MovieChat Forums > kuku > Replies
kuku's Replies
I knew it. I KNEW IT!!! 😂
Don't ask how according to this "white" supremacist paper, the ethnicity with the highest average IQ is... Asians. 😆
Or how the paper summarizes about 30 years of research and references about a hundred of papers. All of them must be nazis. NAAAZIIIIS! WH'TE S'PRIMASIIIISTS!
---
Of course, the truth is far more prosaic. Rushton, or Jensen, or Pioneer Funds are no nazis, or white supremacists, or whatever. They just happened to investigate (or fund) a topic that is considered taboo by the Woke Church: the relation between intelligence or personality and genetics/environment. Pioneer Funds, for example, funded the twin study:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study#The_Minnesota_Study_of_Twins_Reared_Apart
which investigated differences between 8000 identical twins raised in different families. It's a very smart way to tell apart between traits due to environment vs genetics.
Investigating that is <b>taboo</b>. The Woke Church does what churches have done through history: they use label to inspire <b>FEAR</b> and control people. The "<i>white supremacist</i>" label is the equivalent of the "<i>devil worshipper</i>" label used centuries ago. And it works. Most scientists right now are afraid to investigate or even talk about that, because in modern world, being labeled by the Woke Church is dangerous. They won't burn you at the stake (not yet), but they can destroy your career and get you fired.
---
By the way, Jensen didn't campaign "<i>against the mere attempt to educate African American children (arguing it was pointless)</i>". What he said is that education has a limited impact in intelligence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Much_Can_We_Boost_IQ_and_Scholastic_Achievement%3F
That doesn't mean that you're "against education" or whatever. It just means that education is not the Holy Grail. It's important, it's positive, but <b>it doesn't make miracles</b>. If a population has a limited IQ, education barely will change it.
You're not woke enough. You must woke up.
Not a bad idea. She did a good job representing a chick with zero depth and personality in Twilight, which means she would have been a good cast for Rey.
Let me correct the question:
"Why are <b>woke</b> people so concerned with no female directing Oscar nominees?"
Yeap, like the documentary about Ancient Rome for kids. So progreeessive
https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2018/01/roman-up-c6754c1.jpg
Intelligence is heavily linked to genes. Education can improve it, but not too much. The primary factor is genetic.
<i>What you do with that intelligence</i> is cultural. China, for example, has higher average intelligence even than Europe. And they're a billion people. If they had some kind of Germanic culture, men would have already colonized Mars.
You need both things, intelligence and culture. An efficient culture with a low intelligence a population is useless. High intelligence with a shitty culture is useless too. Having one of them is not enough.
• "<i>You posted a link to a right wing website as your evidence</i>"
I used the first link that appeared in google, tell them. You don't like it? No problem, here you have a paper summarizing 30 years of scientific research about cognitive differences between races. As you can see, the conclusion is the same
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
I suppose that must be far-right too. Anyway.
• "<i>geneticists and evolutionary biologists have debunked white supremacist theories</i>"
And yadda, yadda, yadda. What I have posted is <b>empirical data</b>. No theories. Data. And trying to "debunk" empirical data has a name: religion.
<blockquote>There is in fact no detectable difference in average intelligence from one ethnic group to another</blockquote>
Ahem...
Race IQ
Ashkenazi Jews 110
East Asians (China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore) 105
Europeans (Northern and Western Europe is 100; Eastern and Southeastern Europe is 95) 97
American Indians (North and South America) 90
Hispanic-Americans 89
Southeast Asians (Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Borneo) 87
Pacific Islanders (Natives of New Zealand, Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia, and Hawaii) 85
African-Americans 85
South Asians (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf states, the Near East, and Turkey) 84
North Africans 84
Sub-Saharan Africans 70
Australian Aborigines 62
http://aristocratsofthesoul.com/average-iq-by-race-and-ethnicity/
This definition of racism is completely outdated. Language changes, and it takes some time to update dictionaries (people use to stick to the old definitions, like they were written in stone).
(1) Intelligence is heavily linked to genetics (environment and education matters too, but in a much lesser degree). That's not a opinion, that's a fact. And (2) different races/sexes have different <b>average</b> intelligence, and different dispersion (statistical deviation). Again, that's not a opinion, that's a fact. Nowadays, stating those two facts is enough to be labeled as racist.
I find a bit stupid that, in order to <i>not to be</i> labeled as racist, you have to deny reality. But hey, that's our time. I didn't invent it.
• "<i> Stating "they prove shit" only reinforces the idea you either didn't read them, didn't look into it</i>"
I've read them and I read a couple more back in the day when the Sorlo one appeared.
• "<i>They prove to be the first cases of evidence depicting female warrior burials.</i>"
Nope. Just repeating it doesn't prove it.
This is getting boring, so <b>I will sum up</b>: what you have is some graves, very wealthy graves, with female bodies and weapons. In one case, one of the weapons (a shield) showed some sword damage (and that means that the other weapons and the weapons is the other graves <i>didn't</i>). In one case, too, the skeleton showed marks of having been hit (again, which means the other didn't).
There's a very <b>simple explanation</b> for it: local leaders buried with ceremonial weapons. It's like burying Margaret Thatcher with a rifle to show she was the 'Iron Lady': that doesn't mean she was wielding the sword, or the rifle in the Facklands.
Occam's blade.
• "<i>I'm sure it's all just a coincidence that they were buried as warriors</i>"
Nope, they weren't. Again, they were buried with weapons, that's it. With very rich weapons, highly over average rich weapons, by the way. Let's remember that iron weapons were extremely expensive and used to be a symbol of status.
• "<i>Occams razor, indeed. "Looks like a warrior, buried like a warrior, physical evidence of scarring/healing.</i>"
1. Nope, it doesn't look like a warrior. It's a fucking naked skeleton, for god's sake.
2. Nope, it wasn't buried like a warrior. Check what I said above.
3. Isolated physical evidence of scarring isn't any evidence. Middle Ages wasn't like the movies. It was an extremely violent period. Having one single weapon showing marks (among the several cases) or one single evidence of scarring (among several cases) actually supports the non-mythological explanation of them being wealthy local leaders.
• "<i>It would seem odd for a woman to express status, wealth and power by being buried with used weapons and shield(s), though.</i>"
They weren't 'buried with used weapons'. There was <i>one</i> case, the one in Solor, where <i>one</i> weapon showed "signs of sword damage", which for all we know could be <i>one</i> hit.
• "<i>What I did say was there has been evidence unearthed that they existed.</i>"
I know, and I answered that was not true.
• "<i>I'm not entirely sure why you say "No. It hasn't been proven."</i>"
Tricky question! I guess that the most likely reason is because it hasn't been proven. You're welcome. :-)
• "<i>I'm only including two links, for two separate women.</i>"
<b>None of them proves shit</b>. Both are graves belonging to wealthy people. In the one from the 2017 article you linked, it was one of the two wealthiest graves <i>from 1100</i>. We're talking about local leaders, so weapons make perfect sense from a ceremonial point of view as symbols of status.
Don't you find a bit strange that all these 'shield-maiden' graves happen to belong to very wealthy people? In the 2017 case, we're talking about the top 1% wealthiest. Occam's blade, why looking for mythological explanations when wealth and status explain it without problems?
Indiana Jones is a fictional character living fictional adventures.
This story is real, and the part when she climbs the balloon with the hands frozen actually happened... except the guy that climbed in real life was deleted and they put an 'empowered woman' instead.
The video misses one point.
Why an atomic bomb is much scarier than normal bombing? It's extremely difficult to protect yourself from it. Same happens here. Perhaps you can rend a planet inhabitable using normal destroyers, but it takes time. You'll have to take down or overcome their defenses.
However, with that kind of 'super-weapon', there's no defense. It just appears, shoots, planet gone, bye. You could have the strongest army around and it still would be useless.
What's stupid is creating dozens of them (you only need one or a few ones), not using them, and then having all them gathered together as sitting ducks. WTF?
No, it hasn't been proven.
These graves with a female body and weapons are very wealthy ones. There's a much simpler explanation than bringing some mythological shield-maidens: the weapons were a symbol of wealth, status and political power.
Copyright it. Chances are it'll be like that ^^
Nobody could have predicted that WW1 would be so destructive. The war was more local but much more destructive (even) than WW2 for Europe. Until then, wars used to be quicker. Trench war changed everything. It destroyed Europe, literally, even the winners. We haven't recovered since then.
Anyway, you're gonna live something very similar soon. Next World War between China and US will have something that didn't exist before: drones and robots guided by artificial intelligence. China is heavily developing that, and probably US too. You can throw a swarm of drones and kill everybody around. Right now, AI can discriminate facial features and uniforms, so they can kill everybody white or black and leave only Asians in the battlefield, or the opposite.
Anyway, it won't be as bad as WW1. It will be much quicker. :-)
You can call it as you wish, but using the term 'paranoia' in particular is ludicrous. Replacement in western countries is very real.
I suggest you go back to old good 'nazi', 'evil', 'wrongful', 'fascist', 'wicked', 'racist', 'despicable' and similar, that are far more vague and serve for anything.
And that's not all. Today portraying a feminine female lead is considered sexist, so most female end up being tomboys. Portraying a member of some special group in a negative way is racist/sexist/nazi/whatever too, so at the end of the day, most negative characters end up played by white males, And the unintended consequence is that modern cinema and literature is actually far more racist than literature was last centuries. Figures.
The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Funny thing is that the opposite was not true. The allies <b>massacred</b> German prisoners. The western allies killed hundreds of thousands, the soviets, even more.
That's one of the things very few people know. History is written by the winners.
Not a bad idea.
The force could have even be transferred from the rests of Palpatine. That would have created a new lore: it's not enough to kill a sith, it's necessary to destroy his body and burn it into ashes, as a vampire, so other Sith can't absorb their power. Since the Force is supposedly created by living beings, the key difference between a Sith and a Jedi could be that the Sith can take the life (and powers) not only from the Force, but from living beings too, as a vampire. That would fit with the skill to absorb the power from a dead Sith.