Utopia Talk / Politics / The death of western civilization

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Apr 22 13:56:27 According to a study published in The Journal of Democracy, the share of young Americans who say it is absolutely important to live in a democratic country has dropped from 91 percent in the 1930s to 57 percent today. http://www...rn-civ.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 Between 1935 and 1975, Will and Ariel Durant published a series of volumes that together were known as “The Story of Civilization.” They basically told human history (mostly Western history) as an accumulation of great ideas and innovations, from the Egyptians, through Athens, Magna Carta, the Age of Faith, the Renaissance and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The series was phenomenally successful, selling over two million copies. That series encapsulated the Western civilization narrative that people, at least in Europe and North America, used for most of the past few centuries to explain their place in the world and in time. This narrative was confidently progressive. There were certain great figures, like Socrates, Erasmus, Montesquieu and Rousseau, who helped fitfully propel the nations to higher reaches of the humanistic ideal. This Western civ narrative came with certain values — about the importance of reasoned discourse, the importance of property rights, the need for a public square that was religiously informed but not theocratically dominated. It set a standard for what great statesmanship looked like. It gave diverse people a sense of shared mission and a common vocabulary, set a framework within which political argument could happen and most important provided a set of common goals. Starting decades ago, many people, especially in the universities, lost faith in the Western civilization narrative. They stopped teaching it, and the great cultural transmission belt broke. Now many students, if they encounter it, are taught that Western civilization is a history of oppression. Continue reading the main story David Brooks Politics, culture and the social sciences. How to Leave a Mark on People APR 18 The Cuomo College Fiasco APR 14 This Age of Wonkery APR 11 The Coming Incompetence Crisis APR 7 Let’s Go for a Win on Opioids APR 4 See More » RECENT COMMENTS Ron 1 day ago Of course this entails ignoring the waves, and waves, and waves of oppressive strong man populist movements that have surged even as far... Joe Hannigan 1 day ago David, Why. Don't you just say it is all Obama;s fault to cement your ideological affinity with Trumpian troglodytes, and then make all of... Ethan Macdonald 1 day ago The support by Obama and previous presidents for such democratic-institution-dismantlers and dictators as the Saudi royal family, Egypt's... SEE ALL COMMENTS It’s amazing what far-reaching effects this has had. It is as if a prevailing wind, which powered all the ships at sea, had suddenly ceased to blow. Now various scattered enemies of those Western values have emerged, and there is apparently nobody to defend them. The first consequence has been the rise of the illiberals, authoritarians who not only don’t believe in the democratic values of the Western civilization narrative, but don’t even pretend to believe in them, as former dictators did. Over the past few years especially, we have entered the age of strong men. We are leaving the age of Obama, Cameron and Merkel and entering the age of Putin, Erdogan, el-Sisi, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump. The events last week in Turkey were just another part of the trend. Recep Tayyip Erdogan dismantles democratic institutions and replaces them with majoritarian dictatorship. Turkey seems to have lost its desire to join the European idea, which no longer has magnetism and allure. Turkey seems to have lost its aspiration to join the community of democracies because that’s no longer the inevitable future. Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. Enter your email address Sign Up Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY More and more governments, including the Trump administration, begin to look like premodern mafia states, run by family-based commercial clans. Meanwhile, institutionalized, party-based authoritarian regimes, like in China or Russia, are turning into premodern cults of personality/Maximum Leader regimes, which are far more unstable and dangerous. Then there has been the collapse of the center. For decades, center-left and center-right parties clustered around similar versions of democratic capitalism that Western civilization seemed to point to. But many of those centrist parties, like the British and Dutch Labour Parties, are in near collapse. Fringe parties rise. In France, the hard-right Marine Le Pen and the hard-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon could be the final two candidates in the presidential runoff. Le Pen has antiliberal views about national purity. Mélenchon is a supposedly democratic politician who models himself on Hugo Chávez. If those two end up in the finals, then the European Union and NATO, the two great liberal institutions of modern Europe, will go into immediate crisis. Finally, there has been the collapse of liberal values at home. On American campuses, fragile thugs who call themselves students shout down and abuse speakers on a weekly basis. To read Heather MacDonald’s account of being pilloried at Claremont McKenna College is to enter a world of chilling intolerance. In America, the basic fabric of civic self-government seems to be eroding following the loss of faith in democratic ideals. According to a study published in The Journal of Democracy, the share of young Americans who say it is absolutely important to live in a democratic country has dropped from 91 percent in the 1930s to 57 percent today. While running for office, Donald Trump violated every norm of statesmanship built up over these many centuries, and it turned out many people didn’t notice or didn’t care. The faith in the West collapsed from within. It’s amazing how slow people have been to rise to defend it. There have been a few lonely voices. Andrew Michta laments the loss of Western confidence in an essay in The American Interest. Edward Luce offers a response in his forthcoming book “The Retreat of Western Liberalism.” But liberalism has been docile in defense of itself. These days, the whole idea of Western civ is assumed to be reactionary and oppressive. All I can say is, if you think that was reactionary and oppressive, wait until you get a load of the world that comes after it.
obaminated Member	Sat Apr 22 14:30:41 These fucking guys, this whole fucking thing. I did not watch my friends die face down in the muck so this slut, this whore can go owing money all around town!
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 22 15:06:34 "These days, the whole idea of Western civ is assumed to be reactionary and oppressive" Ya, seb is trying to teach all the snowflakes that the west is terrible because it was founded by white men, occaisionally shoots criminals, and forces you to get a job. The horror!!!
Paramount Member	Sat Apr 22 15:17:13 "Turkey seems to have lost its desire to join the European idea," Not really. A few european states has never really had the desire to have turkey as a member, and that was before Erdogan.
Paramount Member	Sat Apr 22 15:35:52 "Americans who say it is absolutely important to live in a democratic country has dropped from 91 percent in the 1930s to 57 percent today." Let's face it. Men are dumber today. Less men finish school. Less men have higher education. More men than ever believes in fake news, like pizzagate, because they are unable to think ciritically and to question sources.
obaminated Member	Sat Apr 22 16:08:57 And lots of men like mountme are willing to offer up their women to Muslims from Africa.
Paramount Member	Sat Apr 22 16:24:02 You seem to be dissatisfied that not everyone has fallen for your Zionazi crap.
Seb Member	Sat Apr 22 17:02:03 No, the West is brilliant because it is civilised (read Liberalism) which is a universal value set. You are terrible Sam, because you think some bullshit that civilisation is western. You want to go back to a world where you get to oppress people who don't look or think like you - and the result is you want to remove the civilisation and just leave the geography.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 22 20:30:54 False. We are perfectly content to get along with india and asia and latin america and other civilizations that are peaceful.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 22 20:35:47 Seb is again quite confused, in this case confusing the reasonable distrust of violent cultures with the unreasonable distrust of all cultures.
zavyx Member	Sat Apr 22 23:38:10 OK, so killing all those gooks with flame throwers in Vietnam back in the late 60s / early 70s, in the name of democracy seems to be like a bit of a mistake now in retrospect. Did the Americans ever apologize for that shit they pulled?
Aeros Member	Sun Apr 23 01:35:07 The west is great because it has a vision for humanity. A vision that is threatened by a perverse belief that all cultures have inherent value. Its greatest strength turned into the agent of its annihilation. The belief in common humanity and values. The three Gs of the colonial past. God, Gold and Glory. Under those principlew our ancestors set forth to conquer the world. And they succeeded. Unfortunately base human instincts got in the way, and Gold became more important then God or Glory. The great wars that broke Europe were the result.And the horrors of that conflagration took away the pride the west held in itself as a people, and faith in its own god. Now we import new gods to replace the old, avaricious corporations and their masters seek more and more Gold at the expense of the people and cultures upon whom their existence rests. Pushing the lie that we need to import alien cultures and people to preserve our profits. The reason history is taking a dark turn is because the people pushing the current agenda have forgotten a critical truth of their own doctrine. If you malign, ignore and attempt to eradict an entire race and culture, you will get revolt. White Europeans are no exception to this rule.
The Children Member	Sun Apr 23 01:43:51 it is a total failure.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Apr 23 02:28:11 Liberalism is certainly not a universal value, it is rejected by many -isms, that is one of central points of the article. It is the counter to authoritarianism which is on the rise. Paramount you seem dissatisfied that not everyone has fallen for your authoritarian regressive crap.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Apr 23 03:26:55 [Nim]: "Liberalism is certainly not a universal value" +1 Nothing is universal. And it is a myth that "reality has a well-known liberal bias" — which is worth saying on the topic because there exists a misguided belief within BBC/CNN-style pop culture that progressive ideals have successfully centralized "truth" rather than systematized perceptions of it. .. [Aeros]: "The great wars that broke Europe were the result.And the horrors of that conflagration took away the pride the west held in itself as a people, and faith in its own god." Praise Satan! One of the West's greatest triumphs may be its gradual eradication of the myth of "God". "This contradiction lies here: they wish God, and they wish humanity. They persist in connecting two terms which, once separated, can come together again only to destroy each other. They say in a single breath: 'God and the liberty of man,' 'God and the dignity, justice, equality, fraternity, prosperity of men' — regardless of the fatal logic by virtue of which, if God exists, all these things are condemned to non-existence. For, if God is, he is necessarily the eternal, supreme, absolute master, and, if such a master exists, man is a slave; now, if he is a slave, neither justice, nor equality, nor fraternity, nor prosperity are possible for him. In vain, flying in the face of good sense and all the teachings of history, do they represent their God as animated by the tenderest love of human liberty: a master, whoever he may be and however liberal he may desire to show himself, remains none the less always a master. His existence necessarily implies the slavery of all that is beneath him. Therefore, if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty — by ceasing to exist." — Mikhaïl Bakounine Gloire à Satan!!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Apr 23 04:27:19 CC, you mean the idea floating around that liberal values are a given certainty, just as long as we educate all the savages, they will quickly adopt these liberal values? One runs in to this type of argument alot, spending time on the topic of Islam, from people like paramount and seb. It is apparently impossible to be an Islamosupremacist, because the superiority in liberal democracy is so evident that only clinically insane people would pick anything different, conservatives of all colors are included in this group.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 05:14:42 Sam: Violent cultures? The US ranks up with Latin America as the country with most violent crime per capita. Most African countries and the middle East is lower. Nim: That's not what universal means, idjit. Universal means it isn't intrinsically linked to race, religion etc. It's adherents view it as universal. For example, *IF* you are liberal, it means you extend the core freedoms and limits of govt to everyone, not excluding specific groups (i.e. treating freedom as a privilege). If you start mumbling about differential treatment of individuals based on their identity, then you are missing the point of liberalism. How could you possibly think universal means "adopted by everyone" when I'm kicking you and Sam and others for not holding it?
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 05:15:13 Cherub Crow: You've failed to understand the meaning of universal.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 05:17:36 Incidentally, you can have liberal Christianity (and Islam) - it's possible to believe someone a sinner, but that it is not the role of the state to try to limit their freedom to sin in so far as their sins do not limit others rights and freedoms.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 05:23:55 My point was you, Sam, Aeros are *not* liberals. You reject the intrinsically good things about western civilisation - which is essentially liberalism. The fact to can't distinguish the difference between "all people are equal" and "all cultures are equal" is the definitive proof you just don't get liberalism at all. Sam in particular would be pretty happy to live under a some authoritarian ethno-nationalist state, provided it had the trappings of modernity that he associates as "western civilisation" - namely technology and capitalism. Not even sure he'd be a free market capitalist though.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 05:28:00 Ironically the supposed paradox of "how can liberalism be universal when so many do not subscribe to it" is easy - many people are wrong. What we are differing on is whether you guys know what western civilisation is (other than historically codified and practiced to some degree by countries in the West) and whether your in any way represent the "civilisation" part of that equation. I'd say "semi domesticated" to be honest - you practice some of the behaviours but don't get the principles behind them.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Apr 23 05:31:34 And yet our understanding of evolutionary biology and human behavior tells us that these things are intrinsically linked to our biology.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 06:20:06 Nim: Firstly, as I said, your argument is an argument *against* liberalism. I.e. you are rejecting the "civilisation" part of "western civilisation". Secondly, you are simply wrong. So we can add evolutionary biology as another thing you don't understand. Five things to consider: 1. Genetic variation within groups being greater than variation between groups being a counter indicator to being able to make any kind of deterministic evaluation of individuals biology based purely on their race. This suggests any strong cultural or behavioural differences between races is not genetic/evolutionary in origin. 2. There is very little evidence to link specific genes with specific behaviours or general characteristics, let alone higher order ones. Such evidence we do have the suggest that any link that can be made points to large networks of genes and their expression. Given the variation within groups is larger than within, you'd expect more variation on these networks within groups than between them. But even that is hard to disentangle from various environmental factors whether cultural or otherwise (e.g. Exposure to lead via petrol fumes). 3. Further, we now understand that far more important than genes is their expression, which is controlled by epigenetic factors like methylation etc. which effect transcription to RNA and thus protein production. This means environmental factors (including that of mother and possibly father pre-conception, including their psychological state as stress hormones have been indicated as a factor in epigenetics) are likely to have a strong impact, particularly on phenotypes that appear to be governed by large networks of genes as they would be more exposed to epigenetic factors. 4. General failure of studies on identical twins to reveal a strong correlation on personality or behaviour strongly points to the being nothing useful that can be said about an individuals behaviour based on their biology. This is direct counter evidence to a strong biological basis for behaviour, particularly via heritable genes. 5. Historically the same "races", and indeed races that are genetically indistinguishable, have exhibited very different behaviours. This is difficult to reconcile with a supposed heritable biological basis for behaviours. So your understanding of evolutionary biology may suggest as such, but that's just because you don't understand evolutionary biology.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 06:33:20 Nim: P.S. you keep arguing that I unfairly call you a NAZI - but surely you recognise that the idea of there being a genetic, hence racial, basis for inferiority logically implies a generic, racial basis for superiority? I.e. it sounds like you are coming close to arguing that it a necessity of proper understanding (as you see it) of evolutionary biology that there exist a better races, and therefore logically, a 'best' race. And races that fall short. Or as a particular political movement of the 1930s put it, a master race and untermenschen. Of course if you reject this, but also believe in genetic determination of behaviour, hence culture, that strongly correlates with race, surely that makes *you* the cultural relativist, not me?
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 06:33:41 Such sloppy thinking all.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 23 08:28:12 Seb The confusion is understandable. I prefer the term "Western, democratic, humanist tradition".
Paramount Member	Sun Apr 23 10:11:09 If West is so weak that its civilization will die, then let it die. No one bothers about it anyway. I'm looking forward to change. Let the far-right try. At least give them a chance.
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 23 10:28:48 "The US ranks up with Latin America as the country with most violent crime per capita." Murder rate is middle of the pack, below Canada. If you adjust for soaring inner city crime rates, you would probably see rates comparable to Western Europe.
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 23 10:51:09 Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont - nice and safe.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 10:59:47 Forwyn: I see, let me guess - you are trying to argue that urban america is not "real america", and that your gun culture and violent crime culture is actually all due to urban (by which you mean black) crime - even though American violent crime rates are worse than many african countries...
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 23 11:18:46 I see, let me guess - you are trying to argue a few islands of incredibly high crime rates means that you get to compare all of America to African countries - when those African countries have something in common with the murder islands already.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Apr 23 11:29:54 What a dumbass. First of all, we are talking about liberalism vs authoritarian. There is a biological root for this. http://en....logy_and_political_orientation I have no evidence for this being exlusive to any race or even there being any noticable difference between races. People are wired to want different things. Are these concepts too complex for you? It is the garbage you just wrote vs entire fields of science that study the evolutionary/biological/genetic origins for behavior. You wont ger far with this garbage and I wont indulge it.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 13:44:10 Forwyn: Nah, it's your actual average, reflecting the bulk of your population.. You are arguing a few islands of low crime rate should characterise you. Nim: "may" Firstly, biological doesn't mean genetic - plenty of environmental effects can affect things like brain structure. A couple of studies with low confidence and repeated results. The genetic basis is via twin studies that compare identical and non identical twins. This is known to be a flawed approach as it can underestimate the impact of common upbringing. For example, a small tendency to be risk averse that can be linked to genetics - which may be weakly genetically determined - can amplify other environmental effects above what would be the case with non genetically related twins. The gold standard control for twin studies is separated identical twins. Often in similar twin studies where this can be done, effects disappear. And the kicker, if you follow back to primary sources, past the bullshit mainstream media stories with a hot take, *that point is raised in the discussion sections of the papers*. So, basically, yeah, you don't know what you are talking about.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 13:51:31 Nim: "While broad sense heritability is unlikely to be very biased, estimates of the common environment may be under-estimated if there are non-additive genetic effects and are over-estimated in the presence of primary phenotypic assortment, as is the case with ideology" "The second analyses conducted GWAS on measures of political ideology. Neither this study, nor those mentioned above, provide any definitive evidence of a specific genetic marker being related to ideology. The failure to identify significant SNPs should not be surprising. Our findings are consistent with genome-wide explorations on almost any complex trait; a single gene or small group of genes does not directly influence ideological preferences. Rather, thousands of genetic variants of very small effects and constellations of genes interact with each other and the environment to influence behavior, indirectly. For social and behavioral traits, such as political attitudes and ideologies, in which measures and definitions change as a function of time, location and climate, sample size and measurement limitations present a challenge. Even if we could ensure the perfect measure, the plethora of relevant individual genes and their complex interactions with other genes, as well as the environment counsel against expecting that any individual genetic markers could explain a sizable amount of the genetic variance in political temperament and without a very large sample, identifying genes of small effects is unlikely. Our findings are consistent with this polygenic expectation, and spur us to gather larger samples." So, basically, as I said: weak effect, much disputed, and unlikely to correlate with race given the known variance within racial groups being larger than variance between groups. If the hypothesis here were indeed correct, it *still* wouldn't translate into a statistical difference in political values between races.
Forwyn Member	Sun Apr 23 14:31:01 "Nah, it's your actual average, reflecting the bulk of your population.. You are arguing a few islands of low crime rate should characterise you." They aren't islands, though - they represent the vast majority of the population. A few islands such as Baltimore, DC, St. Louis, Detroit, etc. drive disproportionately high rates with a small percentage (>1/8) of the population.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Apr 23 15:38:48 Your garbage vs science
Pillz Member	Sun Apr 23 16:02:42 Seb is more closely related to his wife's African lovers than to his own family. This explains why he allows them to breed his wife.
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 16:33:25 Nim: I quoted from the papers your article cites. That's the science. You can't discredit it. Forwyn: "Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont" Vast majority of the population? Gross stats reflect the bulk of the population. Is Detroit, Baltimore etc. not America?
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 16:36:00 Nim: Arguing "I don't want to critically appraise my sources, or look at the fundamentals of what the source says, nor reason with it" - in a thread about the death of "western civilisation" (rationalism being a key aspect of it). Too ironic. So, lets agree to disagree on whether there is a genetic basis for culture which can be correlated with races. If you believe that to be the case, which race do you think is more superior, statistically speaking, to your own? Which ones do you think are inferior?
Seb Member	Sun Apr 23 16:37:24 You must have an opinion, given you argue that cultures are not relative, and that culture is determined by biology, and biology by genetics, and genetics are correlated by race. IF you believe these three things, you must surely have an opinion about which racial groups are objectively, scientifically, better than others?
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Apr 23 16:51:02 [Nim]: "CC, you mean the idea floating around that liberal values are a given certainty, just as long as we educate all the savages, they will quickly adopt these liberal values?" (This below may seem combative, but I'm sort of agreeing with you): I wouldn't put it in terms of 'savages vs. civilized' because those can be subjectively reversed depending on where the home/center appears (e.g., centers of the West could be "savage" to "civilized" centers of the Middle East), but Western ideas such as secularism and equality in public spaces cannot exist in the West without some level of cognitive colonialism ("cognitive colonialism" here meaning an extremely generalized brand of colonialism which, foregoing the actual (geographic) colonizing of a people, attempts at least to change the minds of 'new'/un-assimilated inhabitants of a state to the state's basal value systems — i.e., "cognitive colonialism" being very nearly "assimilation" ... I don't just use "assimilation" because I'm pointing out that in some cases Western post-colonialism discourse has been used to turn assimilation into a taboo). A state-culture that is made afraid to "colonize" again — not just geographically but cognitively — risks failing at its task of assimilating new inhabitants. And there do exists cultures of anti-assimilation ("anti-assimilation" not just as counter-culture movements (which may embrace liberty) but as against even basal values like liberty and free speech). In a state culture which fears the misuse even of *cognitive* colonialism *and* which allows anti-assimilation of basal values to go unopposed, liberalism as a political philosophy is revealed once again to have non-universal components. Or in a much less wordy way: Liberalism as a political philosophy demands assimilation to its values in order to have an appearance of universality (equality ideology must be enforced — it is not a given). It is not universal because it may be outright opposed beyond its systematized state/realm. It is not an absolute truth; it is a Western preference. Kneeling before Xerxes could also have become such a "universal truth" if people hadn't fought against that outcome. .. [Seb]: "Cherub Crow: [/] You've failed to understand the meaning of universal." You have once again failed to read my screen name (or type it correctly), and I have not failed to understand "the" meaning of universal ("the" because in fact there is not just *one* meaning, and you failed to establish the limited meaning that you apparently meant). You seem to have taken a limited understanding of the meaning of "universal" — maybe thinking that it exclusively "means you extend the core freedoms and limits of govt to everyone, not excluding specific groups" while *not* simultaneously meaning one of its additional and contradictory definitions wherein it *cannot* be extended to everyone except in theory, like in the theoretical/dystopic erosion of differences (our Borg implants). A common fallacy that might elucidate your error: "It doesn't matter [if you don't believe in "God"]. He believes in you." — Alexandre Dumas This religiosity fallacy assumes the false premise that "God" is already universal (that "God", regardless of the presence of non-believers, somehow "believes" in everyone — that the idea can be extended to everyone regardless of opposition), yet universality cannot be extended in this way. "God" could just as easily be substituted with "Harry Potter", and in the substitution we would see that "Harry Potter"/"God" *is* (pay attention to "is" versus "can be" or "should be") *not* "universal" but is being *forced* into a universality by his/its believers. That is — like you seem to partially recognize in saying to Nim, "How could you possibly think universal means 'adopted by everyone' when I'm kicking you and Sam and others for not holding it?" — even ideas of "[extending] core freedoms and limits" to everyone work from the false premise of their own initially assumed "truth". Nothing "is" universal, even in your attempted limiting of the definition of universal, because the initial premise is false (that is, "liberalism" as "one" philosophy is not unified anymore than all atoms must constitute "God"). We can, however, say that liberalism as a political philosophy *should*/*could* (*conditionally*) be *made* universal (i.e., that freedoms "should" be extended to everyone), but that still does not make liberalism universal — it makes *some* aspects of liberalism into an *attempt* at extending universality. In reality, not all liberalism is tied to your limited definition of "universality" (the "is" usage of "universal"); e.g., the Truman Doctrine has liberalism virtues, yet it over-enforces its universal imperative. Others with liberalism virtues may oppose the Truman Doctrine. Liberalism can still be liberalism without your definition of universality — in fact this has been a large corner of debate on the subject. More simply, as a matter of necessity and sufficiency: Universality is not sufficient for liberalism, and universality is not necessary for liberalism (liberalism can exist without universality). Thus it is false to say that "*IF* you are liberal, it means you extend the core freedoms and limits of govt to everyone, not excluding specific groups", and it would be more true to say that "[in some aspects of liberalism, being liberal] means you extend the core freedoms and limits of govt to everyone, not excluding specific groups." .. [Seb]: "Genetic variation within groups being greater than variation between groups being a counter indicator to being able to make any kind of deterministic evaluation of individuals biology based purely on their race." This sentence is difficult to parse. Were you saying that you think that there is greater genetic variation *within* a group than there is variation from one group to another? Because that would be obviously false, and the BLASTdatabase-generated phylogenetic tree would laugh at the premise. .. [Seb]: "There is very little evidence to link specific genes with specific behaviours or general characteristics, let alone higher order ones." False. There is actually a huge amount of evidence linking behavior to genes, and it is Cartesian (in the sense of separating mind from the materialistic restrictions of body) to suggest otherwise. Read up on molecular neurobiology. In one example, inactivation and/or dysfunction in the DSCAM gene (homologous from humans to drosophilia) can result in dysfunction in the DSCAM molecule, resulting in poor differentiation between postsynaptic dendrites and a deficiency in upper neuronal populations (e.g., deficiencies in the premotor cortex, responsible for planning and behavioral control). The result can be various degrees of mental retardation, from general slowness to outright trisomy 21 (prefigure of Down Syndrome). Different populations may have differing expression levels and dysfunction of the DSCAM gene, resulting in differently-enabled behavioral control levels ( "Drosophila Dscam is an axon guidance receptor exhibiting extraordinary molecular diversity." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10892653 ). However, while there *is* evidence of genes affecting behavior in this way, I would agree that even people with Down Syndrome can be behaviorally modified with their remaining neural pathways. I would also agree that no studies have been conducted along specifically racial lines in order to "prove" that, say, Middle Easterners have more dysfunction in the DSCAM gene than Westerners. .. [Seb]: "Further, we now understand that far more important than genes is their expression, which is controlled by epigenetic factors like methylation etc. which effect transcription to RNA and thus protein production. This means environmental factors (including that of mother and possibly father pre-conception, including their psychological state as stress hormones have been indicated as a factor in epigenetics) are likely to have a strong impact, particularly on phenotypes that appear to be governed by large networks of genes as they would be more exposed to epigenetic factors." Don't let this line of reasoning oversell you on environmental factors. It is specious to say "more important than genes" while citing epigenetics because epigenetics still addresses the underlying genes (i.e., pre-existing genes must be modified in order to observe differing expression outcomes; in the absence of or dysfunction of those genes, epigenetics becomes a non-starter in gene function). Your mention of methylation also shows a hole in your knowledge of the subject: in the embryo, methylation is largely reset — half of the daughter cells receive methylated (parental) histones while half receive fresh histones. And this type of "cell memory" via histone modification does not necessitate an overrule of genes; genes may remodel histone modifications over time (i.e., those parental histones may themselves be replaced). In comparing genes vs. environment, it's irresponsible to say that one is necessarily stronger than the other — the truth of the balance depends on the amount of pressure on each. Someone spending 4 years in prison isolation probably won't be ready for Olympics-level sprints (large effect by environment), but maybe neither will someone born with trisomy 21 (large effect by genes). Both can be given advantages to recover their environmental and genetic disadvantages, but neither outcome proves total supremacy of either across a whole species population. *Individual* populations (samples) may vary. .. [Seb]: "General failure of studies on identical twins to reveal a strong correlation on personality or behaviour strongly points to the being nothing useful that can be said about an individuals behaviour based on their biology. This is direct counter evidence to a strong biological basis for behaviour, particularly via heritable genes." False. Identical twin (human) studies only reveal that identical twins are not *that* identical (even on the genetic level there do exist differences) and that it is difficult to isolate all the factors experienced by twins in longitudinal studies (longitudinal studies themselves being plagued by the preconceptions of the researcher at the beginning of the study; the researcher must decide on variables to record before being aware of which variables may be important, or even changing the variables recorded throughout the study based on Heisenberg Uncertainty issues). For example, twins living together in individualist societies experience the Lacan mirror stage differently, maybe propelling behavioral differences between them by their want to self-differentiate (to be able to look at someone similar/identical and still say, "that's not me" — Freudian doubling mechanism). And twins separated at birth for longitudinal studies experience extremely different environmental factors, again making those factors difficult to monitor separately from genetic traits. And even mice studies — where the mice *tend* to be very similar in genetic composition and where the litter sizes for "identical" status can be much larger (about 7) and easier to monitor than humans — still experience genetic drift which makes it difficult for researchers to control the experimental variables. There's a reason that labs have to order pre-bred mice samples from breeder labs (it's a full time job to guarantee that the genes in a population have certain/specific genetic markers), and there's a reason that retractions get printed when labs discover that their supposedly "standard" mouse model actually had a different sequence than advertised. So yes, very difficult to monitor humans when even mouse models can be corrupted, but that should not give people free reign to make assumptions about the results of the most highly *un*controlled studies, and it does not itself undermine the utility of observational studies — though it does highlight the importance of correctly interpreting observational studies. "Such sloppy thinking". .. btw, Seb, didnt you critizize wtb for multi-posting over and over again (like, you said that 5 posts in a row is not conducive to communication), yet you seem to have adopted the behavior?
jergul large member	Sun Apr 23 17:00:05 Its a crazy theory. Western cultural superiority vanishes if we apply a genetic timeline and assign such things as holocausts, the use of nuclear weapons, and world wars to out genetic cultural baggage.
jergul large member	Sun Apr 23 17:04:23 I am thinking too small. The current mass exinction event is the result of our genetic cultural baggage. Yay inferior culture ftw.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Apr 23 17:41:57 [jergul]: "Western cultural superiority vanishes if we apply a genetic timeline and assign such things as holocausts, the use of nuclear weapons, and world wars to out genetic cultural baggage." If you mean that holocausts and genocides have undermined the idea that eugenics could have population-level impacts on the species: not necessarily ;p .. For example, the Nazi-led holocaust may have resulted in a major genetic shift away from classical Jewish genealogy, so one might conclude that we should have seen more "superior" racial prosperity in its aftermath. But, WWII similarly resulted in many non-Jewish deaths, like all of those "superior" Aryans who died in combat, killed themselves, or were tried for war crimes. It could even be that the "best" of the Aryans were wiped out for being on the front lines of the war (the "most blonde and blue-eyed Aryan" given the "highest" positions of canon-fodder-hood, with the "casual brown-haired/dirty-blonde" Aryans remaining only to apologize to the world for several generations). In other words, WWII may have removed not just parts of the supposedly "deficient" Jewish genetic code but also parts of the "superior" Aryan code. And it wouldn't just be a numerical comparison between [up to] 6 million Jewish people killed versus [up to] 5.3 million Germans killed because many of the upper leadership of the Jewish communities were able to afford to escape before the liquidations started, leaving uncertain genetic attributes behind to be killed ("superior" or "inferior" within their communities? Difficult to say.). Then you'd have to consider a baby boomer generation wherein those who survived (genetic variations which survived potentially for reasons more cultural than fitness-related) were given peace-time conditions to proliferate, recovering their numbers so drastically that Nazi holocaust effects may have been largely reversed. Potentially it was those "meek" who will "inherit the Earth" who survived the holocaust and were left to proliferate, constructing cultures which would protect them from further holocausts (like the Frankfurt School's thoughts on the birth of the culture industry — "Enlightenment as Mass Deception"). It's a fun irony that people would manipulate culture to undermine the role of genetics in order to ensure the genetic stability of their people ("[Genetics doesn't matter, trust us, even as your genes die and ours live, trust us. Who could manipulate science? It is objective!]"), but it seems to be pretty out in the open in Israel... though hopefully this doesn't give our resident anti-Zionists too much fuel, since there were a lot "may"s and "could be"s! ;D
jergul large member	Sun Apr 23 19:29:19 I mean a genetic civilization orchestrating a mass extinction is by any reasonable definition inferior to genetic civilizations not orchestrating a mass extinction event.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Apr 23 19:40:09 Oh was that what you were saying? Yeah definitely if everyone is successful at killing everyone else then no one has really won, except maybe Robert Neville, and only in the short term ;)
Turtle Crawler Admin	Sun Apr 23 20:26:09 By definition the one surviving is superior to the one vanquished.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Apr 23 20:45:09 Unless one or both of them were masochists and wanted to be vanquished, in which case the vanquished got what it wanted and the survivor didn't ;p
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 00:52:34 Seb I will not debate the validity of evolution with you. I will just repeate that whatever institution decided to give you a degree in anything should be razed to the ground. You are a third rate imbecile.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 01:00:20 The guy who wrote the bell curve is saying that with in a few years we will have indetified intelligence down to the allel. As one example and last I heard there were dozens of genes ties to behavior. Seb you are so behind the behavioral genetics curve that you are basically retarded. There is little left for me to give you other than ridicule, you have trashed every brisge build by your scietific education, raped them with walls of text of horse shit. WALLS UPPON WALLS OF DOGSHIT.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 01:08:05 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics Entire fields of science vs sebs cucked political wall of dogshit Imbecile like seb who approach the issue with a retards half cocked understanding, trying "help" solve social issue. What a fucking disaster a fucking tragedy. Too bad we will probably never meet seb, too bad. We could have a chat about nazis then.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 01:32:07 I don't find it combative cc, I appreciate the clarification of that specific pov. And I am 100% with you on "universality" or lack of. Things that are rejected by others can not be extended to others. If you do not value the fundamental values of liberalism then chances are, you wont appreciate their "universality" as they are extended to tou. These are the things the sebs do not factor in when they are proposing new invasions to export liberal democracies.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 24 01:49:52 Nim: Oh bless. This is not a debate. This is a teach in. Imperial college if you must know. Ranks in the top ten globally.
Paramount Member	Mon Apr 24 01:52:01 So basically, the west can not force its ideas of liberal democracy upon other states such as Iran, NK and Saudi Barbaria? Even though we know our way is da best.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 24 02:17:07 Pro tip. Stop posting links that contradict your argument: "Further, most researched human behaviours are influenced by a very large number of genes and the individual effects of these genes are very small." I.e. see point 1 and 2. But i ask again Nim, given your reasoning is that culture is determined by behaviour, is determined by genes, is therefore evolutionary selected for, and is therefore a racial attribute (still loads of holes in that chain of reasoning); do you or do you not believe in more superior and less superior races?
Seb Member	Mon Apr 24 02:20:57 "the guy who wrote the bell curve" - we don't do prophets in science, and the bell curve was not peer reviewed and widely discredited in the literature with academic reviews overwhelmingly critical. Several books of compiled critiques were published.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 24 02:22:57 "Things that are rejected by others can not be extended to others." 1. I don't care whether they appreciate it or not. 2. You are arguing that you should treat people different due to your poor understanding of evolution and genetics - you don't seem to have a problem extending ideas rejected by others to them.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 24 02:38:31 CC: 1. Universal in this context has a well established meaning. We don't need to ask what the definition of "is" is. 2. " There is actually a huge amount of evidence linking behavior to genes" Yes, but large networks not specific genes. It's such a huge feature of the results it is even in all Nims Mickey mouse studies. The weighting of any individual gene falls to noise where not pathological. I actually had "non pathological in the first draft of my response to Nim but removed it as unnecessarily pedantic. 3. "it is Cartesian" no it's not. Not all biology is genetically determined, and there are environmental factors. Behaviour comes from the brain, but the brain is affected by environmental factors other than inhereted genes, as is it's development, and because of epigenetic factors, even a brain that is the product of the same genome might not be the product of the same proteome. "Were you saying that you think that there is greater genetic variation *within* a group than there is variation from one group to another?" Yes, that's what I'm saying. Phylogenetic tree? I didn't intend group to encompass animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. Humanity is a single species, and within that species the genetic variation between "races" is less than within those categories. Or - as you have introduced other species - the "races" of humanity are nowhere near as genetically distinct as different species, and indeed the concept of races doesn't appear to mark general genetic differences so much as few very specific ones (e.g. gene for blue eyes). This, with a bit of thought, is pretty obvious. More to come. Yes, I am going a WtB. Today has been one of multi tasking. I'll try to tighten it up.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 24 04:53:53 CC: Firstly, failure to reveal isn't the same as revealing something. "Identical twin (human) studies only reveal that identical twins are not *that* identical (even on the genetic level there do exist differences) and that it is difficult to isolate all the factors experienced by twins in longitudinal studies" Well isn't that the point? And isn't the fact that the genetic factor has to be explored by twin studies rather than by relation to parent (coupled with the fact that the effects of single genes are small for non-pathological phenotypes, and it is rather correlation of larger networks that reveal an effect) indicative that Nim's underlying hypothesis - that races have different cultures as a result of evolution via the mechanism of genetics - is essentially false. If it were true, you wouldn't need to resort to twin studies - you'd be similar to your parents. And people are more genetically similar to their parents than they are to their neighbours. And as you say, the fact that environmental factors are more important. It sounds like you are agreeing with me - such genetic influence that there is over aspects of behaviour can't really explain complex emergent phenomena like culture.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 05:41:48 We agree that this isnt a debate. This is you being your usual retarded self having to post walls of dogshit to try and explain why established science is wrong. Cultures exist with in the confines of our biology. Your understanding of these fields is from the turn of the century. When you hear the biology of race, intelligence and political leaning, your reaction is that if there is an unwanted trait rooted in genetics, we should exterminate the people carrying the gene. This is your interpretation of what is being said. People like you the "top 10 of the world", are useless. You are operating with half a brain, a half wits understanding of what is going on. The offer is still on the table. Can you summarize my position in a manner I would sign off on? Do you understand what I am saying at all? Surprise me.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 05:53:18 Here are some tips. Condense your thought and ideas, remove all the dogshit you attach to it. Clarity and quality over quantity and the shit you engage in now. Make sure you know who you are talking to, what they are saying as opposed to what filters in through that thick top 10 percentile skull, this is quite important for conducting in a coherent dialogue. Don't post rapid fire walls of crap, I have to dismiss them all because of 1 disagreement at the top which unravles the essay you have written. Less is more. Good luck!
jergul large member	Mon Apr 24 06:13:50 "By definition the one surviving is superior to the one vanquished." Well, this thread is about western civilization dying. Hahahaha. We lose. I was just pointing out that its fate is well deserved from a genetic culture standpoint. Orchestrating mass extinction events is a big nono.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 24 06:55:05 Nim: Your misunderstanding requires going into the detail of the sources. That necessarily requires detail. Everything should be made as simple as possible but no more simple. You were the one arguing my supposed flawed understanding as due to poor education with the establishment in question needing to be bulldozed. I don't cite it as why you should listen to me, your own flawed logic does that. So tell me, what do you mean, exactly, by "culture exists in the confines of biology" - that is so broad as to be meaningless. And if you believe race, genes and culture correlate, why won't you tell me which races you think better or worse?
zavyx Member	Mon Apr 24 07:17:36 cherub cow - hitler pre-empted that possible outcome, and packed up heaps of hot blonds and sent them overseas to breed, then they came after the war> wasn't that chapter in your history book?
zavyx Member	Mon Apr 24 07:19:39 oh of course not, you history book was written by a jewish historian, and released by a jewish publishing house, so you got the crappy jewed up version of WW2.
MrPresident07 Member	Mon Apr 24 07:49:13 Seb- Quick question: How much time have you spent in the United States? Mind if I ask where you spent that time?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 07:55:27 Which race is better or worse according to what metric? What definition of race? What geographical or natural context? You can be a math genius stuck in a corn field and have rather poor ability to be a corn farmer. Cultural variations are not infinite, they are constrained by our biology. Things that are outside our ability to comprehend or conceptualize will not be part of or culture in any meaningful form. Just like your vision is constrained by your biology, you can only see the visible spectrum of light, your eyes and the brain that invents cultural constructs evolved under certain conditions.
State Department Member	Mon Apr 24 09:42:45 "Kneeling before Xerxes could also have become such a "universal truth" if people hadn't fought against that outcome." His helmet was stifling, it narrowed his vision. And he must see far. His shield was heavy. It threw him off balance. And his target is far away.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 24 09:55:43 http://news.trust.org/item/20170424141115-0v3p1 Seb increases crine rate in Deutschland.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 24 10:00:46 "The US ranks up with Latin America as the country with most violent crime per capita. Most African countries and the middle East is lower." This is what you post when you are so culturally cucked that you just post stupid shit without thinking. The US gets most of its crime from non western cultures. Lol sebdumb.
State Department Member	Mon Apr 24 11:29:32 I wouldn't put a lot of faith in turd world crime stats anyway.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 24 11:51:24 Nim: "Which race is better or worse according to what metric?" Ah, so you *are* a cultural relativist then? "What definition of race? What geographical or natural context? You can be a math genius stuck in a corn field and have rather poor ability to be a corn farmer. "Cultural variations are not infinite, they are constrained by our biology." Again, a vacuous and meaningless statement. Very little is actually infinite. In what specific ways are they constrained - and does this supposed constraint operate between groups. So far you are not really giving any examples. Are there things that certain groups are unable to comprehend? I can think of a couple of things but these are largely more specific abstractions and linked to linguistic rather than biological constraints. Another point you skipped over when citing evolution suggests a feedback between cultural traits and survival (otherwise it's not selected for) - can you give some specific examples? Sam: The wording in the article suggests that the number of crimes that were committed by migrants increased by 50%. "Migrants accounted for 8.6 percent of all crime suspects in Germany in 2016, up from 5.7 percent." But by how many did the number of migrants increase over the same period? In any case, the article attributes the rise to socio-economic - not cultural factors. At the same time crime increased, the housing situation has deteriorated sharply. People with no shelter and no employment do tend to resort to crime as the only means for survival.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 12:35:28 >>Ah, so you *are* a cultural relativist then?<< Are you stupid? Traits are more or less useful given conditions and circumstances. In today's world there is an uncontroversial link between success and IQ. Which is about 50-80% heritable. It was not a point up for debate dum dum, the fact that whatever exists in your brain is the result of and there for limited by the biological and neurological processes going on in your brain. You ask very good questions that are no doubt the subject of current and future studies. I don't need to know all the details to see the direction they are going. >> Are there things that certain groups are unable to comprehend?<< They are less inclined to empathize for instance or less willing. Or more willing to empathize. Like I said, good questions, doesn't change the direction we are sailing.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 24 13:06:29 So seb what is your argument again? How are you going to argue in favor of importing higher crime rates again?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Apr 24 13:53:06 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YfEoxU82us
Asgard Member	Mon Apr 24 14:32:15 Just one comment... The west is still "the west", whether it is a democracy or not. The west is a specific culture, a set of languages, and an overall demeanor. k bye.
Paramount Member	Mon Apr 24 14:37:32 The west consists of different cultures and people. When you talk about the west, you refer to what used to unite us, and what differentiates us from the east. Namely our democratic values. kthnxbye.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 24 14:47:56 The West in a genetic time-line is the culture arising from the fertile crescent. Though we could be charitable and say it is the culture arising around the Mediterranean basin. You sort of want to break 100 generations for genetic culture to make any sense... ...and in all cases it would involve us being genetically primed to keep slaves.
jergul large member	Mon Apr 24 14:48:12 And be slaves if not Norwegian.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: