True Left
Ideology => True Left vs False Left => Topic started by: 90sRetroFan on July 13, 2020, 11:17:30 pm
-
OLD CONTENT
digest.bps.org.uk/2019/04/10/finally-some-research-into-whether-diversity-training-actually-works-unfortunately-its-not-very-promising/
there’s little evidence-backed consensus about which sorts of diversity programmes work, and why, and there have been long-standing concerns in some quarters that these programmes don’t do much at all, or that they could actually be harmful.
Bigots cannot learn not to be bigots, and non-bigots never needed to learn it. The only way to end bigotry is to prohibit the bigoted from reproducing. We have been saying all this long ago.
---
Someone starting to shift from False Left to True Left:
www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/we-used-to-think-photos-like-this-could-change-the-world-what-needs-to-change-is-who-we-are/2019/06/26/53c9087a-982d-11e9-830a-21b9b36b64ad_story.html
We used to think photos like this could change the world. What needs to change is who we are.
...
Salvadoran migrant Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his toddler daughter, Valeria, died Sunday after being swept away by a strong current while the family was trying to cross the Rio Grande into the United States. Unknown to most of the world until this week, they are now briefly famous, a toddler in red shorts and tiny shoes, tucked inside her father’s dark T-shirt, seemingly at rest as if napping with her dad on a hot afternoon.
...
Because these images have already broken through our own resistance to seeing pain and tragedy in the world, we imagine that they must break through the collective conscience as powerful political icons. They enter our consciousness almost by stealth and then explode, and that is how we assume they’ll work in the public square, too.
So the image gets shared on social media, and is seen repeatedly on cable television and sometimes in the pages of newspapers. As it circulates, we believe it will acquire enough force and familiarity that our political leaders will have to do something different — change policies, reverse course, revise their own understanding of the severity of a problem. For more than a century, this metaphor has been in operation behind the scenes whenever journalists, or activists, hold up photographs to the world, and say: This is a truth you must acknowledge.
...
But when nationalism has successfully dehumanized the other, there is no breaking through, and people who imagine that a photographic message must assuredly be so powerful that it will touch all hearts are forced to grapple with a more confounding truth: Not all consciences operate alike, not everyone is susceptible to what seems a basic, even rudimentary level of empathy. And so, there is a paradox: We resist the idea of living in an us-vs.-them world only to find that our basic sense of “us” is already fractured. We look out at our fellow humans and can’t honestly understand how their minds work. At some level, we think, “Can’t you see what is happening in this image?” As if seeing and understanding are identical.
...
You may look at this photo and think that its deep message is “We are all hoping for a better life and will take extraordinary risks on behalf of those we love.” But someone else will probably say, “People shouldn’t cross borders without permission.” The drowning becomes a kind of punishment, a river stands in for ideas of human authority, and the photograph doesn’t break through anything. It merely reiterates an old and cherished belief: Bad things happen to those who break the rules.
There is a fundamental difference between these two interpretations: One requires time and effort, an act of engaged empathy, while the other is a quick judgment that reaffirms an existing sense of the world. The power of a photograph like this depends on the time we devote to it and our basic sense of who these people are. For the few hours or days that this photograph elicits chatter and argument, there will be efforts to make it an allegory of law and judgment rather than an opportunity for moral imagination and compassion.
The part in bold is the shift.
There is no "paradox", however, and it is False Leftist to think that there is. Yes, we - like you - resist the idea of living in an us-vs-them world. But we - unlike you - do not resist the idea of living in a superior-vs-inferior world. Those who lack universalist empathy are inferior. They are not "our fellow humans", they are barbarians who should be exterminated.
And the need for effort to empathize is itself a sign of inferiority, albeit on a more advanced tier. The truly empathic require no effort to empathize (if anything almost all our effort during most of our waking lives is spent on suppressing our empathy so that we can retain marginal functionality in mainstream society where we witness non-stop violence everywhere we look). But this is the difference between True Leftists and False Leftists. In the author's words, False Leftists possess a "resistance to seeing pain and tragedy in the world" (though to their credit they are at least willing to expend effort to overcome this resistance). True Leftists, in contrast, rarely see anything except pain and tragedy.
Furthermore, this False Left author really does fail to understand how rightist minds work. Do you really think the rightists believe "people" shouldn't cross borders without permission? What rightists believe is that "non-whites" shouldn't cross borders without "white" permission, whereas "whites" can do Manifest Destiny for centuries without deserving any punishment whatsoever. And this is underpins the first point. "Whites" do not see "non-whites" as "people", so why should we see "whites" as "our fellow humans"?
---
People are starting to understand what is required:
www.infowars.com/death-camps-for-trump-supporters-posted-on-homes-cars-belonging-to-republican-congressmans-staff/
The ‘death camps for Trump supporters’ fliers that were seen in New York yesterday have now been posted on homes and cars belonging to the staff of Republican Congressman Lee Zeldin.
Zeldin (Jew) is a notable critic of Omar.
Unfortunately, AOC is not even close to getting it yet:
news.yahoo.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-white-supremacists-091015953.html
But then Ocasio-Cortez made a direct appeal to racists and white supremacists ― and her message was simple: “Come back.”
She also called on those “radicalized in a funnel of vitriol” to turn away from hate, promising that they would be welcomed with love in return:
“There is a mother waiting for you, I know it. I know there’s a teacher waiting for you, saying, ‘What happened to my kid? What happened to my friend?’ And we will always be here and hold space for you to come back. We will love you back. You are not too far gone.”
They do not deserve our love. To love them despite what they have done is to insult their victims. What happened to those kids in cages, AOC? Many of them have died. They aren't able to come back to be loved by those who care about them. Yet you want me to believe it is fair to give give those who cheered them being put in cages a chance to come back and be loved?
True Leftists have only one message to white supremacists: WE WILL REPLACE YOU.
---
You cannot defeat racism merely by banning its social expression. I have said this from the beginning, and now the researchers confirm it:
gwtoday.gwu.edu/novel-mapping-model-tracks-how-hate-spreads-and-adapts-online (ignore innacurate use of word "hate")
The researchers saw clusters creating new adaptation strategies in order to regroup on other platforms or re-enter a platform after being banned. For example, clusters can migrate and reform on other platforms or use different languages to avoid detection. This allows the cluster to quickly bring back thousands of supporters to a platform where they have been banned and highlights the need for cross-platform cooperation to limit online hate groups.
“The analogy is no matter how much weed killer you place in a yard, the problem will come back, potentially more aggressively. In the online world, all yards in the neighborhood are interconnected in a highly complex way—almost like wormholes. This is why individual social media platforms like Facebook need new analysis such as ours to figure out new approaches to push them ahead of the curve,” Dr. Johnson said.
And even in face of their own results, the False Left researchers still don't get it:
The team, which included researchers at the University of Miami, used insights from its online hate mapping to develop four intervention strategies that social media platforms could immediately implement based on situational circumstances:
Reduce the power and number of large clusters by banning the smaller clusters that feed into them.
Attack the Achilles’ heel of online hate groups by randomly banning a small fraction of individual users in order to make the global cluster network fall apart.
Pit large clusters against each other by helping anti-hate clusters find and engage directly with hate clusters.
Set up intermediary clusters that engage hate groups to help bring out the differences in ideologies between them and make them begin to question their stance.
It should be obvious why all of the above methods will fail for exactly the same reason that they themselves already stated(!): clusters will regroup elsewhere as fast as they are banned anywhere. We can win debates against racists all day and they will just start repeating the same discredited arguments again the next day somewhere else.
Racism exists in the blood of racists. The only serious way to defeat racism is to terminate every last racist bloodline in the world. Anything else is dangerous delusion precisely because it creates the illusion of activism that lulls anti-racists into a false sense of achievement.
Dr. Johnson found that the varied ways individuals can interpret common information leads to polarization. People interpret news stories differently based on what is going on in their lives, he said, and these extremes are likely to be enhanced over time because of social media algorithms designed to reduce division. These findings contradict a common perception that polarized media consumption is what creates greater ideological divides and feeds online extremism.
No, people interpret news stories differently based on their genes. A poor racist who wins the lottery does not become less racist because of winning the lottery.
---
I told you so:
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/deradicalize-hate-groups-experts-1.5255835
While people might wish for a magic pill or program, there is no easy way to guide someone away from hateful, racist ideologies, deradicalization experts say.
...
Deradicalization, the experts said, is most successful if mentors can reach people before their racist or discriminatory views become hardened
...
"There has to be a will for them to want to leave that lifestyle behind," he said. "It's not approaching active members. That becomes a very hard and very unsafe and unethical process."
Unethical, because it can put the volunteer or counsellor in jeopardy of retaliation, said Galloway. Even though there's a low chance of success and there could be risks to his safety, he said he still tries to reach them.
"I've done some work speaking with active people online. Just saying to them, 'Hey, you know, if and when you feel like there's a change in your life that you want to make toward leaving those groups, you know we're here.'"
If they want to leave racism, they will do so without your help, and if they don't want to leave racism, you will not convince them to do so. So why do you even bother?
There is a magic pill for ending racism, however. Whatever prevents racists from reproducing will suffice.
---
More leftists getting it:
www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trumps-minneapolis-rally-demonstration-moral-145900190.html
It was surely a swift process for some people. Here's a talk-radio soundboard running for president, yelling about Mexicans and Muslims and how we need a Big, Beautiful Wall to keep Those People out. He knows whose country this is. He knows who should make the rules, and who ought to shut up and follow them. He knows who gets a seat at the table in America. They were in from the jump, from the moment they first stood at a rally and felt that twisted power coursing through their veins.
But others, you have to think, were more gradual converts. Maybe they felt the world was passing them by. Maybe they didn't know until he came along how much they needed an outlet for their rage at a million quotidian cuts—the new boss who doesn't look like a boss should look, having to press "1" for English. They were primed for it, sure, but it took a while to fully commit. Day after day, as they continued to support him—through the racist tirades and the attacks on veterans and their families and the exploding allegations that he is a serial sexual predator—they were forced to give up more and more of themselves to stay on-board. And as they gave up more of themselves, they became more and more devout in their allegiance to The Movement. At some point, the sunk cost became insurmountable. There is no going back now. They have given all of themselves to him.
...
This is how he thinks he can win reelection: by continuing to pull his base of support towards more vitriolic expressions of this vision of America as a country for and by white people; by scaring other constituencies away from speaking out; by using the Republican Party's machinations to stop inconvenient voters from voting; by smearing his opponents as Just As Bad As Him, They Just Pretend to Be Prim and Proper; by soliciting foreign meddling that will benefit him in exchange for favors when he is reelected.
All the while, he will drag his supporters deeper and deeper into the abyss. They cannot be reached now, only stopped.
They are not going to change their viewpoint even if Trump loses in 2020. If anything, they will only move even further right. In fact many of them have been saying by mid 2017 that Trump himself is not rightist enough. The ideal candidate they would actually want would make Trump look moderate in comparison.
-
OLD CONTENT contd.
Someone begins to get it:
www.thedailybeast.com/today-show-falls-into-classic-white-nationalist-trap-gives-platform-to-racist-leader
Since the run-up to the 2016 election, news outlets have semi-regularly hosted white nationalists for sweeping interviews about their beliefs. If the racists reveal their racism, the logic goes, the American populace will be repulsed. In actuality, Americans are already pretty familiar with racism. Those who already oppose it will be repelled by the racists on their screens—but viewers who harbor their own racist resentments might see something else in these televised interviews: an ally.
---
They are getting it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DugBWDOxjhI
---
The False Left still doesn't get it:
us.yahoo.com/news/americas-overdue-reckoning-white-supremacy-071510491.html
America is amidst an overdue reckoning for the systemic racism that has been a fundamental feature of our culture for 400 years. President Abraham Lincoln seemed to cast slavery as America's original sin, and in his second inaugural address acknowledged that if “all the wealth piled by the bond man's 250 years of unrequited toil shall be sunk,” that would be a fair judgment on the United States.
Yet here we are, a century-and-a-half later, and America has failed to atone for this original sin while committing myriad others against people of color.
Now it feels like the world is spiraling out of control. We are experiencing the effects of ignoring, minimizing and rationalizing sin. If you are uncomfortable with the word sin, just use the word evil in its place. We have allowed evil to flourish.
Yes, and do you know why? Because you made the mistake of believing evil people can be taught not to be evil.
Yes, it’s a scary and chaotic historical moment, but, in the end, this might be what it takes for white people to finally face up to our failure to eradicate the white supremacy that infects our society. As my friend and anti-racism educator Lisa Sharon Harper says, “The only course of action for white people now is repentance and repair.”
I’ll start: I repent for my lack of action. I repent for my lack of urgency. I repent for not listening more. I repent for lacking humility. If the religious language of repentance alienates you, then just try saying, “I’m sorry.”
Words mean nothing. Either racists voluntarily refrain from reproducing or they cannot claim repentance.
So what does repair look like?
Lincoln made clear that it was not just the enslavement of black people, which was heinous enough, but also the wealth that was accumulated from their “unrequited toil” that was a stain on America. There can be no true repair without monetary reparations. This country would not exist in its current form without the free labor of black people. Even post-slavery, black people have never been paid fairly for their work, and they typically lack the generational wealth that benefits many white Americans.
For those who say reparations are impossible, I say, “Do your homework.” Reparations have worked in various other contexts, and they can work here. Working toward official reparations will take time, but in the meantime use your money to support the BIPOC Project (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) that's doing the work of dismantling white supremacy.
No. As I have said before, monetary "reparations" amount to bribing the victim to drop the charges. A victim with dignity does not accept bribes. The only sincere reparation is to leave behind no biological descendants.
Repair also looks like giving up the need to center your experience and your feelings. When you feel hurt by a criticism of white people, deal with that on your own. You do not ask BIPOC to help you feel better. Don’t go to them with your tears about how hard it is to face your own racism. (Believe it or not, this happens all the time.) You do not treat black and brown people as your unofficial pastor to confess your racist sins to. They’ve had enough trauma and don’t need you to unload yours on them.
Repair looks like privileging the experiences and perspectives of BIPOC over the white narrative. They actually know more about what it’s like to live their lives than you do. Listen to them. Repair looks like you interrogating your own privileges and biases and unlearning your own toxic behavior.
But how can you guarantee that such behaviour, which is heritable (indeed which evolved because racism is an extremely efficient survival strategy):
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/ethnotribalism-the-computer-simulation/
will not arise again in future generations of the same bloodlines? The only answer is to voluntarily refrain from reproducing. Anything else is insincere and deserves to be treated with contempt, especially by the sincere anti-racists who are voluntarily refraining from reproducing.
---
Biden, in Town Hall (Censored by YouTube) Estimates up to 15% of Americans Bad (VT goes higher, says ‘psychopaths)
Daily Beast: Joe Biden thinks that around 10 to 15 percent of Americans are “not very good people,” but that the “vast majority of the people are decent” and want to get along with each other.
The former vice president and presumptive Democratic nominee appeared to get his figure out of thin air during an online town hall event with some of his black supporters on Thursday night. From 2017, not censored by YouTube.
Probably closer to 90% I'd say. It all depends on what criteria you are using to judge whether a person is "good" or not, right? I mean, if we judge a person as being good only if they have never initiated violence against another, then maybe only 5% or less of people are actually good, no? Whose eating all those billions of animals (people according to Mohammed and Jesus) that get tortured to death in U.S. flesh factories every year?
Better hope there is not a true and living God who so judges....
Biden was discussing the importance of a president setting a good example for the nation on race issues, and accused President Trump of actively working to divide the country and making “the worst of us to come out.”
www.thedailybeast.com/biden-estimates-that-as-many-as-50-million-americans-are-not-very-good-people?ref=home
---
www.huffpost.com/entry/implicit-bias-training-doesnt-actually-change-police-behavior_n_5ee28fc3c5b60b32f010ed48
If a police department can spend three years undergoing bias training and still shoot a peaceful, unarmed Black protester, what has the training really achieved?
It has achieved procrastination from using state control over reproduction to solve the problem.
Over the last decade, implicit bias training has become one of the primary methods for law enforcement agencies and policymakers to demonstrate that they take concerns over racist policing seriously. According to a CBS survey of 155 police departments last year, 69% said they were using implicit bias training. Half said they had initiated the programs after the controversial 2014 killing of Michael Brown, a Black teenager, by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.
In the wake of the May 25 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, calls have intensified to expand these programs. The mayors of Los Angeles, Milwaukee and Tampa, Florida, have signaled their intention to install or expand them. Texas and Michigan have passed bills requiring police officers to receive such training. In a Medium post, former President Barack Obama pointed readers to a toolkit urging “ongoing and scenario-based” anti-bias training for all police officers.
Despite its near-universal support among policymakers, however, research has failed to show that implicit bias training has any lasting effect on racial discrimination or the behavior of police officers.
“We don’t have any evidence that anti-bias trainings work (in general,) and we know even less about whether they work for police officers,” said Joshua Correll, a University of Colorado professor who has been studying implicit bias for more than 20 years.
A 2016 study of nine different methods for reducing bias found that none had any lasting effect after a few days. Few researchers have followed up specifically with law enforcement agencies to see if the training had any effect on the practices of officers.
“People have jumped on the idea that we should be providing this training without clear documentation that it makes any difference whatsoever,” Correll said.
...
Over time, implicit bias tests have revealed that much of the population associates Black faces with criminality, violence and aggression. Test subjects are more likely to interpret an ambiguous shove as hostile when a Black person does it, for example.
Much of the population should be prohibited from reproducing.
Researchers have also documented implicit bias in police officers. In a 2016 study, 96% of police officers associated Black Americans with weapons. Other research has found that law enforcement officers classify Black faces as more threatening and perceive ordinary objects as dangerous after viewing photos of Black people. In a laboratory experiment, researchers found that police officers were more quick to press a button labeled “shoot” when presented with a Black suspect.
This form of bias has profound implications for every aspect of police work, from deciding whether to pull over an errant driver to shooting a suspect who reaches into his pocket. These split-second decisions or subconscious choices add up to the racial disparities seen in policing. Black drivers are more likely to be stopped, searched and arrested — despite being less likely than whites to be carrying contraband. Black victims of fatal police shootings are more likely to be unarmed. The arrest rates for all kinds of misdemeanors are twice as high for Black Americans than they are for whites.
There’s even some evidence that implicit bias training makes racist attitudes worse. Highlighting bias among police officers could reinforce the message that racism is widespread. In response, participants may resent feeling they’re being lectured about their racist views and entrench them more deeply.
Duh! The people who need the training in the first place are racists, so how else do you expect them to react?
And the people who would not react like that are those who would not need the training to begin with.
“As individuals, we’re a conduit for the cultures in which we live,” Correll said. “So if you’re embedded in a culture that associates Black men with violence and danger, that may well swamp anything you learn in an hours-long, or even weeks-long, training.”
If education has any role to play, it should be in educating people about how absurd this stereotype is. None of the colonial powers were "black"! If anyone should be associated with "violence and danger", it should be those associated with colonialism! Even if we're talking about the US only, it sure wasn't "blacks" who came up with Manifest Destiny FFS!
Plus, how much of the following undescribably violent and dangerous stuff are "blacks" responsible for? (Answer: almost none.)
-
Latest epiphany:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/12/enough-of-the-psychobabble-racism-is-not-something-to-fix-with-therapy
Unconscious bias training is a lucrative industry, but it won’t change consciously hostile policies
...
More than 30 years ago, Ambalavaner Sivanandan warned against “the sort of psychospiritual mumbo-jumbo which… by reducing social problems to individual solutions, passes off personal satisfaction for political liberation”. A radical whose writings influenced a generation of activists in the 1970s and 80s, Sivanandan was an early critic of what was then called “racial awareness training”.
...
A meta-analysis of almost 500 studies found that training has only a “weak” effect on an individual’s implicit-bias score, and none on their behaviour.
...
We all possess implicit frameworks through which we make sense of the world. It’s always useful to question those frameworks and interrogate our prejudices.
It was not, however, unconscious bias that made a police officer place his knee on George Floyd’s neck. Or that led to the police stopping and handcuffing Bianca Williams and Ricardo dos Santos, or to the equivalent of almost a third of young black males in London being stopped and searched during lockdown. Or that created the hostile environment policy and led to the Windrush scandal. These are all the products of very conscious policies.
It sounds so obvious when someone is willing to just state it.
So, when is society going to start using our proposed solution of terminating racist bloodlines?
Still unconvinced?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coqc94RTK-s
You seriously think someone like Neff can be taught to not be racist?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/magazine/white-fragility-robin-diangelo.html
One critique leveled at antiracism training is that it just may not work. Frank Dobbin, a Harvard sociology professor, has published research on attempts, over three decades, to combat bias in over 800 U.S. companies, including a 2016 study with Alexandra Kalev in The Harvard Business Review. (As far back as the early ’60s, he recounts in his book “Inventing Equal Opportunity,” Western Electric, responding to a Kennedy-administration initiative to enhance equity, presented lectures by Kenneth Clark and James Baldwin to company managers.) Dobbin’s research shows that the numbers of women or people of color in management do not increase with most anti-bias education. “There just isn’t much evidence that you can do anything to change either explicit or implicit bias in a half-day session,” Dobbin warns. “Stereotypes are too ingrained.”
When we first talked, and I described DiAngelo’s approach, he said, “I certainly agree with what she’s saying” about our white-supremacist society. But he noted that new research that he’s revising for publication suggests that anti-bias training can backfire, with adverse effects especially on Black people, perhaps, he speculated, because training, whether consciously or subconsciously, “activates stereotypes.” When we spoke again in June, he emphasized an additional finding from his data: the likelihood of backlash “if people feel that they’re being forced to go to diversity training to conform with social norms or laws.”
Just prohibit racists from reproducing FFS!
-
I told you so:
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-racism-genetic-trait.html
New research suggests racism could be a genetic trait
...
Could it be that we are born with predispositions to certain political opinions? According to the findings, the answer is yes.
"People who share the same sets of attitudes also appear to share the same genes," said Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø, Ph.D. fellow at the Department of Psychology, University of Oslo.
...
As expected, the researchers found a link between SDO and political attitudes. E.g., those who favored a hierarchical structure in society often wished for stricter immigration control and reduced foreign aid.
However, the findings also revealed that peoples' SDO had a genetic connection to all the eight measured political attitudes. According to Kleppestø, this could partly explain the link between the political attitudes.
"We do not believe that our genome directly controls our political attitudes. However, we speculate that we are born with a predisposition that is strengthened over time, for example when we find friends with similar preferences," Kleppestø said.
The researchers believe that you may be born with a personality trait that could lead you into environments where it is enforced. So-called active gene-environment-correlation is well-known phenomenon in behavioral genetics.
So when do we stop the nonsense of "diversity seminars" and start just prohibiting the genetic racists from reproducing?
-
More leftists understand it now:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EgR_oNlUYAAqmXy?format=png&name=small)
What Coleman was in middle school (a bully) is what he will always be. It is in his blood.
-
Any debate aimed at convincing is a waste of time, provoking only a conflict between the conscious and the subconscious. All real emotions are by default instinctive so the slightest virtue signalling is to be avoided. Our only duty is to spread the facts and observe unconscious tribalist behaviors in order to determine which ones should disappear. In this way we will immediately spot the honest tribalists and especially the hypocrites of the left serving only their own interests.
-
Remember there are estimated to be 60 million of these in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWOMU2h9L4c
Only state control over reproduction can solve the problem.
-
And again we are vindicated:
https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/research-shows-critical-race-theory-is-actually-making-people-more-racist/
To subject the whitelash hypothesis to a more rigorous test, I conducted a survey experiment from Aug. 1-29, 2019. In total, 1,527 white respondents were treated with “primes” representative of contemporary discussions of race and then questioned on topics of identity and group attitudes. I focused specifically on self-identified conservative and high white-identifying respondents.
To capture the effects of critical rhetoric, I used an excerpt from Macy Sto. Domingo’s “18 Things White People Seem To Not Understand (Because, White Privilege).” Among white conservatives, this “critical prime” predicted 8 percent increased support (weighted mean) for whites “work[ing] together to improve the position of their group,” in comparison to the “control group.”
To further probe the effects of critical themes on identity, I asked respondents to rate the importance of certain factors to being “truly American.” Here, critical prime exposure appears to have narrowed the boundaries of the “in-group.”
For example, conservative whites expressed 12 percent greater agreement that only those with “American ancestry” are truly American. High white-identifiers expressed 20 percent greater agreement with this same claim and 8 percent greater support for restricting American identity to those “born in the U.S.” Critical prime exposure also increased conservative “ethnocentrism,” or net “feeling thermometer” preference for whites over minorities by 5 percent.
More importantly:
In most cases, findings were the opposite for white leftists. Exposure to the critical prime thus created a wider gap between the racial attitudes reported by left-leaning and conservative (also low/high white-identifying) whites.
-
Do not ever try to educate Trumpists, because you will fail:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhsgDq4o500
Just take down their names and buy ammo.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZjRjzBjvpM
Poison should work.
-
https://us.yahoo.com/entertainment/father-says-wildest-dreams-never-235028573.html
“I’m a liberal, but my son Bryson is a right-wing nut,” says Gary. “At an early age, it was ingrained in me to fight for what was socially right. But in my wildest dreams, I never imagined that one of my children would be supporting a Republican.” Bryson says he’s a conservative and voted for Donald Trump, and last year, the President even retweeted him. “My favorite thing about Trump, honestly, is his personality and the fact that he is willing to fight,” Bryson says. “My dad needs to understand I’m simply right.”
Gary could have avoided this problem simply by voluntarily refraining from reproducing. But he did not. So now the whole world has to deal with the consequences of his carelessness. (If Gary had any sense of duty, he would shoot Bryson. But my guess is that he isn't going to do that either.)
-
Right-wing Viewers Upset With Trump's Loss Move From Fox To Further Right Media
John Podhoretz, Editor, Commentary Magazine; Columnist, New York Post; NBC News Contributor, says that conservatives have to resist going too far down the path to "crazy town."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TreiaEV-upA
This is an excellent post for those false-leftists out there who are under the delusion that just because Trump is (possibly) soon to be gone that rightists are somehow going to return to sanity and that things will go back to "normal"....
-
https://us.yahoo.com/news/white-house-senior-advisor-stephen-190825274.html
The Millers have been fervent supporters of the Trump administration's child-separation policy for immigration and asylum seekers.
Stephen has been widely credited as the architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy.
...
Katie Miller made headlines in July for comments on child separation she made to Jacob Soboroff, an NBC News reporter and author of the book "Separated: Inside an American Tragedy."
She told Soboroff that the Department of Homeland Security sent her "to the border to see the separations for myself — to try to make me more compassionate — but it didn't work."
Of course it didn't work. The only thing that will work is to eliminate the reproductive potential of people like her and her husband. Speaking of which:
White House senior advisor Stephen Miller and his wife, Katie, who works as Pence's communications director, announce the birth of their first child with photos
-
All the studies arrive at the same conclusion:
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2020/12/05/research_shows_diversity_training_is_typically_ineffective_652014.html
many widely-used interventions could be ineffective or harmful. An empirical literature was built up measuring the effectiveness of diversity-related training programs. The picture that has emerged is not very flattering.
...
when scientists set about to investigate whether the programs actually changed behaviors, i.e. do they reduce expressions of bias, do they reduce discrimination, do they foster greater collaboration across groups, do they help with retaining employees from historically marginalized or underrepresented groups, do they increase productivity or reduce conflicts in the workplace — for all of these behavioral metrics, the metrics that actually matter, not only is the training ineffective, it is often counterproductive.
...
Training Often Reinforces Biases
Often, when people attempt to do fact-checks, they begin by underscoring the falsehood, and then proceed to try to debunk that falsehood. This can create what psychologists call an ‘illusory truth effect,’ where people end up remembering the falsehood, forgetting the correction – and then attributing their misinformation to the very source that had tried to correct it! A similar effect seems to hold with antibias training. By articulating various stereotypes associated with particular groups, emphasizing the salience of those stereotypes, and then calling for their suppression, they often end up reinforcing them in participants’ minds. Sometimes they even implant new stereotypes (for instance, if participants didn’t previously have particular stereotypes for Vietnamese people, or much knowledge about them overall, but were introduced to common stereotypes about this group through training intended to dispel said stereotypes).
Duh! What did you expect?
Encouraging people to ignore racial and cultural differences often results in diminished cooperation across racial lines. Meanwhile, multicultural training — emphasizing those differences — often ends up reinforcing race essentialism among participants. It is not clear what the best position between these poles is (such that these negative side effects can be avoided)
None! JUST PROHIBIT RACISTS FROM REPRODUCING FFS!!
Training Can Increase Biased Behavior, Minority Turnover
Many diversity-related training programs describe bias and discrimination as rampant. One unfortunate consequence of depicting these attitudes and behaviors as common is that it makes many feel more comfortable expressing biased attitudes or behaving in discriminatory ways. Insofar as it is depicted as ubiquitous, diversity-related training can actually normalize bias.
For others, the very fact that the company has diversity-related training is proof that it is a non-biased institution. This perception often reduces concerns about bias and discrimination – by oneself or others. As a consequence, people not only become more likely to act in more biased ways, but they also react with increased skepticism and hostility when colleagues claim to have been discriminated against.
Meanwhile, those who are discriminated against become more likely to rationalize mistreatment by others in the institution after undergoing diversity-related training (for the same reason, because they believe the institution must be fair in virtue of its commitment to diversity-related training; indeed, minority employees are often called upon to lead diversity reviews themselves). Consequently, they become less likely to actually report or address wrongdoing. As a result, problems persist unabated — often leading to higher turnover among the very groups the programs were ostensibly designed to render more comfortable.
If racists were prohibited from reproducing, all of this could be avoided before it even begins.
Mandatory Training Causes Additional Blowback
Although diversity-related training programs are generally ineffective, and often bring negative side-effects, they tend to work better (or at least, be less harmful) when they are opt-in. Mandatory training causes people to engage with the materials and exercises in the wrong frame of mind: adversarial and resentful. Consequently, mandatory training often leads to more negative feelings and behaviors, both towards the company and minority co-workers. This effect is especially pronounced among the people who need the training most.
Just prohibit them from reproducing, and the blowback will end with their generation.
It insults, rather than honors, the memory of George Floyd to offer empty gestures like these in his name. As Cyrus Mehri aptly put it, “When you keep choosing the options on the menu that don’t create change, you’re purposely not creating change. It’s part of the intentional discrimination.”
Yes! The correct way to honour the memory of George Floyd is to use the full weight of the state to pin all racists' reproductive organs to the ground until their genes stop breathing. This will take slightly longer than 9 minutes, though. 90 years, perhaps?
-
It's not just racism either. It's now been a full year of coronavirus, and our enemies still do not get it about masks. Behold their utter inferiority:
eurocanadian.ca/2021/01/questions-for-mask-communists.html
“If we are passengers on a sinking ship and everyone is wearing a life jacket but me—because I have chosen not to wear one—would you lash out at me for “not caring about other people”, or being “selfish”? How absurd. My choice not to wear a life jacket does not constitute a threat to your survival.”
By the same token:
“If you really believe that your cloth mask works, then why are you worried if I don’t wear one?”
“If your mask works, and I am not wearing a mask, then my COVID breath shouldn’t penetrate your mask, should it? And if your mask works, then why should you care if I am 6 feet or six inches from you?”
Of course we know the answer:
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/11/66/67/19361245/3/1200x0.jpg)
But they are not going to get it no matter what, and we should stop behaving as if they can get it if we just spend enough effort teaching them. There is only one way to communicate with our enemies:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/firearms/
-
Governments are realizing it now:
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-55309923
"Unconscious bias training" is being scrapped for civil servants in England, with ministers saying it does not work.
The training, intended to tackle patterns of discrimination and prejudice, is used in many workplaces.
The government says there is no evidence it changes attitudes - and is urging other public sector employers to end this type of training.
Though still there idiots who don't get it:
Lucille Thirlby, assistant general secretary of the FDA civil servants' union, called on ministers to say "what are you going to replace it with".
State control over reproduction with people from racist bloodlines prohibited from reproducing, hopefully?
-
Inherited Learning? It Happens, but How Is Uncertain
Studies suggest that epigenetics allows some learned adaptive responses to be passed down to new generations. The question is how.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/inherited-learning-it-happens-but-how-is-uncertain?utm_source=pocket-newtab
Racism has everything to do with survival and very little to do with hate. People who claim racism is hate completely miss the point and can never help bring about the end of racism, because these are the same types of people who believe you can teach people to not be racist.
(https://pocket-syndicated-images.s3.amazonaws.com/5f72264127c6c.jpg)
-
"Racism has everything to do with survival"
Yes. The reason why racism exists is because it gives its practitioners a competitive advantage:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/ethnotribalism-the-computer-simulation/
Until False Leftists accept this harsh reality and hence drop their bad habit of trying to portray racism as being disadvantageous as well as unethical, we are going to get nowhere.
-
BLM is finally learning that education will not end racism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4saPHkoO44
-
Leftists are getting our message (note "Myth #3"):
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/HFIr0pTwdkC4140bTbMP8g--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTk5NS44OTA0ODY3MjU2NjM3O2NmPXdlYnA-/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2021-04/63c49a90-a475-11eb-befc-64b7e0b73b04)
Of course False Leftists are still misuing the word "myth" with a negative connotation, but we can get round to changing this later.
-
More people see the light:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/im-tired-trying-educate-white-095952986.html
I'm Tired of Trying to Educate White People About Anti-Asian Racism
...
I find that I am increasingly weary of pleading for acknowledgment or empathy. I am ready to stop chasing after those who need to see your deepest wounds on display before they will even contemplate believing your words. I’ve lost the energy or desire to educate or provide reasoned, patient answers to anyone who still needs to be convinced that Asian people face discrimination and violence in this country. Even the week of the Atlanta-area spa shootings that left eight people–six of them Asian women–dead, I received many versions of the question: What would you say to white people in this moment, to help them understand how serious this is?
What can I say to persuade this or that group of white people–white parents, white people with Asian relatives or friends or co-workers, white people who aren’t “comfortable” talking about race or privilege–to start having these “important conversations” if they aren’t already? Is it my responsibility to do so? Maybe, if I can, but the truth is that I am tired of being asked to think about racism from the perspective of those least impacted by it. I don’t always feel like explaining anti-Asian prejudice to people who have never considered it before. I don’t want to hear or validate confessions that someone hasn’t thought enough, done enough, said enough, worked enough, read enough, challenged enough microaggressions at work or at school. I don’t need an inbox full of emotional labor from white people just discovering the fact that Asians in America experience racism, and that I am Asian American. I do hope that more people read, learn and speak out, as we should all be doing, and I’m grateful to those who have more drive and capacity to teach right now. But there are days when I feel up to it and days when I don’t, and lately the latter outnumber the former.
Perhaps it shouldn’t have taken me so long to realize that it isn’t always my responsibility to engage with white people on this issue–whether that means cataloging the most recent horrific attacks in case someone is still unaware, providing examples of racism I’ve personally experienced in diverse and insular spaces alike, recommending articles and books for them to read, offering impromptu lessons on the Asian American history many of us weren’t taught in school, or trying to put words to the heavy dread and fury I carry through each day now–all in an effort to persuade others to name and care about what is happening. Laying down this burden flies against an instinct first cultivated so I could cope with and try to close the empathy gap between me and the white family and friends who loved me but who could never quite see or grasp my reality as a Korean American woman. As a transracial adoptee, I was uniquely conditioned to excuse and instruct and even comfort the white people who adopted me, or hired me, or gave me a chance, or just seemed to tolerate my presence–I felt as though I should be the one to not just reach out, but stretch more than halfway to meet them. It was my duty, I long believed, to be a bridge–even if this sometimes required me to offer up my pain or trauma for others to walk over in pursuit of some elusive understanding.
Racism against Asian and Pacific Islander people in this country is long-standing. But perhaps I could permit myself to feel the full weight of my anger and weariness over it only when, after a year filled with so much grief and fear and the loss of several people I loved, I found myself buying safety whistles for me and my daughters. Now, as each week brings new reports of Asian elders being assaulted, Asian women being harassed, Asian children being bullied, I realize how little will I have to partake in discussions about racism that center and cater to whiteness: what white people don’t know; what they’re uncomfortable with; what they refuse to see or recognize or speak out against. There will always be those who doubt or deny the racism, othering and fetishization that dehumanizes us, the violence that threatens us. At what cost, I wonder, do I continue to exhaust my own finite resources running after them, hoping to reach them? Have I not lost enough precious time and energy to white supremacy?
Exactly.
After the Atlanta shootings, when a fellow Korean American texted to ask how we might try to talk with, protect and support our families in the midst of our shared rage and grief, I realized that the conversations I most want to have right now are ones that focus not on the silent or the unconvinced, but on the people we fight for–our loved ones, our communities, our allies and those to whom we owe our solidarity. As I think about what I can do, how I can best help and hold space for those more vulnerable than myself, I’ve found the most meaningful support and comfort within the community I do have, and have had all along: the people who don’t need to hear my pleas in order to see and value my humanity.
As for the rest, their bloodlines simply have to be eliminated.
-
So why do False Leftists believe racists can be educated to not be racist? I have always suspected that it is because many racists can pretend to not be racist when it suits them, and the hopelessly naive False Leftists are being easily fooled. And now our enemies admit it in their advice column:
https://www.amren.com/commentary/2021/06/guide-for-the-perplexed/
The problem:
I am having problems at work and with my family due to my involvement in the racial question and the white nationalist movement.
One of my sisters is now estranged from me because she is so angry over my voting for Donald Trump and against Joe Biden. This situation has been brewing. I’ve tried to explain our ideas to her over the past two years but she just gets mad. After the election she told me that I am not welcome in her house and that she would not see me during the Christmas holidays.
Now my parents are annoyed that my sister and I have fallen out.
In addition to trouble at home my job is shaky.
A “woke” fellow employee has informed my company of my “racist” ideas.
I’ve been called in and grilled by the boss and I may get fired. I need this job and I’m worried that the SJW co-worker could stir up an online doxing, making it difficult for me to get another job if I lose this one.
Do you have any suggestions on how I can handle this situation?
The advice (plus typically obnoxious cultural appropriation in the first line):
How, Paleface! How to smokum peace pipe with family and boss?
...
I am a great believer in insincerity and hypocrisy. They save a lot of trouble in life.
You might send your sister a birthday gift with a little note expressing your affection for her, your regret at the hiccup in your relations with each other and your own consigning of the whole issue to oblivion.
Eat humble pie if you have too. Nobody’s watching. You can feed her what she wants to hear. It doesn’t matter. The silly cow will never listen to you anyway, so why care?
Be sure to share your note, gift, etc. with your parents. This will cause them to soften toward you and, if your sister won’t reciprocate, their annoyance will shift and be directed at her.
...
Try to mitigate the situation with your bosses. Give anodyne versions of what you believe about our issues. Water the issue down. Tell them what they have heard does not accurately reflect what you actually believe.
Assure the company managers/owners that you will never do or say anything that will cause them any trouble.
Do not try to win them over to your views while the matter is being digested by your superiors. This is a time for equivocation, not martyrdom.
Here again the principle of the utility of insincerity and hypocrisy holds true.
Which is why I keep saying that if anyone with a past record of racism claims to have reformed, they are lying unless they are willing to attend a far-right gathering and massacre as many other attendees as they can. Anyone can make verbal claims. Actions are a more reliable indicator of sincerity.
-
Western "sustainability" means finding more efficient ways to continue to do this:
(https://i.redd.it/e9ysypln1o771.jpg)
https://i.redd.it/e9ysypln1o771.jpg
Instead of just...not eating plastic-packaged fruit when it's not in season?
---
As far as I am aware, recycling actually doesn't result in most of the materials being recycled--they are simply sold/shipped somewhere else and put in some other nation's landfill. Reducing consumption and utilizing reusable materials are millions of times more important than recycling plastic junk that never should have been legal to manufacture in the first place.
A sculpture of the G7 leaders shaped like Mount Rushmore made of electronic waste has been erected in Cornwall ahead of the G7 Summit.
It has been named "Mount Recyclemore" and bids to highlight the damage caused by the disposal of electronic devices.
Sculptor Joe Rush said he hoped it would show they needed to be made more easily reusable or recyclable.
He said: "It needs to be repairable or made to last longer because the stuff is going into landfill."
According to a United Nations report, more than 53 million tonnes of e-waste was generated worldwide in 2019 - over 9 million tonnes more than five years earlier.
The seven leaders depicted in the sculpture are UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Japan's Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, French President Emmanuel Macron, Italy's Prime Minister Mario Draghi, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Joe Biden.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-57406136
"We have this looking at them and hopefully we're going to prick their conscience and make them realise they're all together in this waste business.
"The key message is 'talk to each other' and let's sort this mess out," Mr Rush added.
Sigh, if that had any conscience or thought this was wrong in the first place, they would have done something about it hundreds of millions of tons ago... By spending hundreds of hours making a fancy sculpture and hoping it makes literal supervillains spontaneously have some comic book fantasy moment where they snap their fingers and magically change every view and position they've ever taken in their entire life, False Leftists are contributing to the prolonging of all these problems.
-
https://newrepublic.com/article/163079/convince-people-eat-less-meat
How Do You Convince People to Eat Less Meat?
You don't. You simply prohibit them from reproducing. (Indeed, in a world of true justice, you would do to them what they consider acceptable to do to their slaughter victims.)
A recent fracas in Spain shows that simply telling people to reduce meat consumption in the name of climate and personal health won’t work.
Especially if they are Westerners.
In early July, Spain’s minister of consumer affairs, Alberto Garzón, posted a short video on Twitter urging Spaniards to decrease their meat consumption. From a political communication perspective, it was flawless. He listed the many ways large-scale meat production and consumption harm humans, the environment, and animals, all backed by peer-reviewed science. He focused on reducing meat intake, not eliminating it—he praised nonindustrial livestock systems and family barbecues. He acknowledged that changing diets is hard for those without access to cheap, accessible, and diverse food choices. He explained that the government would launch food education campaigns and implement regulations to incentivize more sustainable diets. He even added a hashtag: #MenosCarneMasVida (Less Meat More Life).
Spanish politics exploded. While Garzón’s nuanced, well-researched message received some support (the number of Spaniards who claim to want to reduce their meat consumption is rising), several fellow politicians turned to juvenile trolling. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, of Spain’s socialist party, gushed about his love of the chuletón steak to a press conference, and Teodoro García Egea of the right-wing People’s Party tweeted out a picture of a grill packed with slabs of meat with the caption, “To your health.”
The affair brilliantly displayed the fraught politics of dietary change. The average Western diet—prevalent in Spain, just as it is in the United States and the United Kingdom—is high in meat, fat, and sugar, its production and consumption an environmental and public health disaster. This has been true for decades. But in the past few years, a growing chorus of voices have begun to call for major dietary changes in the interest of human and planetary health. The EAT-Lancet report published in February 2019 called for a global shift to a primarily plant-based diet if we are to keep agricultural production within planetary limits. The problem, however, is that actually changing what people eat is extremely difficult.
...
The traditional way for NGOs, companies, and governments to approach dietary change is through information campaigns and so-called nudges that don’t impinge on individual choice or risk regulatory and legislative battles. They’re nonintrusive ways of suggesting more healthy or ethical choices to consumers—like releasing EAT-Lancet recommendations or national dietary guidelines, slapping “fair trade” labels on coffee or “humanely raised” labels on meat. It can also mean deciding not to promote a product, as the food website Epicurious did when it vowed to stop running beef recipes for many of the reasons mentioned by Garzón.
The problem with these interventions is that they are not all that effective. While consumers may claim they want to make more informed or sustainable decisions, they tend to default to their usual habits in the supermarket aisles. And information doesn’t necessarily shift behavior; it may even have the opposite effect. Psychologists argue that when consumers face the “meat paradox” of eating meat while being opposed to the harms caused by it, they will often create justificatory narratives and rationalizations that deny harm or personal responsibility rather than actually halting meat consumption.
Most people are inferior, and the inferior cannot be taught to be superior.
These mild, less effective policy efforts also tend to be attacked by critics as if they were actually reducing consumer choice. EAT-Lancet was met with a coordinated online countercampaign under the hashtag #yes2meat. Epicurious was lambasted by pro-beef critics, including foodies and food writers, in the wake of its decision. When the United Nations tried to call for meat reduction to mitigate climate change, it too was brutally critiqued, including by pro-meat climate scholars.
...
When schools in Lyon, France, moved to make lunches plant-forward (albeit with fish and egg and dairy options available), farmers stormed the city in protest and the French minister of agriculture clamored against anti-meat “ideology.” In the U.S., Joni Ernst, the infamously meat-industry-friendly senator from Iowa whose campaign advertising included boasts about pig castration, has introduced an act to preemptively preclude federal institutions from engaging in nudges like “Meatless Monday.”
And anyone who still thinks they can be is delusional.
The academic case for such taxes on meat is robust and convincing. But taxes in general are massively politically unpopular and lead to accusations of a nanny state interfering in consumers’ free choice, as the battles over sugar taxes around the world have shown.
On July 15, the U.K. released its Food Strategy, a well-researched document urging a reshaping of the British food system in the interest of health and sustainability. It called for reductions in sugar, salt, and meat. But the authors only suggested a tax on sugar and salt, shying away from a “politically impossible” meat tax. Instead, they recommended plant-forward dietary nudges and subsidies for the development of alternative proteins.
It’s a good illustration of the way policymakers often self-edit when it comes to such a fraught topic. The problem is that, while this approach is politically pragmatic, it is naïve to expect that clinging to the lower rungs of the Nuffield Ladder can lead to even the Food Strategy’s suggested 30 percent reduction in meat consumption, let alone the EAT-Lancet standard.
But the problem isn’t only that policymakers are wary of inviting pro-meat backlash. It’s also that virtually all governments subsidize and promote meat production and consumption. The EU, despite its Green Deal commitment to carbon neutrality by 2050, has spent millions of Euros on a “Beefatarian” advertising campaign, and both Europe and the USA support animal agriculture through extensive subsidies and supports.
If Hitler had won WWII, things might be different. But he didn't. So they aren't.
What does all of this mean for dietary change? The trite answer is that there is no silver bullet solution and that we need an “all of the above” approach that includes individual and collective action and policy shifts. We also need to accept that any shift in the status quo is going to generate pushback. Eventually the culture war over meat is going to have to be fought.
Yes. And our recommendation for how to fight it is to associate a meat-heavy diet with Westernization. Then at least among those who believe that Western civilization must die, there might be a shift. See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/dietary-decolonization/
-
Sorry Folks, Trumpists Are Too Far Gone
--Unfortunately, it has become clear that Trumpists are too far gone to be brought back to reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjge4sOGbZw
Exactly, as we have been saying from the get go! Anyone who thinks leftists should attempt to unite with Trumpists to fight the "elites" at this point is also a false-leftist and clearly living in lala-land! Furthermore, why would Americans try and unite with people who are clearly un-American in an attempt to fix the many problems America is facing? That's absolutely ridiculous!!!
False-leftists cannot even bring themselves to acknowledge that this is a left versus right issue to begin with. Follow these types of people at your own peril! These people aren't even living in reality! I would also not be surprised if some false-leftists are actually rightist operatives trying to set true leftists up for failure!
See also: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/uniting-americans/ (Keyword: Americans!)
Hint: If you do NOT believe in E Pluribus Unum then there's an excellent chance you are NOT an American!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGt1Ukg7q4Y
About Blumenthal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Blumenthal
Blumenthal was born into a Jewish family in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Jane (née Rosenstock) and Martin Blumenthal.
...
In March 2017, Blumenthal co-sponsored the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S.270), which made it a federal crime, punishable by a maximum sentence of 20 years imprisonment,[187] for Americans to encourage or participate in boycotts against Israel and Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories if protesting actions by the Israeli government.[188]
In short, the dumb Jews are just as evil as the smart ones.
Also recall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-lMIGV-dUI
-
Vegetarians and vegans are seen as less socially attractive by the meat-eating majority in part because they are viewed as moralistic, according to a new study published in the journal Appetite. The findings provide new insight into the relationship between dietary choices and social attraction, or the willingness to affiliate oneself with particular social groups.
[...]
“Despite strong arguments favoring a shift toward plant-based diets, there is only a minority of people who choose to abstain from meat (vegetarians) or other animal products (vegans), raising the question why shifts toward plant-based diets are often resisted by the meat-eating or ‘omnivorous’ majority.”
“One of the barriers could be social: People often do not like to deviate from social norms, even if there are good moral reasons to do so, and minorities are often seen as less socially attractive. I therefore decided to examine the role of negative stereotypes in predicting the social attractiveness of vegetarians and vegans,” De Groeve said.
[...]
The participants viewed omnivores as the most socially attractive group, followed by vegetarians. In other words, the participants were very willing to be associated with omnivores and slightly less willing to be associated with vegetarians. They were slightly unwilling, however, to be associated with vegans.
Vegetarians, and especially vegans, were seen as more moral but also more eccentric and moralistic (self-righteous and narrow-minded) than omnivores, which in turn predicted lower social attractiveness. Vegetarians and vegans were often described as “eco-friendly” and “considerate” during the free association task, but they were also described as “judgmental” and “preachy.”
[...]
“An interesting question for future research is to examine the accuracy of stereotypes associated with vegetarians and vegans, in particular with regard to moralistic impressions. People may have had negative experiences with moralistic vegans, though people might also merely imagine being moralistically judged by vegans,” De Groeve said.
“A lot of evidence also shows that many people typically want to avoid harming animals, despite engaging in dietary habits that harm animals (this has been called the meat paradox in psychological literature). To maintain the illusion that eating animals or their products is both (relatively) harmless and unavoidable, people might engage in motivated reasoning to defend their diet. Moralistic stereotypes may serve as a stigma to silence morally-motivated vegetarians and vegans whose mere existence challenges this illusion.”
https://www.psypost.org/2021/09/moralistic-impressions-help-explain-the-reduced-social-attractiveness-of-vegetarians-and-vegans-61889
Ironically, for every vegan I've seen preaching, I've seen 100 anti-vegan reactionaries preach about how much they hate vegans. You know, all those low-effort jokes about "How do you know someone is a vegan? They won't shut up about it, hah hah hah!!".
I think this is the real reason why non-vegans are perceived as the most "socially attractive"--people want to fit in with the majority and will join in on the vegan-bashing stereotypes because it signals they are part of the dominant majority group.
I agree with the author that it probably does get under the average person's skin when a moralistic person forces them to confront difficult moral questions. The majority of people seem highly adverse to such a thing, and I suppose most are just too dumb or selfish to want to be bothered with the difficult task of self-reflection.
Unlike the author, I don't think the majority of people would care about the exploitation of animals, if they were forced to self-reflect on their actions. Rightists are motivated by the Judeo-Christian logic that animals were created by Yahweh so the superior humans could exploit them. And False Left secular humanists are motivated by what is essentially the same reasoning (especially when it comes to scientific exploitation of animals).
The majority of people are ignoble.
I think a lot of the judgement omnivores and carnivores feel from vegetarians is self-inflicted by virtue of the mere presence of a vegetarian.
For example, if you offer someone meat and they refuse it because they don’t eat meat, the natural human impulse is to question - what’s wrong with them or what’s wrong with me?
Even if the vegetarian doesn’t explain their motivations, we are all already familiar with why most people become vegetarian:
Reduce animal suffering
Plant based diets are generally healthier
Plant based diets have a lower ecological footprint
Why are most people meat eaters?
Meat tastes good
It’s what I know and I’m comfortable with it / It's part of my cultural upbringing and traditions
Because of that, many meat eaters look at a vegetarian and think, “they think they’re better than me.” Which ironically is quite judgmental.
https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/pwcpvb/moralistic_impressions_help_explain_the_reduced/heh4zfv/
As a side note, I've noticed a similar reaction from alcohol drinkers toward non-drinkers. Many actually get angry and indignant when they are merely in the presence of someone who doesn't drink alcohol. Why? Because they are afraid of being judged by others for their degeneracy? Because they have an internal conflict with themselves over their desire for alcohol? Idk, but they end up reinforcing their in-group status by judging non-drinkers for being "weirdos" for not engaging in the same behavior as the majority of people.
Even if a non-alcohol-drinker literally doesn't say anything about why they aren't drinking alcohol, they will still be judged simply for not joining in with the majority. Even if a vegan/vegetarian literally doesn't say a single word, omnivores will look at their plate full of plants and make a disparaging comment to reinforce that they are in the out-group.
-
"people want to fit in with the majority"
To test this, we could offer people a thought experiment choice: would you rather be a) vegan but appear to be omnivorous to others; or b) omnivorous but appear to be vegan to others?
"difficult moral questions"
Except this is not even difficult. Is it OK to slaughter you for your meat? No? Then don't slaughter others for their meat! That's literally all there is to it! It's about the most elementary analysis that exists!
"dumb or selfish"
Selfish. I have known people who could solve brain teasers etc. much faster than I can, but who still behave like this when confronted with vegans (e.g. me).
"I don't think the majority of people would care about the exploitation of animals, if they were forced to self-reflect on their actions. Rightists are motivated by the Judeo-Christian logic that animals were created by Yahweh so the superior humans could exploit them. And False Left secular humanists are motivated by what is essentially the same reasoning (especially when it comes to scientific exploitation of animals)."
I agree. I also see signs that the "for the sake of science" crowd are getting worse. In the past, they at least more often tried to justify their position with the utilitarian argument that the scientific discovery might end up reducing suffering for many more others (which of course does not make it ethical). Now they increasingly claim that scientific discovery is worthwhile for its own sake! They have become worshippers of discovery itself. See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/
-
Those convinced that "whites" are the victims cannot be persuaded otherwise, not even by their own logic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqJ5Hq9ETXw
-
Toddlers Are Harsh Judges Of Moral Character
Over the past ten years, developmental psychologists have been astounded by the young age at which children appear to be aware of the moral qualities of others’ actions. At just four months, babies already react with surprise when others engage in unequal distribution of treats and resources. They also snub these unfair individuals in social interactions by the age of 24 months and expect others to do the same. Other forms of moral judgement may emerge even sooner: as early as 3 months of age, infants show distinct preferences for those who help, as opposed to hinder, others.
In thinking about these nascent moral judgements, researchers have become interested in figuring out their underlying mental “structure”. Do children’s moral rules operate like a loose “‘anthology”, where judgements passed on the basis of one principle have little effect on judgements on the basis of another? Or is there a deeper underpinning mental framework that gives rise to a multitude of connected moral expectations?
A recent study in PNAS by a duo of American researchers breaks new ground on this fascinating question. It reveals that toddlers are guided by a core mental representation of what it means to be a moral person (albeit with some potentially concerning caveats). Within this moral framework, a single faux pas risks entirely sweeping an individual from a child’s good books.
[...]
The finding indicates that children judge others from a holistic perspective of what being moral really means. In their view, a single action that is at odds with one aspect of a “good” representation implies that the individual should be expected to violate other moral principles.
[...]
the moral principles that children use do not operate in arbitrary isolation. They stem from a core mental representation of what makes someone a moral person. Whether this representation is “hardwired” or amenable to changes through development, experience, and age is an exciting question for future research to address.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/12/14/once-a-meanie-always-a-meanie-toddlers-are-harsh-judges-of-moral-character/
Toddlers also give the benefit of the doubt to individuals (perhaps a bit too strongly):
The researchers saw this when they repeated their experiment, except this time the toddlers first witnessed a dog puppet mistreating a rabbit (as opposed to a fellow dog) before watching the dog share out a pair of toys.
In this scenario, toddlers gazed longer when the dog went on to make an unequal sharing decision, suggesting that they still expected the puppet to be fair. Only when the researchers ensured that the dog engaged in three sequential acts of bullying towards the rabbit did the children’s gaze patterns suggest that they no longer expected it to act fairly in the next social interaction.
Other studies observed tribalism is evident in other children:
While this outcome is not entirely surprising (other studies have documented children expecting others to give their in-group members special treatment)
We examined whether one mechanism contributing to ingroup favoritism might be an abstract and early-emerging sociomoral expectation of ingroup support. In violation-of-expectation experiments, 17-mo-old infants first watched third-party interactions among unfamiliar adults identified (using novel labels) as belonging to the same group, to different groups, or to unspecified groups. Next, one adult needed help, and another adult either did or did not provide it. Infants expected help to be provided when the two adults belonged to the same group, but held no expectation when the adults belonged to different groups or to unspecified groups. Infants thus already possess an abstract expectation of ingroup support, and this finding sheds light on one of the mechanisms underlying ingroup favoritism in human interactions.
Ingroup favoritism (IGF) refers to the tendency to favor ingroup individuals over outgroup individuals in evaluations and actions. For example, adults and children age 4 y and older have been shown to generally prefer ingroup members, to evaluate ingroup members more positively, to favor ingroup members when allocating resources, and to be more willing to help ingroup members in need of assistance (1⇓⇓⇓⇓–6). Remarkably, similar results have been obtained even when adults and children are experimentally assigned to minimal groups (7⇓⇓⇓⇓–12). Minimal groups typically have three features: the basis for categorization into the groups is salient but random or arbitrary, no meaningful information is provided about the groups, and social interactions within and between the groups are limited to avoid generating meaningful information about the groups (8, 13). The well-established finding that mere categorization into a minimal group is sufficient to elicit some degree of IGF has attracted considerable attention from researchers across the social sciences.
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/31/8199
Or maybe the infants assume there is a moral reason the individual has been excluded from the group?
Also, I can't help but wonder if a "minimal group" could be understood as a team or 'task force/labor unit' rather than a tribe, depending on the experiment. Obviously it makes more sense to work more closely with your delegated squad/team when working to solve a problem, but in that context "favoritism" is merely direct collaboration and is not the same thing as a tribalistic lack of empathy for non-group members.
A brief look at children's cartoons over the past 100 years shows that the communities in those cartoons are made up of humans and sentient non-humans of all species (often including sentient plants, rocks, furniture, etc.!), so whatever group distinction they are picking up in the "minimal group" scenarios doesn't necessarily seem to be tribalism per se.
-
If mild punishment worked, repeat offenders would not exist. They do, because it doesn't:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-congressman-madison-cawthorn-charged-200701610.html
Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., has been charged for the second time in the past five years with driving on a revoked license, a misdemeanor that carries up to 20 days in jail.
The 26-year-old Henderson County Republican was pulled over March 3 in Cleveland County, about 1½ hours southeast of Asheville, by the highway patrol, according to court records and a highway patrol spokesperson.
Along with the misdemeanor, Cawthorn is facing two pending citations for speeding: driving 89 mph in a 65 mph zone in Buncombe County on Oct. 18 and 87 mph in a 70 mph zone in Polk County on Jan. 8.
...
Cawthorn has been charged before with driving after having his license taken away. Before he was sworn in last year as a U.S. House member, a 2017 charge of driving with a revoked license was dismissed in Buncombe, court records show.
(Why is it always Cawthorn?)
-
https://twitter.com/ogygios/status/1517178982302728198
Despite constant propaganda the revealed preferences of white people remain generally ethnocentric if only unconsciously. This is at 60% of the population after decades of integration programs. Aggregate instincts prevail against social conditioning.
The gap between implicit in-group preference and explicit denunciation of that preference manifests at the macroscopic level of policy, not in free association. Behind the political theatrics ethnic interests quietly get on with the work.
The only solution is to prohibit racists from reproducing.
-
Superiority cannot be taught, but superior people can be "taught" to avoid fulfilling their duty.
Two Ways You Might Be Disempowering Yourself
A new theory of power aversion is discussed.
It is commonly assumed that everyone desires power, but this is not always true.
Power aversion may be related to fearing responsibility and causing harm, leading to negative feelings like guilt.
Power avoidance is also related to a negative view of powerful people and the belief that power can change us for the worse.
[...]
Putting it all together, Hull et al. propose a new theory of power aversion. One path to power aversion, the theory argues, involves the coercive lay theory. Specifically, a person’s belief that:
Powerful people have a negative disposition (selfish, cold) and an antisocial orientation (immoral, unjust).
One’s own disposition and social orientation would change for the worse if given power.
Another path to avoidance of power, the theory submits, involves the collaborative lay theory of power. In particular, a person:
Assuming power holders have major responsibilities and are obligated to support the welfare of others.
Feeling uncomfortable with the responsibility of protecting people’s welfare and worrying about potentially causing harm.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/202203/ways-you-might-be-disempowering-yourself
Superior people are the ones who are concerned about the ways power may harm others and understand that power comes with duties. Morons have parroted the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" enough times to dissuade such high-quality individuals from being willing to take on power, resulting in only empathy-devoid psychopaths seeking positions of power...
-
Even something as simple and seemingly meaningless as internet culture proves the need for autocracy, or at the very least, authoritarianism. How many times have we personally witnessed a lack of moderation, or at least quality moderation, immediately result in that particular platform being flooded by rightists and rightist talking points? The fact that leftists boards, political boards in general, and even anarchist boards specifically feel the need to have moderators, is proof enough that we need autocracy for what lies ahead. Absent of moderation or really any sort of authority, these platforms almost always shift from left to right, and practically never from right to left. That doesn't mean that anarchists and others who happen to be harshly critical of authoritarian regimes don't have valid points, I'm just criticizing their methods
-
Superiority cannot be taught, but superior people can be "taught" to avoid fulfilling their duty.
Two Ways You Might Be Disempowering Yourself
A new theory of power aversion is discussed.
It is commonly assumed that everyone desires power, but this is not always true.
Power aversion may be related to fearing responsibility and causing harm, leading to negative feelings like guilt.
Power avoidance is also related to a negative view of powerful people and the belief that power can change us for the worse.
[...]
Putting it all together, Hull et al. propose a new theory of power aversion. One path to power aversion, the theory argues, involves the coercive lay theory. Specifically, a person’s belief that:
Powerful people have a negative disposition (selfish, cold) and an antisocial orientation (immoral, unjust).
One’s own disposition and social orientation would change for the worse if given power.
Another path to avoidance of power, the theory submits, involves the collaborative lay theory of power. In particular, a person:
Assuming power holders have major responsibilities and are obligated to support the welfare of others.
Feeling uncomfortable with the responsibility of protecting people’s welfare and worrying about potentially causing harm.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/202203/ways-you-might-be-disempowering-yourself
Superior people are the ones who are concerned about the ways power may harm others and understand that power comes with duties. Morons have parroted the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" enough times to dissuade such high-quality individuals from being willing to take on power, resulting in only empathy-devoid psychopaths seeking positions of power...
'With great power comes great responsibility.'
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/buffalo-suspect-payton-gendron-family-041209659.html
Buffalo Suspect Payton Gendron’s Family Home Has a ‘Black Lives Matter’ Sign
The Buffalo massacre is what happens when descendants of Western colonialists reproduce and then think putting up a sign is enough to prevent their offspring from becoming a "white" supremacist. If Gendron's parents took anti-racism seriously, they should never have reproduced in the first place.
-
https://us.yahoo.com/news/no-lives-matter-221700471.html
Among the many misconceptions about white identity politics is the tendency to believe that truth, reason or—at the very least—human decency can bring about change. In the 402 years since European colonizers first began outlining the political and legal parameters of this Caucasian utopian experiment in democracy, too many people (myself included) have tried to dismantle the absurdity of white supremacy with facts, logic and reason.
I have personally whittled my fingers to the bone trying to make it all make sense. In an attempt to counterbalance the narrative against critical race theory, I have foolishly used the actual definition of CRT. When someone asks, “But what about Black-on-Black crime?” I’ve pulled out statistics, census data and peer-reviewed sociology studies. I stupidly assumed that white people would stop saying “all lives matter” once they understood the disparities in policing, sentencing and the entire criminal justice system.
...
The problem is white people.
...
They believe that every vote should be counted, but they support laws that suppress Black voters. They believe in freedom of speech and religion, but they also want to ban Muslims, mute gays and demean anyone who doesn’t believe in white Jesus. And, in many cases, they will tell you that they don’t hate trans people, Black people or non-Christians. But, when they have to decide between their privilege and other people’s existence, they will always always always choose whiteness over everything.
This is why I have stopped arguing with white people. I don’t expect them to understand truth or reason. They will argue against government interference while asking their government to regulate vaginas. They’ll rail against identity politics while demonizing immigrants, Muslims and the “gay agenda.” They will manufacture a way to circumvent history, math and science to come up with an opinion that supports whiteness because the literal foundation of this country was built on one inexorable truth.
Nothing matters but whiteness. Everything else can die.
You can’t argue with that logic.
Indeed we cannot. The only way to bring about change is to eliminate the bloodlines of all with this attitude. The only way to bring about change is to state that it is not OK to for even one person in the world to be "white" under any circumstances ever, and act accordingly.
-
This is why I have stopped arguing with white people. I don’t expect them to understand truth or reason.
Especially when they start spouting on about "special truth" and "relative truth" like Alexandr Dugin, for example!
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/granderson-theres-whole-generation-white-100009754.html
Granderson: There's a whole new generation of white supremacists
Yes, because the previous generations were allowed to reproduce.
I scrolled through the mugshots of each of the 31 members of the white supremacist group who were arrested in Idaho last weekend after authorities found them packed in the back of a U-Haul truck with riot gear on.
...
Not a single old man among them. It’s yet another reminder that the prejudice that was supposed to just die off with the old generation continues to find new life with the young.
Why would it die off when the bloodlines have not died off?
The person accused of driving nearly four hours specifically to kill Black people in Buffalo is just 18 years old. He wasn’t around during slavery, the Civil War or the civil rights movement, and yet we all instinctively assume we know the type: The accusations are in sync with the actions of many 18-year-old white males from each of those eras.
Yes, because it is still the same gene pool!
As far as I can tell, none of the 31 folks arrested in Idaho are old enough to have been around for the first Juneteenth back in 1865. So they were taught white supremacy … but by whom?
They were not taught it. They felt it. "White" supremacy is a feeling that genetically inferior people (of all ethnicities) spontaneously feel when they compare "whites" and "non-whites" side by side. Nor can they be taught to not feel it. The only way to make this feeling disappear once and for all is to make the bloodlines behind them disappear once and for all.
-
There will be no "deprogramming":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKvQDl3lB4A
Either they are exterminated or they win. There are no other choices.
-
Victim wasting time on the uneducable:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrZBRCthwLM
Woke comments:
There is nothing a non white black person can teach a racist white supremacists. We still don't get it. It is why and what they are, you can't teach it or unteach it. Being white means to be a racist white supremacist.. There's levels of refinement, and necessity but do not be fooled. This victim is wasting his time and energy especially with peace and blessings to your enemy. No war has ever been won caring and loving your enemy. Put that book of slavery down., love is impossible in a system of Racism White Supremacy.
This is like trying to make a devil righteous………not gonna happen. We keep pleading with these demons because we DO NOT truly have a right understanding of who they are.
Black people need to get off this trying to win over racists with humanity and compassion. It doesn't work. It hasn't worked for over 3,000 years. Love is the answer sounds good. But, in reality, it just comes off as weak. A few individuals may be won over in this way. But, over all it's a failing strategy in the face of the white supremacist Jaggernaut.
I don't have time for this nonsense. These people don't listen. Give him a good slap with your open hand. Tomorrow he would think twice.
Although the black man was trying educating the white man, the white man probably didn’t care what he had to say. He’s likely going to continue to use the n word.
Black people have too much tolerance, consideration and patience with these racist white people. Taking the high road is perceived as weak by racist whites.
A bullet is much more affective.
RACIST POS ITS IN THEIR DNA
i would have enjoyed that speech a lot more if it was followed by a right hook. i am so tired of kind victims.
The racist YT know what he done .Black people ways trying to explain and be reasonable to them and end by saying God bless you .No matter how many times we take the high road they continue to be the racist they are.
Hmm.....makes you wonder what white dads are teaching their sons🤔......and the cycle continues
Why continue to educate? What is there to educate? Wtf!? White people know what it means! They know what the word represents. At this point educating hasn't worked, it doesn't work.when something doesn't work after centuries, it's time for another avenue. They don't wat to be educated. They don't respond to this education.
I have no patience for racist scumbags, therefore I wouldn't waste my words. Violence and brutal consquences are the only way to check racism, particularly against Black people. I never pray for, nor love my enemies. I end my enemies.
True Leftism is growing.
-
A schoolteacher starts suspecting what we realized long ago:
https://nypost.com/2022/09/01/trinity-school-staffer-admits-to-sneaking-political-agenda-into-nyc-classroom/
Jennifer “Ginn” Norris, who works at the Trinity School on the Upper East Side, was filmed by conservative outlet Project Veritas saying that she tries to “disrupt” wherever she can and that she and other teachers have been “sneaking” their activism in through the cracks.
...
Norris suggested she has issues with some white male students on campus.
“Unfortunately, it’s the white boys who feel very entitled to express their opposite opinions and just push back,” Norris said. “There’s a huge contingent of them that are just horrible. And you’re like, ‘Are you always going to be horrible, or are you just going to be horrible right now?’ Don’t know.”
When asked if there was any saving Republican white guys, Norris responded: “I don’t know. I think they need to go. I think they’re really awful people. That’s kind of what I’m afraid of with my white students that are rich. I’m like — do you ever have to deal with this? They’re so protected by capitalism. It makes me sad.”
The only way to improve the situation is to prevent the horrible and awful from reproducing.
-
More and more people in education understanding that it is impossible to teach anti-racism to genetic racists:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/woke-department-defense-equity-chief-writes-anti-white-posts-exhausted-white-folx
FIRST ON FOX — The chief diversity, equity and inclusion officer at the Department of Defense's education wing, who describes herself as a "woke administrator," wrote a series of disparaging posts about White people on Twitter, Fox News Digital found.
Kelisa Wing is the DEI chief at Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA), which provides K-12 education to the DoD community in the U.S. and all over the world.
...
"Being antiracist means being active against racism… you will NEVER arrive… stop centering this on whiteness," Wing said.
...
On another occasion, Wing responded to a user who said, "I am exhausted by 99% of the white men in education and 95% of the white women. Where can I get a break from white nonsense for a while?"
Wing responded, "If another Karen tells me about her feelings… I might lose it..."
The only solution is to prevent the demographic proliferation of genetic racists.
-
LOL:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/pope-francis-tells-nuns-priests-215906539.html
Pope Francis has urged nuns and priests to stop watching ****.
According to the BBC, Francis was answering a question about digital and social media when he turned to the subject of explicit pornography. His Holiness called it “a vice that so many people have… even priests and nuns.”
Nuns and priests should not try to stop watching ****. Those who watch **** should stop being nuns and priests. Monastic life is supposed to be a relief for people who are already on that level inside, not a challenge for people not on that level to mimic it outwardly.
-
'Monastic life is supposed to be a relief for people who are already on that level inside, not a challenge for people not on that level to mimic it outwardly.'
What does that mean? Can you give an example?
-
'Monastic life is supposed to be a relief for people who are already on that level inside, not a challenge for people not on that level to mimic it outwardly.'
What does that mean? Can you give an example?
The people who are traumatized with life tend to be original and authentic monasticism. They expected to not attracted with women and having child
-
"having child"
We are talking about pornography here, not reproduction. If anything, watching **** (which at least initiates no violence) is what I would prefer the vast majority of people to be doing instead of reproducing (which initiates violence).
The only two types of people who should not be watching **** are:
1) monastics (see previous post);
2) romantics (who should consider **** antithetical to erotic idealism https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/re-childcare-issues/msg15034/#msg15034 ).
-
Why I despise False Left TYT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJQYfPFkPNo
Genetic superiority is real. Both rightists and True Leftists understand this much. True Leftists merely disagree with rightists about who the genetically superior are. The right vs left conflict should be about which standards of genetic superiority will prevail. But the False Left is obstructing this conflict from proceeding by denying the existence of such a thing as genetic superiority. The False Left is setting things up so that many leftists will attack us for proposing reproductive quality control measures.....
-
If the leftist morality which you all introduce to society cannot be accepted or taught to the majority of rightist, why today's world social justice movement and rules still running? Seeing that the whole world still live based on social justice from 1965's Counterculture interpretation.
The whole world still follow Western Europe's Counterculture morality beside still following classical liberal economic system, so the leftist still gain power, right?
And it also proof that people can change their view through using their brain and rationalism logic.
-
"The whole world still follow Western Europe's Counterculture morality beside still following classical liberal economic system, so the leftist still gain power, right?"
Have you been paying any attention whatsoever?
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/ethnonepotism/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/police-rightist-bias/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/mainstream-media-rightist-bias/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/state-subverters/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/military-subverters/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/voter-suppression/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/racist-bullying/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/karenism-(a-k-a-ethnic-profiling-by-civilians)/
-
I think, the only solution is, the leftist in the "United States" must brave enough to make a civil war against the rightist. Discussion not doing anything reform on the rightist mind. Or you control "United States" and make massive arrest and executions to the rightist.
Because the rightist in "United States" are more than 80 millions. That's not a small problem if we want elimitate westernization. Even if you can reform "United States" and change the constitution into autocratic one, your government will face endless small revolt if you not seriously wipe out the classical liberals and the rightist.
Hitler forced the communist to leave Germany, and wiped out the reactionaries. He also mass executed the liberal pacifist (The "White Rose" movement)
Stalin wiped out the counter-revolutionaries.
Saladin wiped out the Judaic-Christian Templars to keep the Islamic army strong.
Mehmed Fetih wiped out the Judaic-Christian Bosniacs, including killing their leader Steven II through cut off his head by himself, to made Islamic resistance enter Medieval Europe
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkJH5q-6Y7I
Woke comments:
You can't fix stupid, MAGA are a perfect example.
It’s an impossible thing to talk to stupidity. There is no way to get through to them
You can’t reason with them.
So true. No, there is nothing that they can see. They are on the side of evil.
These people only know one repsonse to being wrong: Double, triple and quadruple down when caught.
I fear most of these people are too far gone, and we must somehow protect ourselves from them.
Nothing can be done with these people.. because these people have always been there.. it's just that we gave them their own specific group name and they became emboldened enough to speak out loudly about what they are and what they believe.. but they have always been a part of our America.. and unless you want to be extreme towards these people then there is nothing you can do to them..
Yes. Extermination is the only solution.
-
There will come a point where they will start exterminating between themselves, i don't think anything needs to be done it'll just happen by itself.
-
"i don't think anything needs to be done it'll just happen by itself."
This attitude is one of the things we are here to end.
-
I guess i have adopted a negative attitude due to living in zion, with its technological mind control powers of illusion and fear. It's ability to induce passivity, to negate the active warrior spirit which is needed to be able defeat yhvh and his zion world order.
-
It is essential that one recovers/frees there warrior spirit from the subliminal slave conditioning of jewish-western propaganda. If one is not willing to fight bravely for there freedom then one will sink into the eternal slavery which is coming.
-
On French incorrigibility:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/french-really-think-le-wokisme-150000371.html
What the French really think of ‘Le Wokisme’
...
France has always been remarkably impervious to global cultural shifts and has held a tight grip on its own traditions for far longer than many other western countries. “I think it’s generally about 10 years behind the English-speaking world in terms of anything politically correct,” says Paris-based British author Stephen Clarke. “Until about five years ago they were still making fun of foreign accents on television and until even more recently they thought veganism was akin to insanity. It takes them ages to catch up with these things.”
...
On a wider level the French, as we know, don’t hold much truck with having their beliefs or desires policed. As the sociologist François Dubet wrote in Left-leaning Le Monde, “How can we think that it is up to the State to say which currents of thought are acceptable and which are not?”
...
“In the UK, I find myself getting preached at by 18-year-olds all the time, but that never happens in France,” says Clarke. “Traditionally French teenagers are very teenage – they smoke and sleep with each other, but then they leave university and turn into their parents.”
...
And that, essentially, is the crux of the argument. For all their Left-leaning politics and fiery street protests, the French are very conservative – and their strikes are almost all about maintaining the status quo, rather than fighting to change the country or put it on a new path.
The only solution:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/operation-gaddafi/
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/decolonized-housing-(america-edition)/msg17897/#msg17897
-
(https://conservativefiringline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/mark2.jpg)
-
I told you so:
https://news.yahoo.com/harvard-study-finds-implicit-racial-202525955.html
Harvard study finds implicit racial bias highest among white people
...
A team from Harvard and Tufts gathered data from more than 60,000 subjects who took part in 13 experiments that tested their implicit biases.
An overwhelming majority -- over 90 percent -- explicitly stated that white people and non-white people are equally human.
But on an implicit measure, white US participants, as well as white participants from other countries, consistently associated the attribute "human" (as opposed to "animal") with their own group more than other racial groups.
Conversely, Black, Asian and Hispanic participants showed no such bias, equally associating their own group and white people with "human."
Is anyone surprised?
"The biggest takeaway for me is that we're still grappling in a new form with sentiments that have been around for centuries," first author Kirsten Morehouse, a PhD student at Harvard University, told AFP.
...
These effects held true across age, religion and education of participants, but did vary by political affiliation and gender. Self-identified conservatives and men expressed slightly stronger implicit "human = white" associations.
Non-white people did not show an implicit bias in favor of their own racial groups compared to white people.
But they did show a bias towards whites as more human when the test was between white people and another minority group, for example Asians asked to take a test that assessed their attitudes towards white people versus Black people.
::)
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/issues/psychological-decolonization/msg8954/#msg8954
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/face-shapes-and-preferences/msg19753/#msg19753
(It should be noted that, from our non-anthropocentric perspective, "animal" is not a negative term:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/
We use the term "subhuman" all the time to describe those whom we consider inferiority to proper humans (ie. Aryans), but subhumans are on no account to be considered more similar to non-humans. When we talk about subhumans, we are remarking on:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/gentilism/
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/turanian-diffusion/
In both these topics, we unambiguously side with the animals whom the subhumans initiate violence towards!
More subhuman behaviour here:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg6612/?topicseen#msg6612 )
-
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/38b5da790901396b23e42e2d04e03c34/73d03690d8d448f6-f2/s1280x1920/f8894869d1afec245413a3605148e17f0e4ed2ca.jpg)
The reason white racism is increasing is because this generation of young white men was raised to be the least racist generation of whites to ever exist in the history of this planet. ...
Therefore the more racist the "whites", the more their modern neo-colonial behavior hardly to be criticized. If criticizing white nationalist ideas and their colonial mentality got considered as "white racism," then we must do "white racism"
-
Basically the same attitude as:
(https://stillbleedingheart.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/israel-nice-guy.jpg)
-
Put the young men into the Army, whence they will return refreshed and cleansed of eight years of scholastic slime ! -Hitler
Putting the young people in the army or some kind of state enforced military training will also cleanse them of the psychological slime of "white" casteism. When your in the middle of battle and you look around at your peers your not gonna care about the colour of their skin but you will care about the metaphysical qualities they exhibit like character, bravery, leadership, will power, and being able to keep ones head in dangerous situations.
It comes as no surprise to me that the civilization that spread the physiological poison of "white" casteism to all man is also the most unsoldierly, degenerate and cowardly civilization.
-
"Putting the young people in the army or some kind of state enforced military training will also cleanse them of the psychological slime of "white" casteism."
It will not:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/news/military-subverters/
Miltary support for rightist candidates is higher than that of the general population:
(https://pro-assets.morningconsult.com/wp-uploads/2020/09/09164650/200909_2020-MIlitary-Polling_FULLWIDTH-2048x819.png)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292119302259
We use a survey conducted in 2017 in France where we introduced a question on military service to identify former conscripts and observe that those individuals report more positive attitudes toward the traditional right-wing party, Les Républicains, and toward the Front National, the main national-populist party.
"It comes as no surprise to me that the civilization that spread the physiological poison of "white" casteism to all man is also the most unsoldierly, degenerate and cowardly civilization."
Yet also the one with the most combat-effective militaries, which is how they colonized all over the world.....
-
I don't have much knowledge in the subject of war and militaries, but I'm sure that there is a big difference between a national socialist or even a non-western military philosophy and training as opposed to a western one. When i said that the people should be put in military training to cleanse them of psychological pollution, i had a national socialist/non-western type of military training in mind, definitely not a western one. I don't consider western army personnel as true soldiers, I see them as brutes and bigots who happen to wield powerful weapons, the fact that western military personnel are more rightist then the general population proves this point.
-
https://us.yahoo.com/news/cnn-poll-percentage-republicans-think-100003388.html
CNN Poll: Percentage of Republicans who think Biden’s 2020 win was illegitimate ticks back up near 70%
...
The new poll, conducted in the run-up to former President Donald Trump’s indictment on Tuesday over efforts to overturn the 2020 election, suggests the share of election deniers among his partisans has climbed to a level last seen before hearings held last year by the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack. In January of 2022, 67% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said they thought Biden’s win was not legitimate; that had been as high as 72% in CNN polling in the summer of 2021.
-
At least Cousins is increasingly willing to consider the possibility that MAGAs cannot be deprogrammed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug06rNJq9TI
However, he is still unwilling to say they must be physically exterminated.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQl7b4Dcsvc
the NYPD’s Early Intervention Program — aimed at curbing bad police practices without disciplining officers
The best early intervention program is to prevent the inferior from being born in the first place.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/proud-boy-claims-trump-won-202345920.html
Proud Boy claims ‘Trump won’ after sobbing for mercy and receiving 10-year sentence: reports
...
Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola sobbed in a Washington, D.C., courtroom Friday as he asked a federal judge for leniency in his Jan. 6 sentence and vowed to stay out of politics in the future.
However, after receiving a 10-year prison sentence, Pezzola reportedly raised his fist and shouted, “Trump
won,” as he left the courtroom, according to WUSA.
...
At Friday’s sentencing hearing, Pezzola apologized for his actions and told U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly that Jan. 6 was “the worst, most regrettable decision in my life,” according to NBC News.
“Your honor, I stand before you as a changed and humbled man,” he also said, according to WUSA. “But, nonetheless as a man who has always taken responsibility for his actions … I have never denied what I did on J6.”
However, after the judge left the courtroom, Pezzola shouted out his support for Trump.
Another Jan. 6 rioter, who used a Taser on former D.C. police officer Michael Fanone in the neck as he was dragged through the crowd, similarly shouted the phrase “Trump won” following his sentencing in June, NBC News reported.
Serving their prison sentences will not change their minds either. They will come out of prison even more rightist than when they went in. Physically extermination is the only solution.
-
Does anyone honestly still believe racists can be educated to not be racist?
https://incels.is/threads/****-is-the-funniest-word-in-the-world.523938/
Even if I was dying of cancer, if someone said '****' I would still smile.
It's the ultimate insult.
Kill ****. Behead ****. Roundhouse kick a **** into the concrete. Slam dunk a **** baby into the trashcan. Blast **** with Civil War cannons. Crucify filthy ****. Whip **** into obedience. Slingshot a **** into orbit. Rocket **** into the sun. Defecate in a **** food. Stir-fry **** in a wok. Bite a **** and drink their blood. Toss **** into active volcanoes. Urinate into a ****'s gas tank. Judo throw **** into the wood chipper. Unscrew a ****'s head off. Report **** to the IRS. Karate chop **** in half. Bake **** into ****-pizza. Arrest **** for no reason. Electrocute ****. Curb stomp pregnant ****. Beat a **** up. Trap **** in quicksand. Crush **** in the trash compactor. Liquefy **** in a vat of acid. Eat ****. Dissect ****. Exterminate **** in the gas chamber. Slice a **** up and wear their skin. Set **** on fire. Spin **** around until they puke. Tie **** to a train track. Karate kick a **** in the testicles. Stomp **** skulls with steel-toed boots. Broil **** into a broth. Cremate **** in the oven. Lobotomize ****. Deep fry ****. Grind **** fetuses in the garbage disposal. Fourth-trimester abortions for ****. Blend **** in a blender. Drown **** in fried chicken grease. Vaporize **** with a ray gun. Snap a ****'s neck. Kick old **** down the stairs. Feed **** to alligators. Slice **** with a katana. Put a bomb in a ****'s mouth. Throw knives at ****. Inflate **** until they pop. Send **** into a blackhole. Castrate ****. Feed **** poisoned food. Force **** to walk the plank. Push **** into a pit. Kneel on a ****'s neck. Curse **** with a spell. Stuff **** babies into the washing machine and turn it on. Flatten **** with a tank. Pop a ****'s car tire. Strike **** children with a ruler. Make **** swim in the Mariana Trench. Cut off a ****'s limbs. Airdrop **** into Antarctica. Throw **** off the boat. Pressurize **** into fine crystals. Light fireworks in a ****'s ass. Falcon-punch a **** in the face. Make **** into fiction. Blow **** heads off with grenade launchers. Blow **** brains open with a sniper rifle. Lock **** in a cage and drown them underwater. Nail **** to a cross and stab them. Run over **** with a tank feet-first. Throw **** off buildings. Crush **** with a press. Attack **** with acid. Boil **** in a pan. Lock **** inside a brazen bull. Burn **** alive. Drag **** across a wall of spikes. Pour molten lava on ****. Quarter ****. Impale **** on a pike. Send aliens to abduct ****. Force **** to ride the euthanasia coaster. Crush **** with anvils. Throw **** off of rooftops. Incinerate ****. Starve ****. Blow **** up with dynamite. Gulp ****. Feast on **** eyeballs. Cave in a ****'s skull. Kiss a **** to death. Peel a **** like a banana. Wipe out **** tribes. Deny **** into Heaven. Freeze **** in the vaccum of space. Hard boil a ****. Lock on to **** with a harpoon. Cryodesiccate a ****. Ferment **** into stew. Ensnare ****. Nark on **** to the army. Cause a total **** purge. Jam a **** into a geyser. Axe murder a ****. Unleash Smelvin upon ****. Put **** on ships going to Africa and blow up the ships after they set sail. Total **** death.
-
Lambre gets it at 3:00:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY90Ib8jsOk
So what should be done with those such as Barnes (who also looks like what we would expect) if our aim is to improve society? And if Lambre etc. are unwilling to even say what should be done, why should anyone believe that they (or any False Leftists) actually want to improve society?
-
Glad to see some people understanding the obvious:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/donald-trump-found-loophole-gag-142141233.html
Legal experts are already warning that Judge Engoron’s gag order was too limited, and it will only be a matter of time before Donald Trump violates the rules set by the court. “If we’re gonna ask, is Trump gonna violate a gag order? Almost certainly, yes,” former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told MSNBC. “It’s more likely that he’ll violate the gag order than almost anything… I mean, we’re talking a significant probability he’s going to violate the gag order, and then the question is: Will the judge at that point take the really heavy medicine of putting a former president in jail, or will there be some sort of warning and monetary fine first?”
Donald Trump’s bank account will likely see the first hit, but it’s no secret that he hates to be silenced and a more comprehensive gag order probably won’t stop him from talking — even if it’s in his best interest.
The correct response is to remove his larynx.
Woke comments:
I am 81 and have met people like him who are never deterred by warnings. The judge needs to jail him for contempt.
If they would put him in jail already he would be gagged once and for all. WTH is this country waiting for. LOCK HIM UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or you can physically gag him. That ought to keep his BIG mouth shut!!
is Trump gonna violate a gag order? Almost certainly, yes,”....................................and will the legal system do anything to shut him up - - - - - - - - ABSOLUTELY 100% NOT, NO NO NO NO NO NO.......................WHY YOU ASK????........america has been a yellow coward for the last 2 or 3 decades !!!
-
Not only can MAGAs not be taught to stop being MAGAs, Clinton similarly cannot be taught that MAGAs cannot be taught to stop being MAGAs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2kpFYhMfN4
TMR don't get it either; they are not saying that Clinton is wrong, but merely saying that she should not have said it out loud. I am saying that Clinton is wrong: no deprogramming is possible; physical extermination is the only way.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/diversity-training-increases-prejudice-and-activates-bigotry-among-participants-new-study-says-5585755
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training is divisive and counter-productive and can even serve to increase prejudice among participants, a new study by a Canadian professor says.
...
In 2018, Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin and colleague Alexandra Kalev published “Why Doesn’t Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia” in the journal Anthropology Now.
“Hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s suggest that anti-bias training doesn’t reduce bias, alter behaviour or change the workplace,” the authors wrote. “Field and laboratory studies find that asking people to suppress stereotypes tends to reinforce them–making them more cognitively accessible to people.”
As far back as 1994, Neil Macrae at UK-based University of Aberdeen and fellow researchers wrote in a paper for
a social psychology journal that the strategy of repressing stereotypic thoughts can have a “rebound effect.”
“When people attempt to suppress unwanted thoughts, these thoughts are likely to subsequently reappear with even greater insistence than if they had never been suppressed,” they wrote.
-
https://twitter.com/Rajan78160775/status/1351768395906093056?t=mo7SaOmT3zB6HVr6nLtAVw&s=19
I know many non-vegetations marrying Vegetarian girls. In all the cases I found vegetarian girls getting used to preparing non-vegetarian food. I am not aware of any case where such nonveg husband becoming vegetarian.
-
We are currently in the 13th annual National Bullying Prevention Month campaign, initiated in 2006 by PACER. The purpose of the yearly month-long campaign is, of course, to prevent bullying. While these annual campaigns have certainly enhanced awareness of bullying and the need to prevent it, as well as fueled the growth of the multi-billion dollar anti-bullying industry, it has made little progress in creating a world that is safe from bullying. Bullying is still called a growing epidemic by bullying prevention organizations, bullying-driven school shootings still occur with tragic frequency, and the youth suicide rate, which is somewhat correlated to bullying, has surged.
Furthermore, studies have shown repeatedly that the most highly regarded bullying prevention programs rarely produce more than a minor reduction in bullying and often result in an increase. The same is true of state anti-bullying laws. The researchers, especially those who conduct studies on their own programs, are stymied by the disappointing results, and proffer explanations. Perhaps their most common one is that the programs were not implemented with sufficient consistency or intensity. Rarely, if ever, do the researchers consider the possibility that the programs, by their very nature, are bound to be of limited effectiveness.
...
Bullies frequently carry out their aggression before an audience of peers, and the presence of an audience can boost a bully’s sense of power. But bystanders seldom stop the aggression; they may in fact enjoy the spectacle. Even if they don’t approve of the situation, they may dislike the victim or fear retaliation by the bully.
...
As at Camp Kern, most of the time bystanders either do nothing to stop bullying or actively encourage it with laughing, taunts, and congratulatory “high fives” to the victimizers. Studies of schoolchildren show that although few admit to enjoying the spectacle of bullying, many say that “it is not my job to stop it,” or fear direct retribution if they intervene, or later peer scorn as a “snitch” if they report bullying to adults.
And with good reason: Once, when I did muster the courage to report abuse by high school classmates during gym period, the gym teacher, who was one of the football coaches, snorted, “I hate whiners,” and made me lean against the wall as punishment, nose first, in front of the girls’ gym class.
Kids quickly learn that adults — like their fellow bystanders — often blame the victim, so they prudently do nothing to stop bullying while it’s occurring and keep quiet about it afterward.
Source :
1. Kalman, Izzy. (2018). If Your Anti-Bullying Program Isn't Working, Here's Why
Here's a contribution to National Bullying Prevention Month. Accessed on Wednesday, 20th March 2024, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/resilience-bullying/201810/if-your-anti-bullying-program-isnt-working-heres-why
2. Bullying. (2024). Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/bullying#:~:text=Bullying%20is%20a%20distinctive%20pattern,bullying%20from%20garden%2Dvariety%20aggression
3. Haseltine, Eric. (2017). How We Can End Bullying Shifting the spotlight from the stage to the audience. Accessed on Wednesday, 20th March 2024, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/long-fuse-big-bang/201710/how-we-can-end-bullying
The conclusion is, that to stop bullies must defeat the bullies, even though the majority of bystanders support the bullies both actively and passively. Ending violence needs anti-democratic attitude
-
"Bullying is democratic by nature"
This is inaccurate. Bullies do not ask for a vote on whether someone should be bullied. Please do not use the term "democratic" to describe unrelated phenomena. It just makes us sound stupid.