Topic: The "blank slate" idea is a load bearing delusion.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #134,772
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later[^] [v] #1,433,940
I suppose the racist rationalization load is represented on the lower half of the branch?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,943
@previous (B)
The idea that humans have a diverse range of abilities like any other species is the inverse of the central node here, not something branching off of it.
The idea that humans have a diverse range of abilities like any other species is the inverse of the central node here, not something branching off of it.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,944
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,947
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,948
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,950
@previous (A)
But history outpaces evolutionary change, doesn't it? Evolution very slow but human history, recently? Very fast. So there's something more than genetic evolution going on, don't you think?
But history outpaces evolutionary change, doesn't it? Evolution very slow but human history, recently? Very fast. So there's something more than genetic evolution going on, don't you think?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,952
@previous (B)
Adding cultural differences into the equation doesn't turn off the genetic differences, it just adds new differences beyond genetic.
Adding cultural differences into the equation doesn't turn off the genetic differences, it just adds new differences beyond genetic.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,954
@previous (A)
But if you look at history, the observed difference is everything. You remove historical progress and the biological difference is not that of a banger, like at all.
But if you look at history, the observed difference is everything. You remove historical progress and the biological difference is not that of a banger, like at all.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,955
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,956
@previous (A)
I'm not assigning some random numbers to random things and then calling it math. I'm just looking. Even just 100 years back in time, the upper class folk had it worse than you and me right now, they didn't even have MC.
I'm not assigning some random numbers to random things and then calling it math. I'm just looking. Even just 100 years back in time, the upper class folk had it worse than you and me right now, they didn't even have MC.
boof joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,958
@1,433,944 (A)
you are being obtuse. it was clearly explained to you quite some time ago why your dog breed reference is not wise, and here you are again.
you are being obtuse. it was clearly explained to you quite some time ago why your dog breed reference is not wise, and here you are again.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,960
@1,433,956 (B)
Ok? There's more wealth today. How does that relate to genetics?
@previous (boof)
No, it wasn't. You can link the post if you think it exists.
Humans are not magically exempt from the diversity that all other species have.
Ok? There's more wealth today. How does that relate to genetics?
@previous (boof)
No, it wasn't. You can link the post if you think it exists.
Humans are not magically exempt from the diversity that all other species have.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,966
@previous (A)
Well you were pointing to different dog breeds, as some analogy for different people but that's very genetic in it's implication. Therefore, I was pointing to what seems to be the bigger influencer in the difference of people, which is history, even just personal history.
Well you were pointing to different dog breeds, as some analogy for different people but that's very genetic in it's implication. Therefore, I was pointing to what seems to be the bigger influencer in the difference of people, which is history, even just personal history.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 45 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,974
In Africa, the “liberators” and their proxies:
1) Jumped on the existing export focus.
2) Corealed development aid to bribe patronage networks.
3) Hit the problem of petro / resource states - greedily selling what’s available rather than using the money to diversify their economies or develop their people.
4) Asian Tigers had no meaningful resources beyond human capital and were forced to develop that instead.
1) Jumped on the existing export focus.
2) Corealed development aid to bribe patronage networks.
3) Hit the problem of petro / resource states - greedily selling what’s available rather than using the money to diversify their economies or develop their people.
4) Asian Tigers had no meaningful resources beyond human capital and were forced to develop that instead.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,976
@1,433,966 (B)
I'm not disputing that history matters, but the genetic differences are still there.
Genetics isn't everything of course.
I'm not disputing that history matters, but the genetic differences are still there.
Genetics isn't everything of course.
boof replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,980
@1,433,960 (A)
> Ok? There's more wealth today. How does that relate to genetics?
>
>
> No, it wasn't. You can link the post if you think it exists.
>
> Humans are not magically exempt from the diversity that all other species have.
fuckin liar, do I have to search it for you you faggot
> Ok? There's more wealth today. How does that relate to genetics?
>
>
> No, it wasn't. You can link the post if you think it exists.
>
> Humans are not magically exempt from the diversity that all other species have.
fuckin liar, do I have to search it for you you faggot
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 53 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,987
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 45 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,995
I don’t think everyone is equally intelligent. I think there’s a pretty strong correlation between being a racist and being fucking retarded.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 10 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,433,996
The thing I hate the most about you is you’re obsess with the idea you’re better than other people, but it’s so obvious to me how stupid you are. None of this is smart, you assume the conclusion. If people are different, that doesn’t mean some people are better than others. You just hate black people because you’re insecure. If you were smart you wouldn’t be making all these retarded arguments all the time. To tell you the truth if I could wipe everyone like you off the face of the earth, I wouldn’t hesitate to do it and I wouldn’t feel sorry for it.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,008
@1,433,995 (Mr. Black Boi)
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
Note that he doesn't actually address or refute any of the actual points made, as usual it's multiple consecutive posts just hurling insults.
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
Note that he doesn't actually address or refute any of the actual points made, as usual it's multiple consecutive posts just hurling insults.
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,010
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,011
Nah, actually I take that back. I’d want it to be more like Dresden.
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,012
You know, back in the day when we used to firebomb Nazis.
Mr. Black Boi quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,015
I just don’t see why we should feel bad about it. If you don’t see me as human, if your life ends, what does it mean to me? Absolutely nothing. That’s fine, it’s justified.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 19 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,017
@1,434,010 (Mr. Black Boi)
@1,434,011 (Mr. Black Boi)
@1,434,012 (Mr. Black Boi)
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
And once again, the same behavior.
@1,434,011 (Mr. Black Boi)
@1,434,012 (Mr. Black Boi)
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
And once again, the same behavior.
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,039
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 32 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,045
Anonymous B replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,073
@1,434,039 (Mr. Black Boi)
You gotta remember that historical progress didn't reach op, just the internet.
You gotta remember that historical progress didn't reach op, just the internet.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,082
@1,434,039 (Mr. Black Boi)
Pointing out that you can't refute the comparison to dogs and must always distract isn't the same thing as "trying to control what you say".
Obviously you can say whatever you want, but it will never be a refutation, because you are unable to refute it.
Pointing out that you can't refute the comparison to dogs and must always distract isn't the same thing as "trying to control what you say".
Obviously you can say whatever you want, but it will never be a refutation, because you are unable to refute it.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,089
@previous (A)
> Pointing out that you can't refute the comparison to dogs and must always distract isn't the same thing as "trying to control what you say".
>
> Obviously you can say whatever you want, but it will never be a refutation, because you are unable to refute it.
He doesn’t argue through logic. He uses logical fallacies, deflection, and rhetoric.
> Pointing out that you can't refute the comparison to dogs and must always distract isn't the same thing as "trying to control what you say".
>
> Obviously you can say whatever you want, but it will never be a refutation, because you are unable to refute it.
He doesn’t argue through logic. He uses logical fallacies, deflection, and rhetoric.
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,094
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,124
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,125
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,296
Lady Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,341
It seems like it's well known that "blank slate" is inaccurate, but it appears you conflate the "blank slate" idea with external influences on human development, at least that's what the two other text blurbs in the graphic kinda imply you mean.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,347
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,358
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 57 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,359
@1,434,341 (Lady Dead !Pool..v42s)
Why did it stay poor after colonization ended?
If you believe in the blank slate you have to come up with an explanation other than genetics.
When people need a different explanation, they invent one, or see one that's not there. There will always be some mysterious white supremacist force acting somewhere. It's a force that can't be pinned down, and it's strong enough to stop development across all these black societies across a continent and around the world.
If one accepts that genetics have a big impact on behavior, you don't need to go looking for some other explanation and you never go down the path shown in the image.
Why did it stay poor after colonization ended?
If you believe in the blank slate you have to come up with an explanation other than genetics.
When people need a different explanation, they invent one, or see one that's not there. There will always be some mysterious white supremacist force acting somewhere. It's a force that can't be pinned down, and it's strong enough to stop development across all these black societies across a continent and around the world.
If one accepts that genetics have a big impact on behavior, you don't need to go looking for some other explanation and you never go down the path shown in the image.
Anonymous O replied with this 3 weeks ago, 52 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,360
@1,433,960 (A)
> Humans are not magically exempt from the diversity that all other species have.
All species don’t have the same amount of genetic variance retard.
> Humans are not magically exempt from the diversity that all other species have.
All species don’t have the same amount of genetic variance retard.
Anonymous O double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,361
@1,434,359 (A)
The only way your argument makes sense is if you assume the premise that wealthy people are smart. Which is retarded.
The only way your argument makes sense is if you assume the premise that wealthy people are smart. Which is retarded.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,363
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,365
@1,434,361 (O)
I'm talking about groups, not individuals.
There's a reason some countries win again and again, while other countries lose again and again.
Sometimes it will be luck or geography, but when there's a long enough pattern you can see that it's something more.
I'm talking about groups, not individuals.
There's a reason some countries win again and again, while other countries lose again and again.
Sometimes it will be luck or geography, but when there's a long enough pattern you can see that it's something more.
Anonymous O replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,366
It also just doesn’t make sense because South Africa is wealthier than Ukraine and Ukraine is white and South Africa is black. African countries aren’t "still" poor, they’re a lot better than they were when they became independent. They’re not as wealthy as the west, but neither are Asian countries. The west exploited the rest of the world for hundreds of years, that isn’t just going to instantly change. African countries only started becoming independent in the 60s and 70s. This is a retarded argument.
Anonymous O double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 59 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,367
@1,434,365 (A)
> Sometimes it will be luck or geography, but when there's a long enough pattern you can see that it's something more.
That doesn’t make any sense, geography never changes. If something stays constant forever, that isn’t evidence that it’s not because of geography. Why do you always say retarded shit like this?
> Sometimes it will be luck or geography, but when there's a long enough pattern you can see that it's something more.
That doesn’t make any sense, geography never changes. If something stays constant forever, that isn’t evidence that it’s not because of geography. Why do you always say retarded shit like this?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,369
@1,434,366 (O)
Finding an exception to the rule doesn't disprove it generally, and South Africa grew under white rule and has declined since gaining black rule.
There are places in Asia that rebounded from colonial rule and developed fast in less time than Africa has had.
Finding an exception to the rule doesn't disprove it generally, and South Africa grew under white rule and has declined since gaining black rule.
There are places in Asia that rebounded from colonial rule and developed fast in less time than Africa has had.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,370
@1,434,367 (O)
There are countries with no natural resources that have become wealthy, and there are countries with good geography that are failed states.
There are diasporas that flourish in different geographies and diasporas that are prone to poverty and criminality in every place they go.
There are many ways of controlling for geography besides the methods I just gave.
There are countries with no natural resources that have become wealthy, and there are countries with good geography that are failed states.
There are diasporas that flourish in different geographies and diasporas that are prone to poverty and criminality in every place they go.
There are many ways of controlling for geography besides the methods I just gave.
(Edited 19 seconds later.)
Anonymous O replied with this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,371
@1,434,369 (A)
If finding a counter example to your argument doesn’t disprove your argument then your argument isn’t falsifiable. Also there are two reasons why (some) asian countries developed first (not all of them it’s important to remember not all Asian countries are developed):
1. Their birth rates fell faster. (Long term this is a disadvantage for Asia and an advantage for Africa, short term it was an advantage for Asia and a disadvantage for Africa.)
2. The most successful Asian countries are the Asian countries that were the least colonized.
If finding a counter example to your argument doesn’t disprove your argument then your argument isn’t falsifiable. Also there are two reasons why (some) asian countries developed first (not all of them it’s important to remember not all Asian countries are developed):
1. Their birth rates fell faster. (Long term this is a disadvantage for Asia and an advantage for Africa, short term it was an advantage for Asia and a disadvantage for Africa.)
2. The most successful Asian countries are the Asian countries that were the least colonized.
Anonymous O double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,372
@1,434,370 (A)
That’s not because people who live in resource poor countries are smarter than people who live in resource rich countries. It’s because you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand economics. When you’re resource rich there’s no reason to have an empire because you have everything you need already, and there’s no reason to industrialize, because you can sell your resources.
That’s not because people who live in resource poor countries are smarter than people who live in resource rich countries. It’s because you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand economics. When you’re resource rich there’s no reason to have an empire because you have everything you need already, and there’s no reason to industrialize, because you can sell your resources.
Anonymous O triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,373
I just don’t understand what’s wrong with you. Everything you say is so stupid and so easy to disprove, but you believe it for literally no reason, the belief comes first the logic comes later. I’m fucking tired of you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,374
@1,434,372 (O)
I'm not talking with you when you can't control your emotions and you just repeat some oversimplified cliche that was created to justify blank slate theory.
All species have variance. There are many resource rich countries that did start empires, this shouldn't be something I need to teach you about.
Spamming insults and obviously false claims just to see what sticks isn't a productive way to have a conversation. This is why blacks shouldn't be in the academies.
I'm not talking with you when you can't control your emotions and you just repeat some oversimplified cliche that was created to justify blank slate theory.
All species have variance. There are many resource rich countries that did start empires, this shouldn't be something I need to teach you about.
Spamming insults and obviously false claims just to see what sticks isn't a productive way to have a conversation. This is why blacks shouldn't be in the academies.
Anonymous O replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,375
@previous (A)
Well I should be able to call you stupid if you’re being stupid. I’m not insulting you because I don’t like you, I’m calling you stupid because I think you’re stupid. I don’t call everyone stupid. If you’ve ever noticed, I’m not a fan of Meta, but I don’t call him stupid all the time, I dislike him for other reasons.
Well I should be able to call you stupid if you’re being stupid. I’m not insulting you because I don’t like you, I’m calling you stupid because I think you’re stupid. I don’t call everyone stupid. If you’ve ever noticed, I’m not a fan of Meta, but I don’t call him stupid all the time, I dislike him for other reasons.
Anonymous O double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,376
@1,434,374 (A)
> All species have variance. There are many resource rich countries that did start empires, this shouldn't be something I need to teach you about.
Go ahead. Name them.
> All species have variance. There are many resource rich countries that did start empires, this shouldn't be something I need to teach you about.
Go ahead. Name them.
Anonymous O triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,377
Meta isn’t an idiot, he has a functional brain, he’s not stupid, he’s just emotionally immature, impulsive, and easily offended. You’re less impulsive, more narcissistic, and very unintelligent. I think it’s because you’re so full of yourself that you don’t bother to think critically about anything because you think you’re so fantastic you don’t need to examine your own beliefs critically or consider others arguments.
Anonymous O quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,378
Although, you do have occasional short outbursts of impulsivity, but you lack the self awareness to know when you do it.
Anonymous O quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,380
But the thing about your stupidity is I tell you you’re stupid because I don’t think you have a cognitive impairment, I think you have a personality disorder. If I thought you had a learning disability I wouldn’t call you stupid all the time because you can’t fix that. I call you stupid all the time because I think you’re being an idiot by choice.
Anonymous O sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,382
And the thing about South Africa and Ukraine, is that as Africa develops, and Europe suffers a demographic collapse, the richest African countries will start to become richer than the poorest European countries, and people like you will keep saying "That’s just cope, the richest European countries are way richer than most African countries, African countries are totally inferior" that will continue for about a hundred years, but it won’t continue forever.
Anonymous O septuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,386
Now if you get out of the racist bullshit, and you look into demographic trends, Africa has always been smaller than Europe for all of history up until the 1990s, when its population surpassed Europe for the first time. Now there are twice as many Africans as Europeans, but Europeans are much older on average than Africans, so a lot of Africans have not entered the workforce yet. Even without population growth, Africa’s workforce can be expected to increase by hundreds of millions of people within our lifetime, except their population is also increasing which will hold them back from developing early the way China did with their one child policy. But when African countries do develop, about 40% of people will be African, China will be experiencing a massive demographic collapse, the west will only be able to survive if they rely on immigration, and because Africa is not unified as a single nation, no one can enforce a one child policy on all Africans, so their birth rate will fall more slowly than Asia did in this century, meaning they will be able to stay dominant for far longer than China will be able to.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,390
@1,434,375 (O)
@1,434,376 (O)
@1,434,377 (O)
@1,434,378 (O)
@1,434,380 (O)
@previous (O)
ai spam.
If you can't refute anything just try to overwhelm them with 6 consecutive walls of spamtext and insults.
@1,434,376 (O)
@1,434,377 (O)
@1,434,378 (O)
@1,434,380 (O)
@previous (O)
ai spam.
If you can't refute anything just try to overwhelm them with 6 consecutive walls of spamtext and insults.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,391
Anonymous O replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,392
Look at it this way:
There are 1.5 billion Africans they have 4 children per woman
There are 1.4 billion Chinese they have 1 child per woman
There are 750 million Europeans they have 1.3 children per woman
There are 340 million Americans they have 1.6 children per woman
Replacement birth rate is 2.1 children per woman. Every country with a birth rate under 2.1 children per woman will decline without immigration. The far right in America and Europe is against immigration, this is essentially national suicide. The only part of the world with a birth rate above replacement is Africa and in fact, Africa’s birth rate is so much higher, they’re going to be the only reason humanity’s population will keep growing instead of shrinking. There is literally no policy any country in the entire world that can come up with that will change this mathematical reality, that eventually, Africa is going to be in the best demographic position. While everywhere else in the world is aging and experiencing an economic crisis from a large population of retirees supported by a smaller number of working aged adults, Africa will have a massive young workforce. It doesn’t matter what stupid white supremacist arguments you make, this reality is inevitable.
There are 1.5 billion Africans they have 4 children per woman
There are 1.4 billion Chinese they have 1 child per woman
There are 750 million Europeans they have 1.3 children per woman
There are 340 million Americans they have 1.6 children per woman
Replacement birth rate is 2.1 children per woman. Every country with a birth rate under 2.1 children per woman will decline without immigration. The far right in America and Europe is against immigration, this is essentially national suicide. The only part of the world with a birth rate above replacement is Africa and in fact, Africa’s birth rate is so much higher, they’re going to be the only reason humanity’s population will keep growing instead of shrinking. There is literally no policy any country in the entire world that can come up with that will change this mathematical reality, that eventually, Africa is going to be in the best demographic position. While everywhere else in the world is aging and experiencing an economic crisis from a large population of retirees supported by a smaller number of working aged adults, Africa will have a massive young workforce. It doesn’t matter what stupid white supremacist arguments you make, this reality is inevitable.
Anonymous O double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,393
If Africa keeps growing, Europe, America, and China keep shrinking, that has consequences that can’t be ignored.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,395
@1,434,392 (O)
The west can modify african populations levels whenever they want because the west actually has nukes
The west can modify african populations levels whenever they want because the west actually has nukes
Anonymous O replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,398
@previous (A)
There’s a reason why Donald Trump can bomb Iran but he won’t bomb South Africa. There’s all this talk about Iran trying to enrich uranium, African countries already possess highly enriched uranium they can use to build a nuclear bomb, so the west will not attack South Africa. You can feel free to not believe me, but there’s a reason why South Africa will never be attacked despite the rhetoric the right uses about white genocide.
There’s a reason why Donald Trump can bomb Iran but he won’t bomb South Africa. There’s all this talk about Iran trying to enrich uranium, African countries already possess highly enriched uranium they can use to build a nuclear bomb, so the west will not attack South Africa. You can feel free to not believe me, but there’s a reason why South Africa will never be attacked despite the rhetoric the right uses about white genocide.
Anonymous O double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,399
Now the reason why South Africa doesn’t have nuclear weapons is because when apartheid ended, they were smart enough to recognize that it would make sense to not antagonize the west. If they had nuclear weapons they would have to answer who are the nuclear weapons supposed to be used against. This could have resulted in sanctions that would have halted their economic development. However, they never got rid of their uranium.
Anonymous O triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,400
Even if you look at what happened in Nigeria, those strikes were mostly symbolic. There isn’t evidence they actually hit anything, there are reports that show pictures of a big hole in the sand in the middle of nowhere. The US doesn’t have the willingness to go to war in Africa, partly because the US presence in Africa is surprisingly small. The US only has one permanent base on the continent, the rest of the "bases" if you google the specifics of how many troops are there and what their responsibility is, it’s rather mundane.
Anonymous O quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,401
In fact, US bases in the UK, Germany, and Japan will often have more US troops in one base than there are in the entire African continent.
(Edited 11 seconds later.)
Anonymous O quintuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,402
Although, the US doesn’t have a problem with the fact that South Africa has highly enriched uranium, in fact, some US companies have been interested in restoring South Africa’s uranium enrichment capabilities.
Anonymous O sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,403
One of them was actually founded by Bill Gates (not important but is interesting)
https://www.terrapower.com/terraPower-announces-strategic-agreement
https://www.terrapower.com/terraPower-announces-strategic-agreement
Meta joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,411
@1,434,377 (O)
> Meta isn’t an idiot, he has a functional brain, he’s not stupid
Thank god someone here finally sees my genius!
> Meta isn’t an idiot, he has a functional brain, he’s not stupid
Thank god someone here finally sees my genius!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,430
@1,434,377 (O)
Do you understand the difference between refuting an idea and just reasserting your conclusion over and over?
If I'm wrong you can plainly explain the error, but you just paychoanalyze each time instead.
Do you understand the difference between refuting an idea and just reasserting your conclusion over and over?
If I'm wrong you can plainly explain the error, but you just paychoanalyze each time instead.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 56 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,439
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,440
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,482
@1,434,376 (O)
> > All species have variance. There are many resource rich countries that did start empires, this shouldn't be something I need to teach you about.
>
> Go ahead. Name them.
He can’t name them.
> > All species have variance. There are many resource rich countries that did start empires, this shouldn't be something I need to teach you about.
>
> Go ahead. Name them.
He can’t name them.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 30 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,483
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 35 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,486
Anonymous O replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,487
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,488
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,494
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,496
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,497
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
Ok, I'll bite, what is the US missing to be an empire?
Usualy even the lefties will readily say the US is an empire, so I'd love to hear what your view is.
Ok, I'll bite, what is the US missing to be an empire?
Usualy even the lefties will readily say the US is an empire, so I'd love to hear what your view is.
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,499
@previous (A)
The United States isn’t an empire because it doesn’t annex countries that lose wars to the United States.
The United States isn’t an empire because it doesn’t annex countries that lose wars to the United States.
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 30 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,500
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,501
@previous (R)
Japan and Germany aren’t part of the United States, and our economy isn’t based on extracting resources from Germany and Japan.
Japan and Germany aren’t part of the United States, and our economy isn’t based on extracting resources from Germany and Japan.
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 29 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,502
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,503
The United States also does not determine the outcome of elections in Germany, Italy, or Japan. The United States grants political independence to countries that lost wars to the United States. Empires don’t do that.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,504
@1,434,499 (Mr. Black Boi)
That's not a requirement to be considered an empire by any standard definition.
You can find criteria for what makes an empire at any major university, or open a dictionary.
Some empires have annexed territory, nut it's not a necessary feature, especially in modern empires.
The idea that empires work like a game of risk is cute, but not how any serious political science department uses the term.
That's not a requirement to be considered an empire by any standard definition.
You can find criteria for what makes an empire at any major university, or open a dictionary.
Some empires have annexed territory, nut it's not a necessary feature, especially in modern empires.
The idea that empires work like a game of risk is cute, but not how any serious political science department uses the term.
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,505
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 31 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,506
@1,434,503 (Mr. Black Boi)
The US had a big influence in designing the German, Italian, and Japanese governments. It basically wrote their constitutions and even set up stay-behind militias to ensure they would remain loyal to the US hegemony.
Operation Gladio is one of the more well-known projects.
The US had a big influence in designing the German, Italian, and Japanese governments. It basically wrote their constitutions and even set up stay-behind militias to ensure they would remain loyal to the US hegemony.
Operation Gladio is one of the more well-known projects.
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,507
@1,434,503 (Mr. Black Boi)
Oh wait, your serious.Well shit nigger, I guess ill laught even harder! LOL!
Oh wait, your serious.Well shit nigger, I guess ill laught even harder! LOL!
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 48 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,508
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,509
@1,434,505 (Mr. Black Boi)
It's both. If you don't care about how political science departments define the term, where are you getting your definition?
I've shown you how I got mine, so show me what source says an empire needs to annex territory to be considered an empire.
It's both. If you don't care about how political science departments define the term, where are you getting your definition?
I've shown you how I got mine, so show me what source says an empire needs to annex territory to be considered an empire.
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 56 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,510
@previous (A)
If a country doesn’t need to annex territory to be an empire, then you can use it as a synonym for country, in which case Nigeria is an empire.
If a country doesn’t need to annex territory to be an empire, then you can use it as a synonym for country, in which case Nigeria is an empire.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,511
@1,434,508 (Mr. Black Boi)
Nominal democracies that had security arrangments with the US, trade agreements that opened their markets to US capital, and agreed to hold large reserves.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Nominal democracies that had security arrangments with the US, trade agreements that opened their markets to US capital, and agreed to hold large reserves.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,512
@previous (A)
Free trade isn’t the same thing as dominance. Japan and Germany both have their own industries.
Free trade isn’t the same thing as dominance. Japan and Germany both have their own industries.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 22 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,513
@1,434,510 (Mr. Black Boi)
No, you can't, because there are actual requirements that Nigeria doesn't meet.
Is this just going to be a remedial educational session for you?
Look up the definition of empire before you come in so cocky.
No, you can't, because there are actual requirements that Nigeria doesn't meet.
Is this just going to be a remedial educational session for you?
Look up the definition of empire before you come in so cocky.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 33 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,516
@1,434,512 (Mr. Black Boi)
Free trade isn't the only thing mentioned, but opening markets to capital is a big part of how the US has expanded its empire.
Free trade isn't the only thing mentioned, but opening markets to capital is a big part of how the US has expanded its empire.
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 32 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,517
@1,434,513 (A)
You haven’t listed a single requirement. You just think if a country is wealthy that means it’s an empire which is dumb.
You haven’t listed a single requirement. You just think if a country is wealthy that means it’s an empire which is dumb.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 43 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,518
@1,434,516 (A)
"Opening markers to capital" isn’t imperial. What was the United States going to do after World War Two? Not trade with its allies? That would be absurd.
"Opening markers to capital" isn’t imperial. What was the United States going to do after World War Two? Not trade with its allies? That would be absurd.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,519
@1,434,517 (Mr. Black Boi)
> You haven’t listed a single requirement.
I use the standard definition. Your definition is based on a tabletop board game.
> You just think if a country is wealthy that means it’s an empire which is dumb.
That's a strawman, because I didn't say that.
First you use a childish definition, and then you try to deflect by strawmanning which is the same lame technique you always use.
I'm not doing this if you are going to resort to the same exact cheap trick you always use.
> You haven’t listed a single requirement.
I use the standard definition. Your definition is based on a tabletop board game.
> You just think if a country is wealthy that means it’s an empire which is dumb.
That's a strawman, because I didn't say that.
First you use a childish definition, and then you try to deflect by strawmanning which is the same lame technique you always use.
I'm not doing this if you are going to resort to the same exact cheap trick you always use.
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,520
@previous (A)
Well you never said what you actually define an empire as, I said what I define an empire as.
Well you never said what you actually define an empire as, I said what I define an empire as.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,522
@1,434,497 (A)
> Ok, I'll bite, what is the US missing to be an empire?
>
> Usualy even the lefties will readily say the US is an empire, so I'd love to hear what your view is.
I think the issue here is you never actually listen to what I say so you don’t really understand what my views are.
> Ok, I'll bite, what is the US missing to be an empire?
>
> Usualy even the lefties will readily say the US is an empire, so I'd love to hear what your view is.
I think the issue here is you never actually listen to what I say so you don’t really understand what my views are.
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,524
I mean, you’ve said stuff in the past to imply you think I’m a communist just because I’m against racism, which is retarded. But almost everything you say is retarded so that’s par for the course.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 26 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,525
@1,434,520 (Mr. Black Boi)
I use the same standard definition that any academic would use.
You are the one who doesn't use the standard definition.
Look it up first so you don't embarass yourself, this shouldn't be something I need to walk you through.
@1,434,522 (Mr. Black Boi)
You just said you thought annexing territory made an empire.
I listened, your definition is not at all what actual academics use.
You won't actually list what I'm not listening to, you are making an excuse to try and save face after embarassing yourself because you didn't know what the standard academic definition of an empire was.
You always do this, whining that I don't listen to you, or that debate is pointless. Always when you start losing, never ever giving specifics, immediately defeatist so we can't have the discussion and see who actually knows what they are talking about.
I use the same standard definition that any academic would use.
You are the one who doesn't use the standard definition.
Look it up first so you don't embarass yourself, this shouldn't be something I need to walk you through.
@1,434,522 (Mr. Black Boi)
You just said you thought annexing territory made an empire.
I listened, your definition is not at all what actual academics use.
You won't actually list what I'm not listening to, you are making an excuse to try and save face after embarassing yourself because you didn't know what the standard academic definition of an empire was.
You always do this, whining that I don't listen to you, or that debate is pointless. Always when you start losing, never ever giving specifics, immediately defeatist so we can't have the discussion and see who actually knows what they are talking about.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,526
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,527
Idk, I just think it’s weird you’re getting upset that I don’t agree with the argument that you haven’t made yet because you won’t say what your argument even is.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,529
@1,434,526 (Mr. Black Boi)
This definition matches mine: https://www.britannica.com/topic/empire-political-science
This definition matches mine: https://www.britannica.com/topic/empire-political-science
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,531
@previous (A)
empire, major political unit in which the metropolis, or single sovereign authority, exercises control over territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples through formal annexations or various forms of informal domination
empire, major political unit in which the metropolis, or single sovereign authority, exercises control over territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples through formal annexations or various forms of informal domination
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,532
China with colonization is Hong Kong. Japan with 2 nukes dropped on them and colonization afterwards is elf cyberpunk. North America with colonization creates 1 superpower and 1 power in terms of cultural pacifism and peace. The Middle East with colonization manages to build functional and advanced cities from barren deserts. Africa with colonization is a backwards shithole. How curious. I wonder why that is?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,533
@1,434,527 (Mr. Black Boi)
There's a difference "know the definition of the topic you are discussing" and "you must agree with my views".
There's a difference "know the definition of the topic you are discussing" and "you must agree with my views".
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 36 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,534
@1,434,531 (Mr. Black Boi)
> empire, major political unit in which the metropolis, or single sovereign authority, exercises control over territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples through formal annexations or various forms of informal domination
You're so excited to post this you just conpletely ignore the "or various forms of informal domination"
> empire, major political unit in which the metropolis, or single sovereign authority, exercises control over territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples through formal annexations or various forms of informal domination
You're so excited to post this you just conpletely ignore the "or various forms of informal domination"
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,535
@1,434,532 (T)
Yes, the Middle East is the world’s most technologically advanced society with gleaming skyscrapers, it’s quite impressive.
Yes, the Middle East is the world’s most technologically advanced society with gleaming skyscrapers, it’s quite impressive.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,537
@1,434,534 (A)
I don’t see how adding an "or" makes me incorrect. I mentioned forms of informal domination that the United States doesn’t partake in - like controlling the outcome of elections in Germany and Japan.
I don’t see how adding an "or" makes me incorrect. I mentioned forms of informal domination that the United States doesn’t partake in - like controlling the outcome of elections in Germany and Japan.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,540
@previous (Mr. Black Boi)
> I don’t see how adding an "or" makes me incorrect.
It makes you incorrect because you said the US wasn't an empire because it doesn't annex territories.
The definition linked says an empire can either annex or informally control others. So annexation isn't a requirement, so you were wrong.
> I mentioned forms of informal domination that the United States doesn’t partake in - like controlling the outcome of elections in Germany and Japan.
Is that why you bolded the part about annexation, as if the definition backed you up?
> I don’t see how adding an "or" makes me incorrect.
It makes you incorrect because you said the US wasn't an empire because it doesn't annex territories.
The definition linked says an empire can either annex or informally control others. So annexation isn't a requirement, so you were wrong.
> I mentioned forms of informal domination that the United States doesn’t partake in - like controlling the outcome of elections in Germany and Japan.
Is that why you bolded the part about annexation, as if the definition backed you up?
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,541
@previous (A)
I don’t see how that makes me incorrect, if there are two qualifications for what counts as an empire, then if it meets neither qualification it’s not incorrect to say that it’s not an empire because of the first qualification and because of the second qualification. I didn’t say that the fact the US doesn’t annex territory is the only reason why it’s not an empire, I also gave other reasons. I’m not incorrect.
I don’t see how that makes me incorrect, if there are two qualifications for what counts as an empire, then if it meets neither qualification it’s not incorrect to say that it’s not an empire because of the first qualification and because of the second qualification. I didn’t say that the fact the US doesn’t annex territory is the only reason why it’s not an empire, I also gave other reasons. I’m not incorrect.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 57 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,542
I also just feel like, if you’re going to say that I’m wrong for mentioning annexation, you could have bothered digging a little deeper to find a definition somewhere that doesn’t have the word annexation in it, but you’re dumb so you didn’t check.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,543
@1,434,541 (Mr. Black Boi)
First you said it wasn't an empire because it doesn't annex territories — even though this is not a necessity to be an empire.
Then you quotes the definition without even reading it fully as if it agreed with you.
If you can't have an honest conversation and have to keep try to change your position and grasp at straws without taking a breath and actually reading, what's the point?
I shouldn't have to explain the definition of empire, or give you a link. You should know going in. Instead you are going in without even knowing the word.
If you don't know the various ways the US informally controls the countries under it's control, I'm not going to waste time explaining it more than I have already.
You've already started strawmanning: I gave three ways the US informally controls countries, and you reduced it just to trade. I reitterated that trade was not the sole way it does it, and then you lied and said "your argument is the US is an empire because its rich". I'm not going to explain this if you just repeatedly strawman after I do. I'm not spoonfeeding you definitions when you can't be bothered to read the one sentence definition to the end.
Bye.
First you said it wasn't an empire because it doesn't annex territories — even though this is not a necessity to be an empire.
Then you quotes the definition without even reading it fully as if it agreed with you.
If you can't have an honest conversation and have to keep try to change your position and grasp at straws without taking a breath and actually reading, what's the point?
I shouldn't have to explain the definition of empire, or give you a link. You should know going in. Instead you are going in without even knowing the word.
If you don't know the various ways the US informally controls the countries under it's control, I'm not going to waste time explaining it more than I have already.
You've already started strawmanning: I gave three ways the US informally controls countries, and you reduced it just to trade. I reitterated that trade was not the sole way it does it, and then you lied and said "your argument is the US is an empire because its rich". I'm not going to explain this if you just repeatedly strawman after I do. I'm not spoonfeeding you definitions when you can't be bothered to read the one sentence definition to the end.
Bye.
Mr. Black Boi replied with this 3 weeks ago, 15 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,544
Which is also part of what’s dumb about this. There are multiple dictionaries and they all will have slightly different definitions for the same word.
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,545
@1,434,543 (A)
You said "bye" but based on your previous track record, whenever you ragequit you always come back, so I don’t really care.
You said "bye" but based on your previous track record, whenever you ragequit you always come back, so I don’t really care.
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,546
@1,434,543 (A)
> First you said it wasn't an empire because it doesn't annex territories — even though this is not a necessity to be an empire.
*ignores everything that happens in the middle*
> Then you quotes the definition without even reading it fully as if it agreed with you.
> First you said it wasn't an empire because it doesn't annex territories — even though this is not a necessity to be an empire.
*ignores everything that happens in the middle*
> Then you quotes the definition without even reading it fully as if it agreed with you.
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,549
I hate it when low IQ Europeans say America is a big scary evil empire when we’re the most benevolent world power ever. It’s just anti American trash. The United States isn’t an empire, we just spread freedom and democracy throughout the globe from the goodness of our hearts, and Europeans should be more thankful. The only reason why Europe isn’t a shithole like Africa with authoritarian governments is because 80 years ago 400,000 Americans died firebombing Dresden to save you from yourselves.
Anonymous R replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,434,550
Raping nigguhs!