cares about the truth. You are motivated by your ideology. And other than calling people “libtards”, what offensive things have I said? Oh right, you think that stating FACTUAL CLAIMS is “offensive”. Like if I say white Europeans have superior genes than black Africans, when it comes to the genetics of intelligence, you think that is “offensive”, ah yes. And you say that and also somehow still claim to care about the truth. Yikes. “Unable to defend my beliefs”, classic. I’ve made dozens of arguments already, given you rational explanations, evidence and other sources, and clear logical arguments supporting my position. You have responded with… “meh, those dudes were bad, also some other papers that don’t agree, and look at this thing over here”.

Honestly, the most simplified form of my argument could be stated like this: How in the hell could you honestly believe that genetics have nothing to do with measurable between-race differences? I thought you are a scientific, atheist-materialist sort of person. I am sure you believe in Evolution and genetics. I am sure you understand how natural selection works to cause differences between groups based on changing their genes. So… how in god’s name can you say “naw bru, none of that matters AT ALL EVEN ONE LITTLE BIT when it comes to differences between HUMAN POPULATIONS. Because humans are UNIQUELY SPECIAL IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM and have ZERO GENETIC CAUSES for between-population differences.”

I mean… just.

Sorry to say, but the only dishonest person in this discussion is you. And yes that is a factual statement, and not meant to be “offensive”. But I suppose you will take it that way anyway.

208

COP PULLS OVER BLACK

A way of thinking and understanding some people’s perspective on “Black and White”. and

natural justice.

209

Profiling is based on behavioral patterns.
Only fools do not take into account perceptible patterns.

1 Like
210

Right, if profiling results from observable patterns of differences in behavior between groups or individuals, or places, or situation etc… then the profiling (“discrimination”, i.e. being discriminating in your judgment and conclusions) is justified. Or at very minimum you are at least justified in meaningfully considering the differences you observe.

Libs suppress their observations of differences, if a white lib is walking down a dark street at night and sees a group of black people dressed like thugs and giving him a cold stare, the lib will think to himself “no I can’t be racist, I can’t judge, I am sure they are very nice people” and keep on walking toward them, all the while his body is in an actual fight or flight mode panic but he actively suppresses this with effortful control (as Kevin MacDonald points out) and pretends to himself everything is fine.

If you show a lib FBI crime statistics on violent crime by race, he will make excuses and say that the data is racist. And we can’t have racism can we? So now the government doesn’t even track violent crimes by race anymore. Because clearly we should blind ourselves to reality in order to entertain the fantasy of there being no meaningful differences between race groups.

Profiling isn’t a perfect system obviously, but it is accurate to the extent it is integrated with other systems and approaches. It is a heuristic meant to improve outcomes by aligning your actions closer to reality. Any lib ought to know this, being the science-worshiping type they are, but when it comes to this subject they shut off their brain and retreat into sesame street utopianism.

211

I know the feminine spirit, calling herself iambiguous…she’s been given a Neo-Marxist facelift; a method of subversion…adopted when the proletariat failed to rise up and overthrow their oppressors.
It was an expression of disappointment and loss of respect…a part of the communist intelligentsia abandoning their romantic idealism, and surrendering to Capitalism…using the excuse that they were going to work from within the system, to bring it down, whist enjoying all of its perks and privileges.
This was before Frankfurt School wokism began to infect boomers, in their college years - the 60’s generation.
We’re talking Americanism’s post-WWII, “Greatest Generation,” that was in charge during Vietnam…
She’s that old.
Opportunism is its characteristic.
Subversion is its method.

She has no arguments, that are not old and tired, so she avoids defining the terms she uses, and she avoids exposing ‘her way or the highway’…towards her collectivist Utopian, pie in the idealistic sky, shit… All theory and no substance…and this is why it failed, over and over.
Notice how she accuses others of what she fears they will discover underlies her own naive worldview.
She alludes to it when she compels others to reject “conflicting goods,” as she puts it.
Let’s all compromise…the genius and the idiotic…let us let bygones be bygones.
This is ‘paradise or earth’ utopianism…a world of no wars, no hunger, no strife…the kind of world you hear about in beauty pageant speeches, delivered by pretty young dumb blonds.

Her shtick is now evident…
The usual…patronizing dismissive catch phrases…
*wiggle wiggle wiggle … when the other fails to respond in the way her prejudices expect.
It’s not her judgments that are flawed, but the other who is evading what she knows is true about them.

Then there’s her appeal to the audience…*note to others, when she finds herself at an impasse and knows not how to respond.
Implying that the crowd is on her side…
That is often followed by *look what I’ve reduced him to…angle…when the other’s frustration stops taking her seriously and begins patronizing and sarcastically insulting her back.
Then…**huffing and puffing.*…when insults begin to sting…and she wants to pretend the other has lost control because of her “superior arguments.”

*Dasein is used when she has no clue what the other is saying, nor how to respond…it’s a general pseudo-intellectual name drop, based on her misunderstanding of Heidegger’s work, or her inability to comprehend what he has said, and why.
In her worldview there are no errors, so whatever she subjectively understood is just as good as any other subjective understanding of it.
Of course it is.
:face_with_bags_under_eyes:

The accusation of being overly abstract…*didactic…is her attempt to lower the lingo to a level she can relate with.
Whatever she’s read of philosophy was way over her head…so she needs *contexts…meaning she needs a scenario to help her udnerstand the issue.
This is, also, why she tries to engage others to debate each other…because she is often unable to follow what is being said and hopes that through their exchange she might, finally, understand what the hell is being discussed..

I mean…I may be wrong…right?
:face_with_raised_eyebrow:

212

GsFi-DbaUAA_G2M
GsFi-DbaUAA_G2M2048×1408 249 KB

You cannot transmit what has never spontaneously emerged in a population.
They will try to superficially imitate what they do not fully understand.

2 Likes
213

Special report: Greece claims magnate stole from his own bank

By Stephen Grey

January 13, 20121:35 AM GMT+11Updated 13 years ago

ATHENS (Reuters)- With the money tight all over Europe, one high-flying Greek businessman allegedly found a novel way of getting easy credit: two years ago he bought a controlling share in a bank, installed his own managers and then loaned himself and his associates nearly 600 million euros ($760 million)

214

Sweetie…the key word there is “first”…“first black bank.”

215

Misconceptions about race can contribute to biases and inequalities.

e.g “You people”

Bottom line we are all capable of stealing.

216

Isn’t a black-only bank racist? Where is their diversity hiring?

Where are the libs in outrage over this racial injustice? No racial diversity in the bank!!! Quickly organize boycotts and social media campaigns and deplatforming, anything to get the racial diversity in there…oh wait, the bank already collapsed… nevermind lol.

At least this time they can’t blame it on whitey!

217

Yes, “here and now” I have managed to convince myself that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that human morality and value judgments regarding things like race are rooted intersubjectively – historically, culturally and experientially – in dasein and that death = oblivion.

Satyr:

See, there he goes again. He has no capacity [as far as I know] to connect the dots – empirically, experientially, experimentally – between the creation of matter itself and the human brain. He just believes what he does “here and now” in his head.

After all, it’s what he believes that makes it true.

Yes, we often define words. And, of course, we define them “as we do”. But noting this is not the same as demonstrating that we define them autonomously. Again, unless he is prepared to describe how free will does unfold neuron by neuron, dendrite by denrite, cell body by cell body, axon by axon.

Satyr:

As for purpsoe, Mary…you beg to be given guidance form a master…and then you reject god…so from where will a needy woman, like yourself, find purpose. She cannot give it to herself…because that’s what men do…she needs a master.

You’ve settled for fatalism.
Oh well.

Same thing. The assumption is always that if you don’t share his own value judgments [about every single thing under the Sun, to cite just one example] then that confirms all the more his assessment of you.

No, I have not settled for fatalism. I am no less drawn and quartered regarding determinism. But what I note here about myself is moot. Same for others. If what we post doesn’t coincide with his own moral, political and philosophical prejudices…?

Forget about it!

No, I’m curious as to what people of his ilk construe to be the best of all possible worlds between the races. What specific policies would be pursued to encourage a separation between them? And what of those who oppose these policies? What might they expect?

Satyr:

I expect only diversity and competition.
Let natural selection do the rest.

Just more wiggling from my point of view. What does that really have to do with this:

“He wishes to see a world where races separate into communities of their own kind. How would he go about accomplishing this in terms of specific policies? Let him come down out of the philosophical clouds here and provide us with his own assessment of the best of all possible worlds…racially, ethnically, sexually and in regard to things like gender roles and Jews.”

Or the part where he reacts to what many construe to be Trump’s racist policies. What’s he doing right and what more needs to be done?

And though over and over and over again I make it clear I do not either accept or reject free will in any definitive sense, he and his ilk here [and there] need to pin me down here definiitvely, Why? So that I become whatever they need me to be in order to sustain their contempt for anyone who refuses to become a part of what I construe to be their clique/claque mentality. I react to him much as I do the Ayn Randroid Objectivists among us. He emphasizes the individual over the collective, but every single individual he comes into contact with is [eventually] obligated to think exactly like everyone else in the clique/claque.

Satyr:

Mary…you don’t have to believe in free-will to act in accordance with it.
Yuor conscious understanding is not necessary…
You contradict your own beliefs, daily…
you need immunity…innocence…you need to believe that your life could not have turned out otherwise…because you cannot deal with the implications.
Defensiveness…is your copping mechanism.
Thing with objective reality, it does not require the subjective mid to acknowledge it consciously.

Over and again, he will post things like this. You tell me what it has to do with my point above. The suggestion that, as with Ayn Rand, he champions the individual over the collective, but all of the individuals in his clique/claque are required to think exactly like he does at KT…or else they are banned from the discussions themselves

No, those of my ilk don’t have enemies. Not in the manner in which those of his ilk do. In other words, I don’t divide up the world between “one of us” [the Ubermensch] vs “one of them” [the last men, the sheep, the slaves]

Satyr:

Liar…you do Mary…it’s the evil Nazis, the objectivists…it is those who tell you ‘my way or the highway’…
They, obviously, have a choice…whereas you…do not.
:melting_face:

Oh Mary, hypocrisy is not working out for you.

But you do insist on your way, Mary…your amoral hypocrisy, your collectivism…your fractured and fragmented schizophrenia…this is YOUR way…which must be adopted by all, otherwise they are objecitvist Nazis.

There’s no way I am going to waste my time responding to declamatory “accusations” of this sort. That he is not embarrassed himself in posting them suffices enough to make my day. Though again this in turn is no less a personal prejudice on my part rooted existentially in dasein “here and now”.

The psychology of objectivism, remember?

Satyr:

And what of the psychosis of subjectivism, Mary?

Start here:

1] For one reason or another [rooted largely in dasein], Satyr was taught or came into contact with [through his upbringing, a friend, a book, an experience etc.] a worldview, a philosophy of life that revolves around biological imperatives.

2] Over time, he becomes convinced that this perspective expresses and encompasses the most rational and objective truth. This truth then becomes increasingly more vital, more essential to him as a foundation, a justification, a celebration of all that is moral as opposed to immoral, rational as opposed to irrational.

3] Eventually, he begins to bump into others who feel the same way; they may even begin to actively seek out folks similarly inclined to view the world in a particular way:

4] He begins to share this philosophy with others; increasingly it becomes more and more a part of his life. It becomes, in other words, more intertwined in his personal relationships with others…it begins to bind them emotionally and psychologically.

5] As yet more time passes, he starts to feel increasingly compelled not only to share his Truth with others but, in turn, to vigorously defend it against any and all detractors as well.

6] For some, this can reach the point where they are no longer able to realistically construe an argument that disputes their own as merely a difference of opinion; they see it instead as, for all intents and purposes, an attack on their intellectual integrity…on their very Self.

7] Finally, a stage is reached [again for some] where the original philosophical quest for truth, for wisdom has become so profoundly integrated into their self-identity [professionally, socially, psychologically, emotionally] defending it has less and less to do with philosophy at all. And certainly less and less to do with “logic”.

But insane, schizophrenic?

Then back to what I deem to be Stooge Stuff

Satyr:

You are, sweetie…it’s your preferred state of mind.
Compartmentalization. What Orwell described as newspeak.
You like to simultaneosly hold two contradictory worldviews, using two contradictory standards…because you cannot deal with integrity, and cohesion…it destroys your delusions.

You made yourself schizoid to survive in a world that baffled and filled you with anxiety.
A brutal and uncertain world…you could not cope.
You were wrong so many times, you decided to nullify it all…
You need certainty, Mary…even if it is the uncertainty of nihilism.

Let him choose a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to him. We can then exchange moral philosophies. That way as I go about posting there, he can note more specially all the things he accuses me of.

It’s the fact that neither philosophers nor scientists have come together to provide us with a definitive assessment of race that speaks volumes.

Satyr:

I would be worried if they did, Mary.

No, in my view, he would only be worried – not to mention entirely outraged – if the consensus rejected his own “my way or the highway” dogma here and chose another One True Path instead. Whereas if they rejected mine it wouldn’t surprise me at all. I often reject it myself from time to time. And even the parts I’m most linked to here.

And then back again to the Stooge Stuff:

Satyr:

Miss Land…you have no clue what existence is…for you consensus should have occurred because the cosmos is ordered…rational…this is why you deny free-will.
You’ve replaced the God of Abraham with cosmic absolute order…
But certainty is impossible, Mary…if you udnerstand what existence is you will udnerstand why.

Actually, in my opinion, none of us here are able to explain why [ultimately] anything exists at all, let alone how, over billions of years, it evolved into us.

Though, with a straight face no doubt, he will actually claim that he is able to understand existence. And why it is the way it is and not some other way.

Satyr:

Nature is about conflict…life is about competition…natural selecting what is superior.
Thorin lies the source of your anxiety, sweet Mary.
you need safety, certainty, comfort…to be protected and provided for.
All women do.

Just another example of his “one size fits all” mentality. Race, gender, religion, conflict…

If you don’t agree entirely with his assessment of them, well, again, forget about it. It just comes down [over and again] to how he addresses this connotatively. Then the part where what he connotes [about women, about everything else] reflects precisely what nature intended.

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was “somehow” able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter “somehow” became living matter “somehow” became conscious matter “somehow” became self-conscious matter.

Satyr:

Years Mary…somehow…and there it is.
And gravity somehow exists…and there it is.
And the quantum realm exists…and there it is.
Somehow… as if magically, right Mary?

To the extent that someone is not willing to acknowledge the gap between what they think they know “in their head” about the universe, about gravity, about QM, about the human brain, etc., and all that there is to know about them going back to…to what? to where? to when? to how? to why?

Well, it’s just…just…just there.

Come on, why on Earth do you suppose that millions and millions of men and women around the globe still fall back on God and religion to explain us? Got a soul? Okay, then thank the Lord.

Nope, I’m still no less drawn and quartered here. I have my own rooted existentially in dasein political prejudices, but that’s all they are.

Satyr:

There’s that “dasein” crap again.
Define it.
I bet it will have nothing to do with Heidegger’s definition.
How does Dasein supports your delusions, Mary?

There is no “best of al possible worlds” poor Mary…there is only the world.

You can’t live in your own private reality…sorry…neither can I.

Heidegger…wasn’t he a Nazi?

As for it being crap, I don’t deny that it certainly might be completely wrong. It’s just my “best guess” given all the variables in my life that predisposed me existentially to believe some things and not others. Same with you and everyone else here. Unless, of course, I’m wrong.

How about this…

My own understanding of dasein is rooted in the assumptions I make here: a man amidst mankind: back again to dasein

How about, given a moral conflict of his own choosing, he explains why my points are not applicable to him.

See how he goes about all this? He wants me to go up into the didactic clouds and discuss all of this theoretically…exchanging hypotheses, debating definitions and deductions.

Satyr:

No Mary…show me…actions. Connect your words to actions we can all verify and experience interdependently.
No theories…no abstractions…actions, Mary.
Empiricism.

Well, if he is willing to compare and contrast moral philosophies with me in regard to particular sets of circumstances, we can explore the existential dynamic between words and worlds. Between “this is what I believe is true” and "this is what I can demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to accept as true.

Over and again, I acknowledge that my own interest in philosophy revolves around the existential parameters of meaning and morality.

Satyr:

…and there you are trapped with your own definitions…not your own, the ones you were given and you never questioned.
No skepticism there, huh Mary.

You are stuck in the mire of your own making, Mary.
But you like it there, and want the world to fall in, with you…wallow in the mud like pigs.

Yes, I have managed to think myself into believing what I do “here and now” regarding “I” in the is/ought world. No God and it just makes sense that morally and politically we exchange ever conflicting existential assessments rooted historically and culturally and [in terms of our own unique personal experiences] experientially in dasein.

But to argue that I “like” how my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that a fractured and fragmented moral philosophy seems reasonable in a No God universe and that death equals oblivion…? That speaks far, far more about him than it does me.

Okay, fine, but how on earth are these ideas pertinent to actual human social, political and economic interactions?

Satyr:

I post may explanations…but you do not read, or you do not udnerstand…
I suspect your understanding of Heidegger suffered the same, due to your low IQ.

Everything I post relates to the real world…and how ideas produce consequences in real time.
But you will not understand…so you will claim they are didactic, up in the clouds…your subjectivity becomes a universal truth.
Others understand, but not you Mary. Why?
Maybe it’s not the ideas but you…you are the problem.

Well, hopefully, we’ll see about that when we commence an exchange of moral philosophies pertaining to a particular issue and context of his own choosing.

Or, perhaps, it’s just a contempt for feminists?

Satyr:

Your brainwashing is the issue, Mary.

Those postmodern, Frankfurt School, followers, really affected you, didn’t they?
Yes they did…and here you are, in the here and now, subverting, as they taught you.
Undermining, spreading doubt…albeit ineffectively…as if this will help your collectivist cause.

On the other hand, how many men and women does he know who, as children, were not brainwashed? He was brainwashed himself as a child, of course. Also, like all the rest of us, he is a product of a particular historical and cultural context whereby he accumulated any number of uniquely personal experiences that the rest of us may well have had no experience regarding whatsoever.

Satyr:

Mary…just admit it…you are a communist.
Say it, openly and proudly.

Okay, back to it all being a “condition” then? Fine, that works for me.

218

How to sum up a ten page TLDR in a single asinine comment.

219

New thread?

220

Look, I am not trying to be an ass. Ok?

I just find it very, very hard to believe that an atheist, science-minded type person as yourself, who certainly understands evolution and natural selection, and who isn’t religious or overly sentimental, could with a straight face claim that meaningful race differences such as show up in areas like measures of general intelligence, let alone the types of societies and civilizations that different races have built, the differences in innovation, development of technology and science, respect for human rights, democracy, engineering prowess,… that all of these very clear, measurable and highly meaningful differences between race groups of humans has NOTHING AT ALL WHATSOEVER NOT EVEN ONE TEENY TINY LITTLE BIT TO DO WITH ANYTHING GENETIC.

I honestly, cannot wrap my head around this. Perhaps you care to edify here.

221

Bottom line dear…is frequency…and the inability to control impulses, making them unable to establish reliable institutions. .

222

Lady Land…

Yes, we often define words. And, of course, we define them “as we do”.

No dear…not “as we do”…we use definitions to refer to what is independent from our subjective perceptions.
Down to earth, woman…you know.
Start with actions, not words in books.
The perceived limits how we can define concepts, Mary…and that’s what you dislike.

You want them to remain “up in the sky” dear…because then you can define them in whatever way suits your Marxist agenda.
It’s your way, or the highway…

Same thing. The assumption is always that if you don’t share his own value judgments [about every single thing under the Sun, to cite just one example] then that confirms all the more his assessment of you.

The opposite in fact…lying woman.
Compete…give me a value judgement relative to YOUR objective…
My objective is truth.
What’s yours?

ALL VALUE JUDGEMENTS refer to an OBJECTIVE, dear.
Even your abortion evaluations.

Different objective create different value judgements…and none of them are equal.
What’s the determining factor, which no subjective judgement can evade?
Nature.
For you the objective is inclusivity, equity, peace on earth…for the conservative it is the welfare of society, dominance etc.
Different objectives create these disagreements, woman.

“He wishes to see a world where races separate into communities of their own kind. How would he go about accomplishing this in terms of specific policies? Let him come down out of the philosophical clouds here and provide us with his own assessment of the best of all possible worlds…racially, ethnically, sexually and in regard to things like gender roles and Jews.”

Or the part where he reacts to what many construe to be Trump’s racist policies. What’s he doing right and what more needs to be done?

I don’t give a shit about your America and Trump, woman.

I gave you an answer and you didn’t like it…
Tell me what answer you want…
Concentration camps and gas chambers?
Is that the “right” answer, dear…so I do not “wiggle wiggle”?
How about torture chambers and furnaces…that’ll solve the problem.
Satisfied, Mary?
Is that the answer you wanted me to give?

You are not well, dear.

I told you what I would do if I were lord god of the cosmos, mutiple times…here it is again, pathetic female…
Real diversity, not your fake American kind…
Autonomy.
Let every ethnicity live in accordance with their values, in their own land.
If they criminalize abortions, then that’s their provocative…not your way, your postmodern liberal American way.

The only kind of diversity you dumb Americans udnerstand is fashion, menu options, brands, music genres…that’s not diversity, dear.
You want every city in the world to have a McDonald’s and a Walmart…I don’t.
I want TRUE diversity.
I want Tokyo to be something completely different from LA…and Karachi to be nothing like Detroit.
Ethnic, cultural diversity…each living in accordance to their own values, not your pseudo-Democratic, American liberal values…

Over and again, he will post things like this. You tell me what it has to do with my point above. The suggestion that, as with Ayn Rand, he champions the individual over the collective, but all of the individuals in his clique/claque are required to think exactly like he does at KT…or else they are banned from the discussions themselves

Idiotic woman…I am not an individualist.
:face_with_thermometer:
I know it’s hard for you to understand…after years of reading my posts, you still know nothing about my views.

You want me to be a defender of Capitalism, and American individualism, like Rand, because that’s the only thing you udnerstand…or a Nazi, with a ‘final solution’…you udnerstand nothing else.

There’s no way I am going to waste my time responding to declamatory “accusations” of this sort. That he is not embarrassed himself in posting them suffices enough to make my day. Though again this in turn is no less a personal prejudice on my part rooted existentially in dasein “here and now”.

See?
:grin:
“Look what I’ve reduced her to”…I predicted her response yesterday.
It’s posted.

Then she returns to her spiel, as if I’ve posted nothing.

“I was born a daughter of a middle class family…blah blah blah”…the same mantra for years..
:laughing:
That’s why she doesn’t want her will to be free…because her own is trapped in a loop…a hole…and she is terrified of getting out.
Her understanding of Dasein is “thrown into the world”, ‘world’ meaning ‘society.’
World = society…and man is a Tabula Rasa.
Man is whatever culture made him…
This is how dumb this woman is.

Let him choose a moral conflagration that is of particular importance to him. We can then exchange moral philosophies. That way as I go about posting there, he can note more specially all the things he accuses me of.

I already have woman.
Let’s stay with abortion.

What is your objective when you want to give women the ability to abort the fetus when they made a mistake or changed their mind?
What will be the impact on society?
How will it affect demographics and a society’s ability to maintain itself and to compete with other societies?
What kind of psychology will it cultivate among women, and men, knowing that they can take a pill or visit a clinic to abort the fetus any time they want?

Actually, in my opinion, none of us here are able to explain why [ultimately] anything exists at all, let alone how, over billions of years, it evolved into us.

Wrong!
Woman…that life exists is obvious.
We don’t need to know how it started to know it exists.
That morality exists, is obvious, if we start with the moral act, not words in books, or chiseled on stone tablets.
We witness moral acts: acts of compassion, of love, of altruism, in many species…not only our own.

That we ‘will’ (choose, act intentionally) is obvious. We experience it daily.
That you CHOOSE to define these concepts abstractly,… rather, that you choose a definition, because you are too dumb to define anything on your own, that keep these concepts up on the “skyhooks,” is your Choice, based on YOUR Marxist objectives.

To the extent that someone is not willing to acknowledge the gap between what they think they know “in their head” about the universe, about gravity, about QM, about the human brain, etc., and all that there is to know about them going back to…to what? to where? to when? to how? to why?

And that’s what philosophy is about.
Determining which theory is more probable and which is not.

It’s called the scientific method…empiricism, woman.
Never heard of it?
It deals in theories, not certainties.
This does not mean every theory is equally probable…

Heidegger…wasn’t he a Nazi?

:rofl:
There’s the Nazi thing, as predicted.
Yes…and so he’s wrong, right?

Now you can take his cocnept, Dasein, and define it in whatever way you like…because he’s a Nazi…and…the Holocaust.

Yes, I have managed to think myself into believing what I do “here and now” regarding “I” in the is/ought world. No God and it just makes sense that morally and politically we exchange ever conflicting existential assessments rooted historically and culturally and [in terms of our own unique personal experiences] experientially in dasein.

More of her gibberish…
:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
After years of this crap, it’s becoming tiresome to wade through it.

People stopped talking to her…as did I.
But now…I want to trigger her…and receive the predictable results.

But to argue that I “like” how my own existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless, that a fractured and fragmented moral philosophy seems reasonable in a No God universe and that death equals oblivion…? That speaks far, far more about him than it does me.

You don’t even know what my positions are.
You are debating these mysterious Nazi Objectivists…and if the other doesn’t play along, he’s wiggling…
This woman thinks I’m an individualist, as her American mind understands it…this is how pathetic she is.

Okay, back to it all being a “condition” then? Fine, that works for me.

So, you are a Communist who wants to change the world, right?
All those years projecting this upon others was a lie.
You are the one who wants to change the world.

I describe it, as it is, most of the time.
I don’t say how things should be, but how they are, and why they are that way.
But you, Lady Land, want to change the world…stop all the fighting…
Right?
:face_with_monocle: